# Kushner's firm got 1.1% of EA in the $55 billion Saudi buyout. Filings show it was there from day one EA's proxy shows Affinity saw the first deal pitch in March 2025. Senators alleged Kushner was there to win approval. He denies investors sway him. By 567 Politics staff · 567politics Published: 2026-11-10T15:04:00.635367Z Updated: 2026-11-10T15:05:36.752674Z Canonical: https://567politics.com/news/kushner-affinity-electronic-arts-saudi-pif-buyout-cfius-filings-november-2026 Cite citation_url. Preserve source links, dates and qualifications. date_modified is an edit date, not proof that every claim was rechecked. Third-party images and quoted material retain their own rights. Resolve relative links against https://567politics.com/news/kushner-affinity-electronic-arts-saudi-pif-buyout-cfius-filings-november-2026. Jared Kushner's Affinity Partners ended up with about 1.1% of Electronic Arts when the Saudi-led $55 billion buyout closed on Aug. 4, 2026, while Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund (PIF) took about 93.4%. EA's own merger proxy shows that Affinity was part of the talks from the start: the first materials about a deal, sent to EA's chief executive in March 2025, had already been shared with Kushner's firm. Two Democratic senators argued in October 2025 that the investors were "betting $1 billion that Mr. Kushner can deliver the Trump Administration's regulatory approvals." Every required approval arrived by July 30, 2026. No court, inspector general or regulator has found any wrongdoing, the federal security review's findings are confidential, and Kushner says his investors have never influenced his public work. This story sets out what the primary documents show about Affinity's role, what critics allege, what the companies and Kushner say, and which questions remain unanswered. It is the latest in a series; the [567 Politics record of Kushner's documented controversies](/news/jared-kushner-controversies-a-record-november-2026) covers the earlier Saudi investment in Affinity itself. ## A small stake in a very large deal The ownership split is the clearest fact. A November 2025 filing with Brazil's antitrust regulator, first reported by The Wall Street Journal and summarized by [Game Developer](https://www.gamedeveloper.com/business/saudi-arabia-will-own-93-4-percent-of-ea-after-buyout) and [Sports Business Journal](https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Articles/2025/12/03/saudi-pif-to-own-nearly-all-of-ea-after-sale/), showed PIF would own 93.4% of EA after the buyout, Silver Lake 5.5% and Affinity 1.1%. The European Commission's clearance notice describes the same structure in legal terms: [PIF "will acquire sole control" of EA](https://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases1/202625/M_12213_250.pdf), while Silver Lake and Affinity acquire "non-controlling minority shareholdings." | Investor | Reported stake | Control | | --- | ---: | --- | | Public Investment Fund | 93.4% | Sole control | | Silver Lake | 5.5% | Minority | | Affinity Partners | 1.1% | Minority | The percentages above come from the Brazilian filing as reported by those outlets; 567 Politics did not locate the Brazilian document itself. The control column comes from the European Commission notice. Early reporting had pointed to a larger Affinity share: Lawfare's [Vinita R. Singh wrote in October 2025](https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-cfius-review-that-will-never-be) that Affinity was "expected to end up with roughly 5 percent," citing the Financial Times. The later filing put it at roughly a fifth of that. The money was large on every side. EA's [Sept. 29, 2025 announcement](https://www.ea.com/news/ea-announces-agreement-to-be-acquired) valued the company at about $55 billion, with about $36 billion of equity and $20 billion of debt committed by JPMorgan Chase. The [definitive proxy statement](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/712515/000114036125042872/ny20056157x2_defm14a.htm) puts the equity commitment at about $36.4 billion. Stockholders received $210 a share in cash, a 25% premium to the unaffected price of $168.32 on Sept. 25, 2025. PIF rolled over the roughly 9.9% stake it already held. The size of Affinity's slice cuts in two directions, and each side of the dispute leans on it. Critics ask why a firm contributing so little capital was in the consortium at all. Defenders can point out that a 1.1% non-controlling holder had little ability to steer EA, and that the company the critics worry about is controlled by PIF, not by Kushner. ## What EA's proxy says about how the talks began The proxy's "Background of the Merger" section, written by EA and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, is the most detailed public account of Affinity's role. It shows the firm was involved from the first approach rather than added at the end. According to the proxy, on March 2, 2025, representatives of Silver Lake sent EA chief executive Andrew Wilson "a set of materials that Silver Lake had prepared about the Company." They told him Silver Lake "had shared these materials with Affinity Partners," and they "noted that PIF could be a potential co-investor." From that point the proxy refers to the three firms jointly as "the Investors." The sequence that follows is spelled out with dates. Wilson and other managers held discussions with the Investors in the second half of May 2025. Silver Lake and Affinity signed confidentiality agreements on July 2, 2025, and PIF signed on July 5. EA managers met the Investors on July 8 and 9 and opened a data room to them on July 15 and 16. On Sept. 2, EA managers met "representatives of Silver Lake and Affinity" specifically to discuss the status of their review. The first price, $200 a share, came on Sept. 12. The proxy does not name Kushner in this section, does not say who at Affinity attended any meeting, and does not describe what Affinity contributed beyond being one of the three investors. It also does not mention any contact with the U.S. government. Those gaps matter, because the central allegation about the deal concerns the government, not EA's boardroom. The proxy also records that EA's board, on Sept. 15, 2025, decided not to contact other possible buyers. Directors concluded that no other party was likely to have "both a strategic interest in, and the financial wherewithal to pursue" a competing deal, and that outreach risked a leak or losing the Investors' interest. ## Nine days of bargaining over price The proxy also lists every price floated in September 2025. The investors opened at $200 a share and EA's board answered at $215. The two sides then moved in smaller steps until EA called $210 its "best and final" figure on Sept. 22, and the investors agreed on Sept. 26. ```chart type: line title: Per-share prices proposed in EA buyout talks, September 2025 source: [EA definitive proxy statement, Background of the Merger](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/712515/000114036125042872/ny20056157x2_defm14a.htm) note: US dollars per share. Investor and EA proposals in date order; the final row is the price both sides accepted on Sept. 26. prefix: $ --- Date and side | Price Sept. 12 Investors | 200 Sept. 15 EA board | 215 Sept. 18 Investors | 205 Sept. 19 EA | 212 Sept. 21 Investors | 208 Sept. 22 EA final | 210 Sept. 26 Agreed | 210 ``` For context, EA stock closed at $172.38 on Sept. 12, the day of the first proposal, and at $173.42 on Sept. 22, according to the proxy. During the talks the investors' representative noted that EA's shares had risen from a 52-week low of $116.53 and said the group "may not have capacity" to go meaningfully above $200. ## The fight over regulatory risk The price was not the only point in dispute. The proxy shows the two sides also bargained over who would bear the risk that a government blocked the deal, which is where the senators' later argument begins. EA's first draft of the merger agreement, sent on Sept. 18, 2025, included a "hell or high water" clause obligating the buyers "to take all actions necessary to obtain all antitrust and foreign direct investment approvals," plus a reverse termination fee if they failed to close. The investors' Sept. 22 draft deleted that clause, "leaving only an obligation to use 'reasonable best efforts,'" and dropped any reverse fee if approvals were not obtained. EA's Sept. 24 draft put a reverse termination fee back. The signed agreement set that fee at $1 billion, payable by the buyers in specified circumstances, including if the deal ran out of time while approvals such as clearance by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) were still outstanding. EA would owe the buyers $1 billion if it walked away for a better offer, or $540 million during an early "window shop" period. The agreement also required the parties to file a joint voluntary notice with CFIUS within 10 business days of signing. Read on their own, those terms are common in large buyouts, and the proxy does not suggest any party expected political help. Critics read them differently, as described below. ## What the senators and other critics allege On Oct. 14, 2025, Sen. [Richard Blumenthal](/politicians/richard-blumenthal), then the top Democrat on the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, and Sen. [Elizabeth Warren](/politicians/elizabeth-warren), the top Democrat on the Banking Committee, wrote to Treasury Secretary [Scott Bessent](/politicians/scott-bessent), who chairs CFIUS. Their [letter](https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025-10-14-Letter-from-Blumenthal-and-Warren-to-Secretary-Bessent-re-Electronic-Arts.pdf) made two separate arguments. The first concerns Kushner. The senators wrote that PIF's choice to partner with Kushner, whose firm had earlier received $2 billion from PIF "over the objections of the PIF's own investment screening board," raised "troubling questions about whether Mr. Kushner is involved in the transaction solely to ensure the federal government's approval of the transaction." Pointing to the $1 billion fee, they wrote that the investors "appear to be betting $1 billion that Mr. Kushner can deliver the Trump Administration's regulatory approvals." That is an inference, not a documented fact. The letter cites press commentary for it, including Singh's Lawfare essay, which argued that "Jared Kushner's involvement essentially forestalls any adverse federal treatment of the deal" because CFIUS members would be reluctant to act against the president's son-in-law. Singh also asked why PIF would bring in Affinity "if it was already set to directly invest," suggesting the answer "may very well be the safe harbor offered by Kushner's involvement." Both pieces offer a theory of motive. Neither cites a communication between Kushner or Affinity and any federal official about the deal. The second argument is about Saudi Arabia, not Kushner. The senators warned that PIF could gain access to personal data on EA's players, which they put at "at least 700 million," and to its artificial-intelligence work, and that going private would end EA's public SEC reporting. Their sixth question asked Bessent to describe "any communications you or any Treasury Department official or agent have had with Jared Kushner, Affinity Partners, or any representative or agent thereof" about the transaction. They asked for answers by Nov. 4, 2025. Labor raised similar concerns. On Oct. 29, 2025, Communications Workers of America president Claude Cummings Jr. [sent letters to the Federal Trade Commission and CFIUS](https://cwa-union.org/news/releases/cwa-urges-ftc-and-cfius-scrutinize-electronic-arts-buyout), saying, "This deal is not about innovation or growth for the U.S. economy." The union also pointed to the $20 billion in new debt and the risk of layoffs. ## What happened next, and what is still unknown 567 Politics found no published response from the Treasury Department to the senators' questions, and no public account of what CFIUS reviewed or whether it imposed conditions. That silence is built into the process: CFIUS proceedings are confidential by statute, and the senators' letter itself asked for notices that by law go to Congress rather than the public. A missing public answer therefore does not show that the questions were ignored or that the review was cursory. It means the public record cannot answer them. What the record does show is the outcome. Stockholders approved the deal on Dec. 22, 2025. The European Commission cleared it, finding no competition concerns. EA's [July 30, 2026 filing](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/712515/000114036126030255/ef20078929_8k.htm) said "all regulatory approvals required to complete the Merger have been obtained," and [the deal closed on Aug. 4](https://www.ea.com/news/ea-announces-completion-of-acquisition). The buyers' [closing filing](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/712515/000114036126031157/ef20079099_8k.htm) describes the debt: $2.875 billion of 7.25% secured notes and €1.08 billion of 6.25% secured notes due 2033, and $2.5 billion of 8.75% unsecured notes due 2034, alongside bank loans. EA then filed to end its SEC registration on Aug. 14, which ends the public quarterly reports the senators wanted to preserve. On Oct. 21, 2026, EA told employees it would close BioWare's Edmonton studio and cancel an early "Mass Effect" project, [Reuters reported](https://www.investing.com/news/stock-market-news/ea-to-shutter-bioware-studio-cut-jobs-as-it-narrows-game-slate-4963824). Bloomberg reported about 400 job cuts, roughly 3% of staff. No public document ties those cuts to Affinity, which holds a non-controlling stake. Several questions remain open: - **Who funded Affinity's share.** The merger agreement lists six Affinity vehicles as guarantors, including its main fund and four co-investment entities. The filings do not identify the investors in those co-investment vehicles. Kushner wrote in October 2026 that Affinity had raised "zero additional capital" while he volunteers in government; the filings neither confirm nor contradict that for the EA vehicles. - **The timing of Kushner's public role.** The talks ran from March to September 2025. As our [earlier reporting on his unpaid envoy role](/news/jared-kushner-controversies-a-record-november-2026) notes, CNN reported that Kushner began Middle East and Ukraine diplomacy as a volunteer in May 2025. No document reviewed here shows how, or whether, Affinity separated the EA work from that role. - **Whether CFIUS imposed safeguards.** Neither EA nor Treasury has disclosed any mitigation agreement. House Democrats, who take control of committees in January, have said they will seek records about Kushner's business and government roles; our [story on the coming subpoena fights](/news/kushner-witkoff-democratic-congress-subpoenas-oversight-raskin-garcia-november-2026) covers what they have asked for so far. ## What Kushner, EA and the administration say 567 Politics found no public statement from Kushner or Affinity answering the senators' letter directly. In EA's announcements Kushner spoke only about the company. In September 2025 he called EA "an extraordinary company with a world-class management team," and said that "as someone who grew up playing their games - and now enjoys them with his kids - I couldn't be more excited." At closing, he said Affinity was "excited to support the company as it continues to reach new audiences." His broader defense is in an [October 2026 response to critics](https://jaredkushner.com/posts/new-yorker-response/) on his website. "Affinity's investors have never influenced my diplomatic positions, and I have never used my public role to advance their commercial interests," he wrote. He said outside ethics counsel and the White House Counsel's Office "have confirmed that I am complying with all applicable ethics rules and requirements," and that he takes no government salary. EA's board presented the deal as a shareholder decision. Lead independent director Luis A. Ubiñas said the board "carefully evaluated this opportunity" and concluded it "delivers compelling value for stockholders." PIF's Turqi Alnowaiser described gaming and esports as sectors where the fund has "demonstrated a strong commitment." The administration's stated policy also frames sovereign investment favorably. The president's [February 2025 America First Investment Policy](https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/america-first-investment-policy/) says investment "from our allies and partners, some of whom have tremendous sovereign wealth funds, supports the national interest," while reserving CFIUS's toughest tools mainly for China and other designated "foreign adversaries," a list that does not include Saudi Arabia. 567 Politics found no public statement from a Republican member of Congress on the EA deal specifically. ## How this fits the wider Kushner record The EA buyout is a different kind of case from the others 567 Politics has examined. In the [Phoenix Financial stake](/news/jared-kushner-phoenix-financial-share-sale-gaza-diplomacy) and the [Arxis holding disclosed in a recent SEC amendment](/news/affinity-partners-arxis-13f-amendment-november-2026), Affinity's investments touch areas of U.S. policy directly. In EA, the policy link runs through a regulator, CFIUS, which reviewed a deal led by the same sovereign fund that is Affinity's largest known investor. Our [ledger of foreign money and the Kushner family](/news/kushner-family-foreign-government-money-since-2010-documented-alleged-transfers) explains why PIF's earlier $2 billion commitment remains the starting point for most of these allegations. ```diagram type: timeline title: Affinity Partners and the EA buyout source: [EA proxy](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/712515/000114036125042872/ny20056157x2_defm14a.htm), [Senate letter](https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025-10-14-Letter-from-Blumenthal-and-Warren-to-Secretary-Bessent-re-Electronic-Arts.pdf), [EA 8-K](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/712515/000114036126030255/ef20078929_8k.htm) --- 2025-03-02: Silver Lake sends EA deal materials it says it shared with Affinity 2025-07-02: Silver Lake and Affinity sign confidentiality agreements 2025-09-12: Investors propose $200 a share 2025-09-29: EA announces the $210-a-share, $55 billion agreement 2025-10-14: Blumenthal and Warren ask Bessent for CFIUS answers 2025-12-22: EA stockholders approve the deal 2026-07-30: EA says all regulatory approvals are in hand 2026-08-04: The buyout closes 2026-10-21: EA announces the BioWare studio closure ``` The documents establish who bought EA, on what terms and in what order. They do not establish why PIF wanted Affinity in the deal, what Affinity's people did in Washington, if anything, or what CFIUS concluded. The senators' allegation that Kushner was included to secure approval remains an unproven inference. Kushner's denial that his investors influence his public work is a general statement, not a specific answer about EA. Neither claim can be settled from the public record, and the records that could settle it are held by Treasury and the companies.