Don Jr., Influence-Peddling, and the Ethics of Power Proximity

Irina Tsukerman is a human rights and national security attorney based in New York and Connecticut. She earned her Bachelor of Arts in National and Intercultural Studies and Middle East Studies from Fordham University in 2006, followed by a Juris Doctor from Fordham University School of Law in 2009. She operates a boutique national security law practice. She serves as President of Scarab Rising, Inc., a media and security strategic advisory firm. Additionally, she is the Editor-in-Chief of The Washington Outsider, which focuses on foreign policy, geopolitics, security, and human rights. She is actively involved in several professional organizations, including the American Bar Association's Energy, Environment, and Science and Technology Sections, where she serves as Program Vice Chair in the Oil and Gas Committee. She is also a member of the New York City Bar Association. She serves on the Middle East and North Africa Affairs Committee and affiliates with the Foreign and Comparative Law Committee.

In this interview, Scott Douglas Jacobsen speaks with Irina Tsukerman, a national security and human rights attorney, about ethical and legal concerns surrounding Donald Trump Jr.'s business and political activities. Tsukerman distinguishes verified facts from speculation, addressing conflicts of interest tied to Trump-family business arrangements, Don Jr.'s role at 1789 Capital, and his appearance at the Qatar Economic Forum. She clarifies misconceptions about World Cup security, emphasizing U.S.-led law enforcement. The discussion expands to access-peddling, comparisons to Hunter Biden, and a $10 billion tax-return lawsuit, before concluding with Tsukerman's critique of revived "Russiagate" narratives as a political distraction.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: This is a special session on Donald Trump Jr., one of the children of Donald Trump. He is a prominent surrogate and senior figure associated with the Trump business and political brand. He has had visible interactions with Gulf-region business and policy circles. I am not aware of credible public reporting that links him to Jeffrey Epstein-related files. First, what business or financial relationships raise ethical or national-security concerns? Second, what is his connection to soccer and the World Cup? Third, what is the real situation regarding any Qatari security or policing role connected to significant events in the United States?

Irina Tsukerman: A few issues warrant separation. First, the Trump family's business arrangements during Trump's presidency have repeatedly raised conflict-of-interest concerns because they were not structured as a traditional blind trust. In 2017, reporting emphasized that the business would be run by his adult sons rather than placed into a blind trust, which ethics experts said did not meet the usual standard. In 2025, the Trump Organization again stated that Trump would not manage day-to-day operations and that assets would be placed in a trust managed by his children, alongside internal ethics measures; critics have continued to debate whether such arrangements sufficiently prevent conflicts of interest.

Second, Don Jr. has a documented business relationship with banker Omeed (also spelled "Omid") Malik. Malik co-founded 1789 Capital, and Don Jr. joined it in a business capacity. In May 2025, both appeared as speakers at the Qatar Economic Forum in a session titled "Investing in America," according to the forum's published program. This is distinct from the Doha Forum and from a panel titled "Monetizing MAGA," which has been incorrectly cited elsewhere.

Third, regarding the World Cup and claims about "Qatari policing," public reporting indicates that U.S. federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies will lead security for the 2026 FIFA World Cup in the United States. There has also been reporting that U.S. officials travelled to Qatar to observe or discuss security practices used during the 2022 World Cup. That exchange does not indicate that Qatari security forces will police events in the United States.

The defensible fact pattern, therefore, is: recurring conflict-of-interest concerns regarding Trump-family business arrangements; Don Jr.'s business ties with Malik and their appearance at the Qatar Economic Forum; and U.S.-led World Cup security planning that includes limited international information-sharing.

Jacobsen: In late 2025, there were meetings at a law firm connected to a high-profile public inquiry involving senior officials. This raised questions about whether the issue was access-peddling. Not foreign financial influence or foreign security forces, where domestic ones would suffice, but the abuse of proximity to power. Someone meets a prominent figure, does not distinguish themselves, and then presents themselves as a close associate to gain credibility or leverage. Second, there was a lawsuit over leaked tax returns. Don Jr. is a plaintiff alongside the President and others. The suit targets the IRS and the Treasury over the prior disclosure of Trump's tax information. It has been a prominent legal headline, though less prominently in the public eye. The damages sought are reportedly around $10 billion. You are the lawyer—that sounds enormous to me.

Tsukerman: On the first point, that fits the definition of influence-peddling. A commonly cited analogy is Hunter Biden: benefiting from his father's status to obtain access or roles for which he was arguably unqualified, while also creating the perception of access to his father for others.

Critics argue that Don Jr. is engaging in a similar pattern—leveraging familial proximity to power. Many of the same voices who were intensely focused on Hunter Biden have been comparatively silent here. That inconsistency is notable.

This raises serious ethical concerns and apparent conflicts of interest. Whether or not it is illegal in a narrow statutory sense, it is deeply problematic, and there appears to be little institutional effort to restrain it. Instead, many actors seem willing to benefit from it.

On the second issue, the tax-return lawsuit raises another conflict-of-interest concern. At the time of the alleged disclosures, Trump was President and had authority over the relevant agencies. Critics argue that seeking massive damages from agencies he oversaw creates the appearance of self-dealing.

The scale of the claim—around $10 billion—appears disproportionate to the established harm. Courts found internal violations, but that does not automatically justify damages of that magnitude. I would be surprised if a jury deemed such a figure reasonable.

Regardless of the outcome, the litigation consumes public resources. It is a distraction from substantive policy issues and does little to enhance institutional credibility. Transparency from the outset would have avoided much of this.

Jacobsen: Those are strong points. I am doing one more quick check. The primary references were Gibraltar, Greenland, Doha, and Mr. Malik. The others date back much earlier, including the 2016 Trump Tower meeting.

Tsukerman: One narrative that never seems to expire is what Trump now calls the "Russiagate hoax," which he has revived in recent social-media posts.

Jacobsen: What do you mean?

Tsukerman: Trump has claimed on Truth Social that President Obama's alleged support for the Russia investigation in 2016 ultimately cost Trump the 2020 election, and that Obama interfered illegally. The fact that it is now 2026 and we are still debating events from a decade ago is striking—especially since the Russian effort to interfere in U.S. elections was well documented. Several Trump campaign associates were convicted or imprisoned, and Russian operatives left the United States following investigations.

Whatever label one applies, those events were not fictitious. The renewed framing appears intended to deflect attention from Trump's current dealings with Russia, including his stated interest in doing business with a country engaged in an internationally condemned war.

That this reframing raises few questions among his most vocal defenders suggests a profound detachment from documented reality. It raises a broader question: how far can political loyalty stretch before blatant falsehoods become untenable?

Jacobsen: That is a strong place to end. Thank you very much for the opportunity and your time, Irina.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen is the publisher of In-Sight Publishing (ISBN: 978-1-0692343) and Editor-in-Chief of In-Sight: Interviews (ISSN: 2369-6885). He writes for The Good Men Project, International Policy Digest (ISSN: 2332–9416), The Humanist (Print: ISSN 0018-7399; Online: ISSN 2163-3576), Basic Income Earth Network (UK Registered Charity 1177066), A Further Inquiry, and other media. He is a member in good standing of numerous media organizations.