Ron Johnson: Middle East Investments with Kushner, Witkoff Not What I’d Do

July 15, 2026
12:35 pm

▶

Listen to Article

Sen. Ron Johnson’s blunt dismissal of Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff’s Middle East investment deals lands like a warning shot across the bow of any administration that thinks foreign capital can be quarantined from political influence. Johnson’s line—“not the way I would have my family conduct business if I were president”—isn’t just personal distaste; it’s a reminder that when sovereign wealth from the Gulf flows into American real estate and tech, the same networks that shape foreign policy can quietly shape domestic priorities, including the regulatory climate around firearms and self-defense rights. The 2A community has watched this movie before: money from regimes that ban private gun ownership can end up underwriting think tanks, media outlets, and lobbying arms that later push “common-sense” restrictions here at home. What makes Johnson’s comment especially sharp is the timing. With the 2024 cycle still reverberating and 2026 midterms already on the horizon, any perception that a Republican White House is cozy with actors who treat the Second Amendment as a negotiable export commodity risks handing Democrats a ready-made attack line. More importantly, it risks demoralizing the grassroots donors and small-dollar contributors who have shouldered the legal and legislative defense of the right to keep and bear arms. When the family of a former president appears to be monetizing relationships forged in office, it invites the very cynicism that makes turnout and activism harder—exactly the environment in which incremental infringements on carry rights, magazine capacity, and due-process-protected purchases tend to advance. For pro-2A voters the takeaway is straightforward: foreign entanglements are not abstract foreign-policy questions; they are domestic-policy multipliers. Every dollar that buys influence in Washington can eventually be spent on shaping ATF rules, judicial nominations, or the messaging that frames lawful gun owners as the problem rather than the solution. Johnson’s refusal to normalize these deals is less about one family’s portfolio and more about preserving the firewall between American sovereignty and the soft-power agendas of governments that have never recognized an individual right to arms. The 2A community would do well to treat that firewall as non-negotiable.

Best FFL Software Ranked and Compared!

What makes Johnson’s comment especially sharp is the timing. With the 2024 cycle still reverberating and 2026 midterms already on the horizon, any perception that a Republican White House is cozy with actors who treat the Second Amendment as a negotiable export commodity risks handing Democrats a ready-made attack line. More importantly, it risks demoralizing the grassroots donors and small-dollar contributors who have shouldered the legal and legislative defense of the right to keep and bear arms. When the family of a former president appears to be monetizing relationships forged in office, it invites the very cynicism that makes turnout and activism harder—exactly the environment in which incremental infringements on carry rights, magazine capacity, and due-process-protected purchases tend to advance.

For pro-2A voters the takeaway is straightforward: foreign entanglements are not abstract foreign-policy questions; they are domestic-policy multipliers. Every dollar that buys influence in Washington can eventually be spent on shaping ATF rules, judicial nominations, or the messaging that frames lawful gun owners as the problem rather than the solution. Johnson’s refusal to normalize these deals is less about one family’s portfolio and more about preserving the firewall between American sovereignty and the soft-power agendas of governments that have never recognized an individual right to arms. The 2A community would do well to treat that firewall as non-negotiable.

Share this story