Connect with us

News

Who Paid for Trump’s Transition to Power? The Donors Are Still Unknown.

Published

on

Who Paid for Trump’s Transition to Power? The Donors Are Still Unknown.

After six weeks in office, President Trump has not disclosed the names of the donors who paid for his transition planning, despite a public pledge to do so.

Preparing to take power and fill thousands of federal jobs is a monthslong project that can cost tens of millions of dollars. Previous presidents, including Mr. Trump himself in 2017, used private contributions as well as federal money to foot the bill.

Those presidents made public the names of donors and their contributions within 30 days of taking office, as required under agreements they had signed with the departing administration.

The agreements offered the transition teams millions of dollars in federal funding and a variety of services, such as security, office space and the use of government servers, in exchange for following strict rules on fund-raising, including the disclosure obligation.

Mr. Trump’s 2024 transition team declined to sign such an agreement, stating in late November that it wanted to “save taxpayers’ hard-earned money” by forgoing federal support and financing its operations privately. At the same time, it promised that “donors to the transition will be disclosed to the public” and volunteered that it would “not accept foreign donations.” It did not state whether it would limit individual contributions to $5,000, as previous administrations had.

Advertisement

No disclosures about that financing have been made by the Trump transition, and neither it nor administration officials have given indications of a timeline for releasing that information.

Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, did not respond to requests for comment.

The leaders of the Trump transition were Howard Lutnick, now the commerce secretary, and Linda McMahon, who was confirmed Monday as the education secretary. Neither Mr. Lutnick nor Ms. McMahon responded to requests for comment.

A spokesperson for the General Services Administration, which works closely with presidential transitions, said in a statement that the “the Trump-Vance Transition Team is not required to publicly disclose transition-related donations since they did not accept the services and funds outlined in” the memorandum of understanding that the agency offered the transition last fall.

Experts on government accountability noted that without a public accounting of donors, it was exceedingly difficult to know whether individuals or corporations had tried to buy influence with the new administration behind closed doors.

Advertisement

“Transparency on the question of private interests influencing public power is really fundamental to the health of our system, and we’re seeing that break down in very big ways,” said Max Stier, the president of the Partnership for Public Service, a nonpartisan nonprofit that promotes best practices in the federal government. “They made a promise. They owe it to the public to fulfill that.”

Mr. Trump’s previous transition, after the 2016 election, had roughly 120 employees, used government office space and email servers and received $2.4 million in federal funds. In exchange, it disclosed that more than 3,000 people, companies and advocacy organizations donated $6.5 million to the effort, with those contributions capped at $5,000 apiece, as required by the G.S.A. agreement.

Far less is known about the financing of the most recent Trump transition. Operating largely out of private offices in West Palm Beach, Fla., and eschewing government servers, the transition appears to have heavily involved the billionaire Elon Musk — who spent at least $288 million to help elect Mr. Trump and now leads the so-called Department of Government Efficiency — as well as a number of other technology industry executives.

Trump Vance 2025 Transition Inc., as the transition is formally known, was registered in Florida as a “dark money” nonprofit that does not have to disclose its donors to the Internal Revenue Service. The funds cannot be used to enrich the transition’s officers, but they can be directed to support political candidates or to pay Mr. Trump’s businesses for services provided.

Mr. Trump’s post-election fund-raising was not limited to the transition. His inaugural committee, which is a separate entity, brought in more than $170 million in private donations as of early January, a record.

Advertisement

Unlike the transition, the inaugural committee is legally required to report donations to the Federal Election Commission. Although the inaugural committee has not yet filed a report with that regulator, a number of high-profile donors have revealed their contributions. Many of those entities have government contracts or are engaged in legal cases involving federal agencies.

Among them are the technology companies Amazon, Meta, Google and Microsoft, each of which donated $1 million. Kraken, a cryptocurrency exchange that was sued by the Securities and Exchange Commission in 2023, put in $1 million as well. On Monday, the S.E.C. said it was dropping the case voluntarily. Last week, it dismissed a suit against another cryptocurrency exchange, Coinbase, which also donated $1 million to Mr. Trump’s inauguration.

David A. Fahrenthold contributed reporting.

News

Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP

Published

on

Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP

The Supreme Court

Win McNamee/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Win McNamee/Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Monday intervened in New York’s redistricting process, blocking a lower court decision that would likely have flipped a Republican congressional district into a Democratic district.    
  
At issue is the midterm redrawing of New York’s 11th congressional district, including Staten Island and a small part of Brooklyn. The district is currently held by a Republican, but on Jan. 21, a state Supreme Court judge ruled that the current district dilutes the power of Black and Latino voters in violation of the state constitution.  
  
GOP Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, who represents the district, and the Republican co-chair of the state Board of Elections promptly appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to block the redrawing as an unconstitutional “racial gerrymander.” New York’s congressional election cycle was set to officially begin Feb. 24, the opening day for candidates to seek placement on the ballot.  
  
As in this year’s prior mid-decade redistricting fights — in Texas and California — the Trump administration backed the Republicans.   
 
Voters and the State of New York contended it’s too soon for the Supreme Court to wade into this dispute. New York’s highest state court has not issued a final judgment, so the voters asserted that if the Supreme Court grants relief now “future stay applicants will see little purpose in waiting for state court rulings before coming to this Court” and “be rewarded for such gamesmanship.” The state argues this is an issue for “New York courts, not federal courts” to resolve, and there is sufficient time for the dispute to be resolved on the merits. 
  
The court majority explained the decision to intervene in 101 words, which the three dissenting liberal justices  summarized as “Rules for thee, but not for me.” 
 
The unsigned majority order does not explain the Court’s rationale. It says only how long the stay will last, until the case moves through the New York State appeals courts. If, however, the losing party petitions and the court agrees to hear the challenge, the stay extends until the final opinion is announced. 
 
Dissenting from the decision were Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Writing for the three, Sotomayor  said that  if nonfinal decisions of a state trial court can be brought to highest court, “then every decision from any court is now fair game.” More immediately, she noted, “By granting these applications, the Court thrusts itself into the middle of every election-law dispute around the country, even as many States redraw their congressional maps ahead of the 2026 election.” 

Monday’s Supreme Court action deviates from the court’s hands-off pattern in these mid-term redistricting fights this year. In two previous cases — from Texas and California — the court refused to intervene, allowing newly drawn maps to stay in effect.  
  
Requests for Supreme Court intervention on redistricting issues has been a recurring theme this term, a trend that is likely to grow.  Earlier last month  the high court allowed California to use a voter-approved, Democratic-friendly map.  California’s redistricting came in response to a GOP-friendly redistricting plan in Texas that the Supreme Court also permitted to move forward. These redistricting efforts are expected to offset one another.     
   
But the high court itself has yet to rule on a challenge to Louisiana’s voting map, which was drawn by the state legislature after the decennial census in order to create a second majority-Black district.  Since the drawing of that second majority-black district, the state has backed away from that map, hoping to return to a plan that provides for only one majority-minority district.    
     
The Supreme Court’s consideration of the Louisiana case has stretched across two terms. The justices failed to resolve the case last term and chose to order a second round of arguments this term adding a new question: Does the state’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority district violate the constitution’s Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments’ guarantee of the right to vote and the authority of Congress to enforce that mandate?    
Following the addition of the new question, the state of Louisiana flipped positions to oppose the map it had just drawn and defended in court. Whether the Supreme Court follows suit remains to be seen. But the tone of the October argument suggested that the court’s conservative supermajority is likely to continue undercutting the 1965 Voting Rights Act.   

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California

Published

on

Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California

Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown.  All times on the map are Pacific time. The New York Times

A minor earthquake with a preliminary magnitude of 3.5 struck in Central California on Monday, according to the United States Geological Survey.

The temblor happened at 7:17 a.m. Pacific time about 6 miles northwest of Pinnacles, Calif., data from the agency shows.

As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.

Source: United States Geological Survey | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Monday, March 2 at 10:20 a.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Monday, March 2 at 11:18 a.m. Eastern.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

US says Kuwait accidentally shot down 3 American jets

Published

on

US says Kuwait accidentally shot down 3 American jets

The U.S. and Israel have been conducting strikes against targets in Iran since Saturday morning, with the aim of toppling Tehran’s clerical regime. Iran has fired back, with retaliatory assaults featuring missiles and drones targeting several Gulf countries and American bases in the Middle East.

“All six aircrew ejected safely, have been safely recovered, and are in stable condition. Kuwait has acknowledged this incident, and we are grateful for the efforts of the Kuwaiti defense forces and their support in this ongoing operation,” Central Command said.

“The cause of the incident is under investigation. Additional information will be released as it becomes available,” it added.

In a separate statement later Monday, Central Command said that American forces had been killed during combat since the strikes began.

“As of 7:30 am ET, March 2, four U.S. service members have been killed in action. The fourth service member, who was seriously wounded during Iran’s initial attacks, eventually succumbed to their injuries,” it said.

Advertisement

Major combat operations continue and our response effort is ongoing. The identities of the fallen are being withheld until 24 hours after next of kin notification,” Central Command added.

This story has been updated.

Continue Reading

Trending