Jared Kushner has spent years operating at the center of Donald Trump’s foreign-policy apparatus, moving between presidents, prime ministers and some of the world’s most dangerous conflicts.

But during a televised press conference, NBC News Chief Foreign Correspondent Richard Engel confronted the president’s son-in-law with the question critics have been asking from a distance: Why should anyone believe Kushner can succeed now when the conflicts he previously tried to resolve have only grown worse?

“You have been involved in numerous negotiations around the world,” Engel began. “Why should people have any confidence in your capacity to succeed here?”

The unusually direct confrontation placed Kushner and fellow Trump adviser Steve Witkoff on the defensive—and forced them to account publicly for a record under mounting scrutiny.

Engel lists the unfinished conflicts

Engel did not limit himself to a general question about experience or qualifications. He systematically identified the crises in which Kushner and Witkoff had already participated.

“You were involved in the Gaza negotiations, but Gaza remains a wasteland,” Engel said. “There’s been really no progress there.”

He then turned to Iran, where the Trump administration’s diplomatic efforts failed to prevent an escalating war.

“Iran, you were involved in those negotiations,” Engel continued. “The war is still going on.”

The reporter also noted that Kushner and Witkoff had joined several rounds of talks concerning the conflict at the center of the new press conference. Yet instead of moving toward resolution, the situation had become more intense.

“So you’re relaunching negotiations now,” Engel said. “What’s the likelihood they will succeed, when other negotiations you’ve been involved in have not?”

The question challenged more than a single diplomatic initiative. It questioned the administration’s decision to continue entrusting extraordinarily complicated international negotiations to two men whose backgrounds are rooted primarily in business rather than traditional diplomacy.

Kushner defends the mission

Kushner did not dispute Engel’s description of the conflicts or claim that the previous negotiations had produced lasting peace.

Instead, he emphasized their difficulty.

“These are some of the hardest problem sets in the world,” Kushner replied. “I think that you have to try.”

He argued that he and Witkoff bring different styles to the negotiating table but function effectively as partners.

“Steve and I bring different approaches to these things, but we work very well together,” Kushner said.

His most revealing defense, however, focused on whose strategy they were actually implementing.

“We’re not bringing our approaches,” Kushner explained. “We’re really representing President Trump, and we’re doing it the way that he wants to see these things done.”

That answer effectively placed ultimate responsibility for the diplomatic strategy with Trump. Kushner and Witkoff, in his description, are not independent architects of American foreign policy but emissaries executing the president’s personal vision.

Questions surrounding Kushner’s influence

Kushner’s prominent role has generated controversy since Trump’s first administration.

He initially struggled to secure a top-level security clearance amid concerns involving his extensive business interests and potential conflicts. Critics have also scrutinized the growth of his financial ventures and relationships with foreign investors after he entered Trump’s political orbit.

Those concerns do not establish that his diplomatic decisions were improperly influenced. But they have fueled demands for greater transparency whenever Kushner represents the United States in negotiations involving governments or business interests with which he has financial connections.

Unlike a Senate-confirmed secretary of state, Kushner derives his influence primarily from his relationship with the president. He is Trump’s son-in-law, trusted adviser and increasingly important outside representative.

That access has repeatedly placed him in rooms where decisions affecting millions of people are negotiated.

A secret meeting with Hakeem Jeffries

Kushner also attracted attention in August after The New York Times revealed that he had privately met with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries.

The discussion reportedly occurred in a private New York City location offered by a mutual acquaintance. Five people familiar with the meeting confirmed that it had taken place, although they were not authorized to discuss it publicly.

Through their aides, neither Kushner nor Jeffries commented on the session. One source described it as a broad conversation covering several subjects.

But its timing immediately generated political intrigue.

Democrats have a serious chance of capturing the House in the 2026 midterms. If they win, Jeffries is positioned to become speaker, giving him enormous authority over legislation, investigations and subpoenas involving the Trump administration.

The Times reported that people around Trump were aware of the possibility of a Democratic-led House and were attempting to establish a working relationship before any transfer of congressional power.

The meeting could represent pragmatic preparation for divided government. It could also signal that Trump’s inner circle is more worried about Republican prospects than it admits publicly.

The question Kushner could not escape

Kushner’s defenders can reasonably argue that difficult negotiations sometimes fail despite serious effort—and that refusing to negotiate guarantees no progress at all.

But Engel’s challenge exposed the gap between access and achievement.

Gaza remains devastated. The war with Iran continues. Other conflicts in which Trump’s envoys have intervened remain unresolved or have intensified. Yet Kushner and Witkoff are again being presented as the men capable of producing a breakthrough.

Kushner’s answer was that the problems are difficult, trying remains essential and the envoys are faithfully executing Trump’s wishes.

For the reporter confronting him, that was not the only issue. The question was why anyone should expect a different result from the same negotiators using the same president’s approach.

And on live television, Kushner offered no guarantee that this time would end differently.