By Matt Underwood It appears the United States ambassador to France, Charles Kushner, has found himself in a rather unusual and, frankly, unprecedented diplomatic pickle. Reports suggest he’s been effectively banned from meeting with members of the French government, a rather significant development that speaks volumes about the current state of U.S.-France relations.
The core of the issue seems to stem from Mr. Kushner’s absence when summoned to the French Foreign Affairs ministry. This isn’t just a simple missed appointment; this is a deliberate refusal to engage when the host country, France, requests his presence to discuss sensitive matters. The French government expressed their displeasure, stating that they refuse to have their national public debate exploited.
Specifically, the U.S. Embassy in France issued comments regarding the killing of a French far-right activist. In their public statement, they highlighted concerns about “violent radical leftism” and framed it as a public safety threat. This commentary, from the French perspective, stepped into what they consider purely internal French affairs and an area where they do not welcome external pronouncements.
The French ministry was quite clear in their assessment of this situation. They highlighted what they perceived as a fundamental misunderstanding of the basic expectations of an ambassador. An ambassador, after all, is meant to represent their country and foster positive relations. By failing to appear when summoned, particularly after making public statements on a sensitive national issue, Mr. Kushner apparently demonstrated a lack of understanding of these core diplomatic duties.
This isn’t the first time Mr. Kushner has been absent when summoned. It’s reportedly the second instance, the first occurring in August 2025. At that time, he was called to the ministry to explain his public concerns about rising anti-Semitic acts in France and his criticisms of the French authorities’ perceived inaction. While raising concerns about anti-Semitism is a valid point in general, the manner in which it was addressed, and then followed by a refusal to discuss it directly with the French government, seems to have exacerbated the situation.
The French government’s reaction, in this context, is to essentially withdraw direct access to Mr. Kushner. This is a strong signal, indicating that they no longer see him as a viable partner for direct dialogue on government matters. It’s a significant escalation from simply disagreeing with public statements to effectively shutting down direct communication channels.
What makes this situation even more noteworthy is the background of the appointed ambassador. Charles Kushner, it’s widely known, is the father of Jared Kushner, who served as a senior advisor to former President Trump and is his son-in-law. This appointment itself has been a point of contention for many, given Mr. Kushner’s past.
His history includes a conviction in 2005 for 18 counts of illegal campaign contributions, tax evasion, and witness tampering. The witness tampering charge, in particular, was described as particularly egregious, involving a plot to set up his brother-in-law with a prostitute and record the encounter to send to his sister. He served 14 months in federal prison for these offenses and was later disbarred in multiple states.
The fact that a convicted felon, with such a history, was appointed as an ambassador, especially by an administration that often prioritized loyalty over traditional qualifications, is a source of bewilderment and criticism for many. Some observers have pointed out the irony of a former prosecutor, Chris Christie, who negotiated the plea deal for Mr. Kushner, being involved in the Trump transition team. Christie himself had described Kushner’s actions as “one of the most loathsome, disgusting crimes” he prosecuted.
The current situation with France, therefore, raises questions about the vetting process and the overall strategy behind such appointments. The expectation is that ambassadors are individuals with diplomatic acumen, a deep understanding of international relations, and a commitment to fostering goodwill. Mr. Kushner’s repeated absences and his controversial past seem to conflict sharply with these fundamental expectations.
This diplomatic snub from France raises broader concerns about how the United States is perceived on the global stage. When an ambassador, a direct representative of the nation, is treated in this manner, it reflects poorly on the country they represent. It suggests a disconnect between the ambassador’s actions and the desired outcomes of diplomatic engagement, and perhaps even a lack of understanding of the norms and protocols that govern international diplomacy.
It’s a complex situation, certainly, and one that highlights the challenges of international relations when personal histories and political appointments intersect with the sensitive art of diplomacy. The French government’s decisive action sends a clear message about their expectations and their willingness to uphold standards of conduct, even when it involves a U.S. ambassador.