On Thursday, Vanity Fair published what appeared to be a bombshell excerpt from investigative journalist Matthew Cole’s forthcoming book, “Princes and Thieves.” The explosive allegations read like a spy novel, featuring a hacked iPhone, international spies, and billion-dollar “slush funds” from foreign governments, all tied to Donald Trump’s son-in-law. Jared Kushner, Cole wrote, had access to $2 billion in secret foreign bank accounts from Middle Eastern countries attempting to influence U.S. foreign policy during Trump’s first term. The claims, if they hold up, would be among the most serious ever leveled at a presidential family member—and one who had served in an official government role, to boot.

In the excerpt, Cole describes how the story came to him—a source he “knew to be reliable” told him in 2020 that Dutch intelligence had hacked Kushner’s phone. Over the next four years, Cole pieced together the rest of the story, though the sourcing for the serious allegations was not made clear in the excerpt. The book passage also included denials from Kushner’s team. Statements from Kushner’s counsel and former U.S. Ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, who is tied to the financial allegations in Cole’s reporting, are tucked into parentheticals at the end of four separate paragraphs.

Later that evening, Kushner took his denials public, calling out the Condé Nast magazine for publishing reporting that he described as containing “outrageous and categorically false allegations.” Kushner wrote on X that his representatives had “denied every one of these claims on the record,” and he accused Cole of failing to produce evidence to substantiate the allegations.

When I reached out to a Vanity Fair spokesperson on Thursday about Kushner's denials, I was referred to the book’s publisher, Simon & Schuster, which did not return my inquiry. The magazine and publisher did not respond to repeated attempts to contact them, and Cole also didn’t respond to a request for comment. Interestingly, though, Simon & Schuster appears to have moved up the book’s publication date to Sunday, two days ahead of its originally scheduled debut. It is now available to buy at some major retailers.

In the past few days, the dispute has turned decidedly legal. High-profile defamation law firm Clare Locke sent a 13-page letter to Richard Bernstein, vice president and deputy general counsel for Advance Publications, Conde’s parent company. The letter disputed the allegations and demanded that Vanity Fair “immediately take down the excerpt” or face further legal action from Kushner and his army of lawyers. Attorney Chad Mizelle, who represents Kushner personally, posted the letter to X, questioning the magazine’s editorial process. “We have seen no indication that Vanity Fair conducted any independent verification of these claims before publishing them,” he wrote, while calling into question how thoroughly the Mark Guiducci-led magazine reviewed the explosive reporting. A previous letter to Simon & Schuster was also published on Kushner’s personal website.

Of course, publishing excerpts from forthcoming books is standard practice at Vanity Fair, as it is at many other magazines, which all compete for exclusive sneak peeks that excite their readership. Under Guiducci's leadership, the magazine has been known to care about the prestige of securing high-profile excerpts. And because the material has already been vetted by the book’s publisher, the editorial process often differs from the oversight applied to internal investigative reporting. But when publishing a book excerpt at Vanity Fair, and most other publications, the magazine typically signs an indemnification agreement, I’m told, which places primary responsibility for defending the published content on the book’s publisher. In this case, it's unclear whether such an agreement was signed or even if it would shield Vanity Fair from being named in a defamation lawsuit. (The magazine didn’t respond to a request for comment about such an agreement.)

And to be sure, a lawsuit would also carry major risks for Kushner. As a notable public figure and former government official, he would likely have to show that Vanity Fair or Cole published with actual malice, and the litigation process could expose him to discovery and depositions that dig into his finances. Trump himself is dealing with a similar version of that dilemma in a $10 billion lawsuit against the BBC, where a judge recently said he must sit for a deposition and instructed his legal team to produce more financial documents relevant to the suit.

In any case, Vanity Fair editors involved with this excerpt likely would have consulted the Condé Nast legal team to review the content ahead of publication. The company's counsel has historically taken a conservative approach to publishing reporting with significant legal risks involved, though top Vanity Fair editors have at times been able to push past occasional lingering concerns slowing down a story, Status has learned.

It remains unclear what legal review the Kushner excerpt underwent, and whether Vanity Fair independently examined Cole's underlying sourcing or documentation. And that uncertainty has become a vulnerability for the magazine.

In a case like this, the assumption is that the book's publisher has sufficiently vetted the material and is prepared to defend its accuracy. But with Simon & Schuster refusing to publicly address the controversy, and Vanity Fair referring questions to the publisher, Kushner and his legal team have been able to capitalize on the silence, casting doubt on the reporting while challenging the magazine.

Meanwhile, Kushner and his heavy-hitting legal team aren’t the only ones questioning the claims in Cole’s forthcoming book. The Bank of Israel, which the excerpt alleges held money for Kushner’s benefit, told Israeli reporter Neria Kraus it was not aware of any such arrangement.

Axios’ Barak Ravid, a well-sourced reporter who has extensively covered Kushner's Middle East diplomacy in his own book, "Trump's Peace,” also questioned whether the claimed transactions would have been possible. He noted that “accounts are under significant monitoring by career civil servants,” adding: “To suggest that this whole thing happens in a triangle between Kushner, Friedman and Bibi seems to me impossible considering what I know about the relationships.”

Indeed, Vanity Fair’s silence on the matter is emphasized by at least one other publication reversing course amid Kushner’s mounting legal threats. On Friday, The Jerusalem Post removed an article aggregating Cole’s reporting. “Upon further review, we identified significant factual questions about the alleged financial transactions,” the newspaper said in a statement, questioning whether the Bank of Israel could operate as Cole framed it. “We have requested supporting evidence from Mr. Cole and will report on any verifiable information we receive,” the Jerusalem Post added. The decision stood in stark contrast to Vanity Fair, which has continued to run the excerpt without publicly explaining its editorial vetting.

Cole, for his part, is an experienced national security journalist with no known history of major corrections or retractions in his reporting. He is also no stranger to legal disputes involving sensitive reporting and confidential sources. Earlier this month, a federal magistrate judge sided with the Justice Department in a dispute over a subpoena seeking Cole's testimony about his conversations related to a 2025 New York Times investigation into a classified Navy SEAL mission in North Korea. The government is seeking to identify the sources behind the reporting, as Trump’s administration seeks to aggressively uncover and punish leakers. Cole's attorney has argued the effort represents an attack on press freedom.

Cole’s involvement in the leak investigation also included an incident more than a decade ago, in 2012, when Cole was identified in court documents as a journalist who received information from former CIA officer John Kiriakou, who was charged with disclosing classified information without authorization. It was another instance that raised concerns across the journalism industry about press freedom and the challenges of keeping a reporter-source relationship confidential.

The controversy arrives at a delicate moment inside Condé Nast. Chief executive Roger Lynch is departing to lead Mattel. Mike Perlis is serving as interim chief executive while the company searches for a permanent replacement. The period of uncertainty could now be complicated by a potentially costly legal dispute involving one of its flagship publications. Even if an indemnification agreement ultimately protects Condé Nast from legal liability, defending the magazine's editorial judgment could present a separate challenge.

Still, while Simon & Schuster appears to be standing behind Cole's reporting, neither the publisher nor Vanity Fair has publicly detailed what evidence supports the disputed allegations or what independent verification was conducted before the excerpt appeared.

That silence, of course, does not necessarily mean the evidence doesn't exist. But as Kushner's attorneys threaten legal action, and he uses the opportunity to cast doubt on Vanity Fair’s credibility, the magazine is left in an incredibly uncomfortable position: It chose to publish a $2 billion claim about the president’s son-in-law—and so far has declined to say why it believes it.

[Data via Box Office Mojo]