Connect with us

News

Trump Has Reeled in More Than $200 Million Since Election Day

Published

on

Trump Has Reeled in More Than 0 Million Since Election Day

Since his victory in November, President-elect Donald J. Trump’s allies have raised well over $200 million for a constellation of groups that will fund his inauguration, his political operation and eventually his presidential library, according to four people involved in the fund-raising.

It is a staggering sum that underscores efforts by donors and corporate interests to curry favor with Mr. Trump ahead of a second presidential term after a number of business leaders denounced him following the violence by his supporters at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Mr. Trump has promised to gut the “deep state” and made various promises to industry supporters. Among the pledged donors for the inaugural events are Pfizer, OpenAI, Amazon and Meta, along with cryptocurrency firms.

The total haul for the committee financing his inaugural festivities — at least $150 million raised, with more expected — will eclipse the record-setting $107 million raised for his 2017 inauguration, according to three people briefed on the matter who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to share internal financial information.

Other committees benefiting from the fund-raising blitz include a super PAC called Make America Great Again Inc. and its associated nonprofit group, which is expected to be used by Mr. Trump’s team to back his agenda and candidates who support it, while opposing dissenters.

Advertisement

Mr. Trump has boasted about the haul, telling people during the Christmas holiday season that he had raised more than $200 million since the election. Mr. Trump’s team has repeatedly noted how many people have wanted to find ways to donate to him since his election win.

The Trump transition and inaugural committee did not return emails seeking comment about the fund-raising haul.

David Tamasi, a lobbyist who has raised money for Mr. Trump, dismissed a suggestion that corporate interests were giving to avoid Mr. Trump’s wrath, though he acknowledged that some donors may be trying to atone for having previously maintained distance from the president-elect.

“It is a time-honored D.C. tradition that corporations are enthusiastically embracing this cycle in all manners, largely because they were on the sidelines during previous Trump cycles,” he said. “They no longer have to hedge their political bets.”

Inaugural committees can accept unlimited contributions from individuals and corporations, but not foreign nationals. Major corporations that try to avoid partisan politics have long donated to inaugural funds to signal a willingness to work with new administrations and support for the democratic transfer of power, regardless of the incoming president’s party.

Advertisement

But there is cross-pollination among top fund-raisers for Mr. Trump’s inauguration and his political efforts, including several partners at lobbying firms that represent major corporate interests. Raising money for the inauguration can help lobbyists secure access for clients, and cachet for themselves with the incoming administration.

Among the four finance chairs for Mr. Trump’s inaugural committee are the lobbyist Jeff Miller and Reince Priebus, a former chief of staff in the Trump White House who is not a lobbyist but is chairman of the board of advisers of the lobbying firm Michael Best Strategies. Their firms represent companies with much at stake in the forthcoming administration, some of which plan to donate to the inauguration.

Mr. Miller’s firm, Miller Strategies, represents Pfizer and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, each of which has pledged donations. Their executives met after the election at Mar-a-Lago with Mr. Trump and his choice for health and human services secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., amid concerns about how the drug industry might be affected by Mr. Kennedy, a vaccine skeptic.

Since the election, Mr. Miller’s firm has registered to lobby for the ride-share tech company Uber, which has donated $1 million, as has, separately, its chief executive Dara Khosrowshahi. The firm also represents the tech company OpenAI, whose chief executive, Sam Altman, plans to give $1 million. Michael Best Strategies has represented the cryptocurrency firm Ripple for nearly four years. It has pledged $5 million in its own cryptocurrency, XRP — among the largest known donations to the inaugural committee.

After the election, Ripple retained the lobbyist Brian Ballard, a top Trump fund-raiser.

Advertisement

Another Ballard client, Robinhood, a leading cryptocurrency trading platform, has donated $2 million.

“We look forward to working with President Trump and the incoming administration to drive positive change in the markets, be an active voice for customers and pursue our mission to democratize finance for all,” Mary Elizabeth Taylor, Robinhood’s vice president of global government and external affairs, said in a statement.

Other companies associated with cryptocurrency are expected to be major contributors as well, reflecting optimism that Mr. Trump will deliver on his campaign trail promises to dial back federal scrutiny that figures in the industry say have stifled its growth.

Amazon, a Ballard client that found itself crosswise with the first Trump administration, said it planned to donate $1 million in cash.

Donations of at least $1 million grant access to the top package of perks related to several days of festivities in the run-up to the inauguration on Jan. 20, including what are touted as “intimate” dinners with Mr. Trump and Vice President-elect JD Vance, though often with many attendees, as well as black-tie balls after the swearing-in.

Advertisement

Other entities, ranging from companies like Meta to previous Trump critics like the billionaire Ken Griffin, have made $1 million donations to the inaugural.

Contributions to inaugural committees, which are required to be publicly disclosed to the Federal Election Commission months after the inauguration, are one of the last major opportunities to financially support a second-term president.

Mr. Tamasi and Oswaldo Palomo, who are partners in the lobbying firm Chartwell Strategy Group, raised more than $3 million for the inaugural. Their firm represents companies that could be affected by Mr. Trump’s proposed tariffs, including the South Korean automaker Hyundai and a U.S. subsidiary of the South Korean conglomerate SK Group.

The deadline for donating to the inaugural to be eligible for the perks of the weekend is Jan. 10, according to documents distributed to potential donors.

If the inaugural committee’s fund-raising exceeds the amount budgeted for the festivities, the expectation among fund-raisers is that the excess would be transferred to the committee collecting money toward a presidential library for Mr. Trump after he leaves office, according to two people involved in the effort.

Advertisement

The Donald J. Trump Presidential Library Fund Inc. was incorporated in Florida on Dec. 20, six days after it was revealed that ABC News had agreed to donate $15 million to Mr. Trump’s future presidential foundation and museum to settle a defamation claim he had brought against the network.

The fund was incorporated by a lawyer in Florida, Jacob Roth, who has previously created Trump groups, including the inaugural committee, according to state corporate records. The purpose of the entity, according to the Florida articles of incorporation, is “to preserve and steward the legacy of President Donald J. Trump and his presidency.”

News

What to know about Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s release from immigration custody

Published

on

What to know about Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s release from immigration custody

BALTIMORE — Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whose mistaken deportation helped galvanize opposition to President Donald Trump’s immigration policies, was released from immigration detention on Thursday, and a judge has temporarily blocked any further efforts to detain him.

Abrego Garcia currently can’t be deported to his home country of El Salvador thanks to a 2019 immigration court order that found he had a “well founded fear” of danger there. However, the Trump administration has said he cannot stay in the U.S. Over the past few months, government officials have said they would deport him to Uganda, Eswatini, Ghana and, most recently, Liberia.

Abrego Garcia is fighting his deportation in federal court in Maryland, where his attorneys claim the administration is manipulating the immigration system to punish him for successfully challenging his earlier deportation.

Here’s what to know about the latest developments in the case:

Abrego Garcia is a Salvadoran citizen with an American wife and child who has lived in Maryland for years. He immigrated to the U.S. illegally as a teenager to join his brother, who had become a U.S. citizen. In 2019, an immigration judge granted him protection from being deported back to his home country.

Advertisement

While he was allowed to live and work in the U.S. under Immigration and Customs Enforcement supervision, he was not given residency status. Earlier this year, he was mistakenly deported to El Salvador, despite the earlier court ruling.

When Abrego Garcia was deported in March, he was held in a notoriously brutal Salvadoran prison despite having no criminal record.

The Trump administration initially fought efforts to bring him back to the U.S. but eventually complied after the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in. He returned to the U.S. in June, only to face an arrest warrant on human smuggling charges in Tennessee. Abrego Garcia was held in a Tennessee jail for more than two months before he was released on Friday, Aug. 22, to await trial in Maryland under home detention.

His freedom lasted a weekend. On the following Monday, he reported to the Baltimore immigration office for a check-in and was immediately taken into immigration custody. Officials announced plans to deport him to a series of African countries, but they were blocked by an order from U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland.

On Thursday, after months of legal filings and hearings, Xinis ruled that Abrego Garcia should be released immediately. Her ruling hinged on what was likely a procedural error by the immigration judge who heard his case in 2019.

Advertisement

Normally, in a case like this, an immigration judge will first issue an order of removal. Then the judge will essentially freeze that order by issuing a “withholding of removal” order, according to Memphis immigration attorney Andrew Rankin.

In Abrego Garcia’s case, the judge granted withholding of removal to El Salvador because he found Abrego Garcia’s life could be in danger there. However, the judge never took the first step of issuing the order of removal. The government argued in Xinis’ court that the order of removal could be inferred, but the judge disagreed.

Without a final order of removal, Abrego Garcia can’t be deported, Xinis ruled.

The only way to get an order of removal is to go back to immigration court and ask for one, Rankin said. But reopening the immigration case is a gamble because Abrego Garcia’s attorneys would likely seek protection from deportation in the form of asylum or some other type of relief.

One wrinkle is that immigration courts are officially part of the executive branch, and the judges there are not generally viewed as being as independent as federal judges.

Advertisement

“There might be independence in some areas, but if the administration wants a certain result, by all accounts it seems they’re going to exert the pressure on the individuals to get that result,” Rankin said. “I hope he gets a fair shake, and two lawyers make arguments — somebody wins, somebody loses — instead of giving it to an immigration judge with a 95% denial rate, where everybody in the world knows how it’s gonna go down.”

Alternatively, the government could appeal Xinis’ order to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and try to get her ruling overturned, Rankin said. If the appeals court agreed with the government that the final order of removal was implied, there could be no need to reopen the immigration case.

In compliance with Xinis’ order, Abrego Garcia was released from immigration detention in Pennsylvania on Thursday evening and allowed to return home for the first time in months. However, he was also told to report to an immigration officer in Baltimore early the next morning.

Fearing that he would be detained again, his attorneys asked Xinis for a temporary restraining order. Xinis filed that order early Friday morning. It prohibits immigration officials from taking Abrego Garcia back into custody, at least for the time being. A hearing on the issue could happen as early as next week.

Meanwhile, in Tennessee, Abrego Garcia has pleaded not guilty in the criminal case where he is charged with human smuggling and conspiracy to commit human smuggling.

Advertisement

Prosecutors claim he accepted money to transport, within the United States, people who were in the country illegally. The charges stem from a 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee for speeding. Body camera footage from a Tennessee Highway Patrol officer shows a calm exchange with Abrego Garcia. There were nine passengers in the car, and the officers discussed among themselves their suspicions of smuggling. However, Abrego Garcia was eventually allowed to continue driving with only a warning.

Abrego Garcia has asked U.S. District Court Judge Waverly Crenshaw to dismiss the smuggling charges on the grounds of “selective or vindictive prosecution.”

Crenshaw earlier found “some evidence that the prosecution against him may be vindictive” and said many statements by Trump administration officials “raise cause for concern.” Crenshaw specifically cited a statement by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche on a Fox News Channel program that seemed to suggest the Justice Department charged Abrego Garcia because he won his wrongful-deportation case.

The two sides have been sparring over whether senior Justice Department officials, including Blanche, can be required to testify in the case.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Afghan CIA fighters face stark reality in the U.S. : Consider This from NPR

Published

on

Afghan CIA fighters face stark reality in the U.S. : Consider This from NPR

A makeshift memorial stands outside the Farragut West Metro station on December 01, 2025 in Washington, DC. Two West Virginia National Guard troops were shot blocks from the White House on November 26.

Heather Diehl/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Heather Diehl/Getty Images

They survived some of the Afghanistan War’s most grueling and treacherous missions. 

But once they evacuated to the U.S., many Afghan fighters who served in “Zero Units” found themselves spiraling. 

Among their ranks was Rahmanullah Lakanwal, the man charged with killing one National Guard member and seriously injuring a second after opening fire on them in Washington, D.C. on Thanksgiving Eve.

Advertisement

NPR’s Brian Mann spoke to people involved in Zero Units and learned some have struggled with mental health since coming to the U.S. At least four soldiers have died by suicide. 

For sponsor-free episodes of Consider This, sign up for Consider This+ via Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.org. Email us at considerthis@npr.org.

This episode was produced by Erika Ryan and Karen Zamora. It was edited by Alina Hartounian and Courtney Dorning.

Our executive producer is Sami Yenigun.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Video: Behind the Supreme Court’s Push to Expand Presidential Power

Published

on

Video: Behind the Supreme Court’s Push to Expand Presidential Power

new video loaded: Behind the Supreme Court’s Push to Expand Presidential Power

For more than a decade, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority has chipped away at Congress’s power to insulate independent agencies from politics. Now, the court has signaled its willingness to expand presidential power once again.

By Ann E. Marimow, Claire Hogan, Stephanie Swart and Pierre Kattar

December 12, 2025

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending