Nepotism: Appointment of Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump as Senior White House Advisers
Tier 3Documented2017-01-20 to 2021-01-20
Factual Summary
In January 2017, President Donald Trump appointed his son-in-law Jared Kushner as Senior Adviser to the President and his daughter Ivanka Trump as Adviser to the President, giving both unpaid positions with broad portfolios and access to classified information. The appointments raised direct questions about the federal anti-nepotism statute (5 U.S.C. Section 3110), which was enacted in 1967 after President John F. Kennedy appointed his brother Robert Kennedy as Attorney General. The statute prohibits a public official from appointing a relative to a civilian position in the agency over which the official exercises authority.
To clear the legal path for Kushner's appointment, the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel issued a memorandum on January 20, 2017, concluding that the anti-nepotism statute did not apply to appointments within the White House Office because it is not an "executive agency" as defined in the statute. The opinion relied on a 1993 D.C. Circuit ruling in Association of American Physicians and Surgeons v. Clinton, which held that Hillary Clinton could serve on the health care task force without violating the anti-nepotism law. Ethics scholars and legal commentators disputed this interpretation, arguing that the 1993 ruling was narrower than the OLC opinion suggested and that the anti-nepotism statute was intended to prevent precisely the kind of family appointments Trump was making.
Kushner's security clearance became a separate controversy. In January 2019, the New York Times reported that President Trump had ordered his chief of staff John Kelly to grant Kushner a top-secret security clearance. Kelly and White House counsel Don McGahn had both opposed the clearance, and both documented their concerns in internal memos. At least two career White House security specialists had recommended against granting Kushner the clearance, and their supervisor, Carl Kline, overrode those recommendations. A House Oversight Committee investigation found that the White House had overruled career security professionals in at least 25 cases involving clearance denials. Ivanka Trump stated in an interview with ABC News in February 2019 that her father had played no role in the clearance decision, a claim contradicted by the subsequent New York Times reporting.
After leaving the White House, Kushner founded Affinity Partners, a private equity firm. In 2021, Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund committed $2 billion to Affinity Partners, despite an advisory panel for the fund raising concerns about the deal, citing the firm's lack of an investment track record, excessive fees, and the risk that the kingdom would be seen as buying political influence. The panel's objections were overruled by the fund's board, which is chaired by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, with whom Kushner had developed a close relationship during the Trump administration. As of 2024, reporting by the Wall Street Journal indicated that Affinity Partners had collected tens of millions of dollars in management fees while making few investments.
Primary Sources
1. 5 U.S.C. Section 3110, Federal Anti-Nepotism Statute
2. DOJ Office of Legal Counsel Memorandum, "Application of the Anti-Nepotism Statute to a Presidential Appointment in the White House Office," January 20, 2017
3. New York Times: "Trump Ordered Officials to Give Jared Kushner a Security Clearance," February 28, 2019
4. House Committee on Oversight and Reform, interim report on White House security clearance process, April 2019
Corroborating Sources
1. Washington Post: "Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner are a case study in why nepotism is problematic," March 12, 2019
2. CREW: "Nepotism and Conflicts of Interest: Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump," ongoing investigation
3. New York Times: "Jared Kushner's $2 Billion Saudi Check," April 10, 2022
4. ABC News: "How nepotism law might affect Jared Kushner and Trump's White House," December 2016
Counterarguments and Context
The Office of Legal Counsel concluded that the appointments were lawful under existing precedent, and no court ruled otherwise. Supporters of the appointments argued that presidents have broad discretion in choosing their advisers and that both Kushner and Ivanka Trump brought relevant experience to their roles. Kushner's portfolio included Middle East peace negotiations, criminal justice reform, and government modernization, and his supporters pointed to the First Step Act and the Abraham Accords as tangible accomplishments. On the security clearance, the White House maintained that the president has unrestricted authority to grant security clearances as the ultimate classification authority. Regarding Affinity Partners, Kushner stated that the Saudi investment reflected confidence in the firm's strategy and that his government service had no bearing on the decision. Critics countered that the $2 billion commitment from a sovereign wealth fund led by a leader whom Kushner had cultivated as a diplomatic counterpart during his White House tenure raised obvious questions about whether private financial rewards flowed from official government relationships.
Author's Note
This entry is classified as Tier 3 because the core facts are documented through primary evidence: the OLC memorandum, the anti-nepotism statute itself, the New York Times reporting on the security clearance override (confirmed through internal White House memos), and the House Oversight Committee's investigation. The $2 billion Saudi investment is documented through financial disclosures and contemporaneous reporting. No court adjudicated whether the appointments violated the anti-nepotism statute, and no criminal charges were brought in connection with the security clearance override or the post-White House investment.