Are Trump’s Rich Envoys More Resistant to Foreign Influence?
The families of Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner are in business with governments with which they negotiate.
It’s a long-held belief that wealthy people make better politicians, because they are less susceptible to corruption. If someone already has more money than they could ever spend, the thinking goes, they cannot be bought.
For every Michael Bloomberg, however, there are many more examples of people who used public office to amass even greater fortunes. Greed rarely disappears once a certain bank balance has been reached.
Does this logic apply to diplomacy? Are billionaires less likely to become targets of foreign influence, because other governments assume they have all the money they need? That premise seems glaringly naive, but apparently some Republicans embrace it.
In a New York Times story today about Trump’s high-profile envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, headlined “Trump Bets on Diplomacy Without Diplomats,” this sentence caught my attention:
Supporters of the administration see Mr. Witkoff and Mr. Kushner as ideal negotiators in part because their personal wealth, they say, makes them more resistant to corrupting influences.
If you’ve followed the news over the past year, such a claim is difficult to accept at face value. And reporters David Sanger and Anton Troianovski were quick to point out that “both men face questions over apparent conflicts of interest.”
Mr. Witkoff’s son Zach is the chief executive of World Liberty Financial, the Trump family’s cryptocurrency company. An investment firm tied to the United Arab Emirates purchased nearly half the company last year for $500 million.
Mr. Kushner raised several billion dollars before Mr. Trump’s second term from overseas investors, including government wealth funds in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, countries he had worked with when he served as a senior White House adviser during Mr. Trump’s first term.
These vulnerabilities are not hypothetical. So why would someone claim that Witkoff and Kushner are less vulnerable to foreign influences when the facts point to the opposite? Is it to justify entrusting them with the administration’s most challenging negotiations despite being amateurs in diplomacy? Or to imply that career diplomats are more corruptible than billionaires?
Career diplomats spend decades operating within institutional guardrails designed precisely to limit foreign influence. Their financial disclosures are scrutinized, and their outside income is restricted. Their professional advancement depends on their reputation for credibility and integrity, not their ability to generate profits.
By contrast, rich business people maintain extensive global networks whose financial success depends on access, relationships and goodwill — including from foreign governments. Just look at the Epstein files.
The notion that wealth inoculates someone against influence misunderstands how influence actually works. Foreign governments don’t always need to offer money directly. They can dangle investment opportunities, regulatory advantages, partnerships for family members, or access to lucrative markets. They can shape future financial prospects rather than present bank balances.
In fact, extreme wealth can expand exposure to foreign influence, not reduce it.
For decades, both Republican and Democratic politicians have made preposterous claims to justify the appointment of rich donors and political cronies to ambassadorial and other high-ranking diplomatic positions, in spite of their lack of qualifications.
The most frequent argument in favor of political appointees is that, unlike career diplomats, they are “close to the president” and can easily pick up the phone and call the White House.
In reality, very few of them enjoy such proximity. For about half a century, roughly one-third of U.S. ambassadors — usually 60 to 65 at any given time — have been non-career appointees. Many of them never called the president. Some had met him only briefly at a fundraiser. Others were posted to countries that rarely get presidential attention.
Another argument is that some governments prefer political ambassadors, because they are perceived to have the president’s ear. That preference is understandable. It offers foreign governments a shorter, more informal path to influence — one that bypasses the bureaucracy. But what may be convenient for foreign governments isn’t necessarily beneficial for the United States.
I’ve never been opposed to all political appointees in diplomatic positions. All bureaucracies need outside perspectives and fresh thinking. But qualifications should matter. The sad reality is that they haven’t — for every president in the last 50 years. Their loyalty to their wealthiest donors trumped the country’s need for competent diplomacy.
Proximity to power — even when combined with personality and instinct — isn’t enough to replace professional diplomacy.
Both The Diplomacy Notebook and The Diplomacy Podcast are free, but you can show your support by making a donation to help us continue to produce unique and timely content.
Nicholas Kralev is the founder and executive director of the Washington International Diplomatic Academy, and a former Financial Times and Washington Times correspondent. His books include “Diplomatic Tradecraft,” “America’s Other Army” and “Diplomats in the Trenches.”
Very good. Thank you very much. As I study diplomacy more and more, I realize that it's very important and that credibility is very important.