Connect with us

Politics

Hundreds of Big Post-Election Donors Have Benefited From Trump’s Return to Office

Published

on

Hundreds of Big Post-Election Donors Have Benefited From Trump’s Return to Office

Illustration by the New York Times. Photos by Haiyun Jiang for The New York Times; Kevin Lamarque/Reuters; The White House

Advertisement

Since President Trump was elected a second time, he and his allies have raised nearly $2 billion for his favored political causes and passion projects. That total, which was confirmed by four people involved in the fund-raising, likely eclipses the amount raised to support his 2024 campaign.

The astounding haul hints at a level of transactionalism for which it is difficult to find obvious comparisons in modern American history. The identities of the donors behind much of the cash are not legally required to be, and have not been, publicly disclosed. In some cases, Mr. Trump’s team has offered donors anonymity.

To shed light on what has been a largely opaque fund-raising apparatus, The New York Times conducted a comprehensive investigation. It relied on previously unreported documents and public campaign finance filings, as well as interviews with dozens of people who are familiar with the solicitations or are involved in the fund-raising. It traced a large portion of the funds raised — more than half a billion dollars’ worth — back to 346 donors who each gave at least $250,000. It also found that more than half of them have benefited, or are involved in an industry that has benefited, from the actions or statements of Mr. Trump, the White House or federal agencies.

Advertisement

It is not possible to prove that any of the donations directly led to favorable treatment from the Trump administration. And the contributions do not personally enrich Mr. Trump, unlike some of his family’s cryptocurrency ventures.

But many of the deep-pocketed individuals and corporations who have given large sums have a lot riding on the administration’s actions, raising questions about conflicts of interest.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Each of these dots represents a person or company that has given at least $250,000 to a group or project supported by Mr. Trump since he was elected to a second term.

The president’s inaugural committee raised nearly $240 million, more than double the record, which Mr. Trump himself set in 2017. The 284 donors shown here each gave at least $250,000.

Advertisement

284 red dots are arranged into a circle on the screen.

After Mr. Trump won, the fund-raising didn’t stop for a super PAC devoted to him and run by his advisers. At least 81 donors gave $250,000 or more to MAGA Inc. It raised $200 million from Nov. 7, 2024, to June 30, 2025.

81 of the dots separate from the main group and are highlighted.

Advertisement

According to Mr. Trump, $350 million has been raised for his White House ballroom project, which is largely being processed by the Trust for the National Mall. The Times has identified pledged or completed donations from 14 ballroom donors, which amount to about $100 million.

The original group of dots re-forms and a new group of 14 dots separates and is highlighted.

Advertisement

The biggest donors to the White House Historical Association to support this year’s Easter Egg Roll, including the four shown here, were offered new types of branding opportunities and access to an event beforehand with Melania Trump, the first lady.

The original group of dots re-forms and a new group of four dots separates and is highlighted.

The president’s team has also raised money for America250, a nonprofit group that was formed to produce celebrations for the country’s semiquincentennial birthday. Eight of the donors identified by The Times sponsored this group after the 2024 election.

Advertisement

altText:The original group of dots re-forms and a new group of 8 dots separates and is highlighted.

Of the 346 donors identified by The Times, at least 197 have benefited, or are in industries that have benefited, from policies or actions of Mr. Trump or his administration. Those include pardons, favorable regulatory moves, the dropping of legal cases, access to the president and more.

Advertisement

altText:The original group of dots re-forms and a new group of 197 dots separates and is highlighted.

Hover or tap on each of the circles here to learn more about the individual and corporate donors who have given at least $250,000 to Trump-approved causes. (Dollar figures may be undercounts, since some kinds of donations do not need to be disclosed.)

The dots return to their original arrangement in a circle.

Advertisement

Presidents of both parties have raised funds for their inaugurations, and many major companies have long histories of donating to them. But second-term presidents usually begin winding down their own fund-raising after their inaugurations, focusing instead on boosting their parties’ committees and candidates.

Mr. Trump, on the other hand, was emboldened by the record-breaking sum of nearly $240 million raised by his inaugural committee. He immediately tasked his fund-raising team, led by his campaign’s finance director, Meredith O’Rourke, to raise money for an array of groups and causes supported by the president, according to three people involved in the fund-raising. They requested anonymity to discuss nonpublic information, as did five others who discussed other elements of the fund-raising.

Advertisement

It is a buffet of options that allows donors to pay tribute to Mr. Trump and sometimes receive access to him to pitch their own interests. While the groups raising funds are independent from one another, and some are nonpartisan, they are presented to donors as part of a fund-raising apparatus to which Mr. Trump or his allies would like them to give, according to four people familiar with the fund-raising. They said Mr. Trump closely tracks which companies have given, and how much, debriefing regularly with Ms. O’Rourke.

Lobbyists with connections in Mr. Trump’s orbit recommend that their clients donate to these groups to try to win him over, said five people familiar with the fund-raising.

“In this town, money talks, and that is going to give you an opportunity to at least have a seat at the table,” said Harrison Fields, a former Trump White House official who left in August and became a lobbyist. His firm, CGCN Group, has represented companies that have donated to projects Mr. Trump supports, including the new White House ballroom, America250 and MAGA Inc.

Advertisement

“These people are not getting coerced. They are making business decisions,” said Mr. Fields.

At least 51 of the donors have given to more than one of the groups in this analysis since the election.

Advertisement

While MAGA Inc., the inaugural committee and the Republican National Committee (another entity for which Trump-allied fund-raisers are soliciting money) are required to disclose their donors to the Federal Election Commission, there is no such requirement for contributions to other groups for which the president’s allies are raising funds.

Those groups include the Trust for the National Mall, America250, the White House Historical Association, a political nonprofit group called Securing American Greatness and the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, which Mr. Trump’s allies have remade in his own image, including adding his own name to the title and the building’s facade.

The Times’s investigation identified a number of donations, or potential benefits to donors, that had not been publicly known.

Advertisement

One $2.5 million contribution to MAGA Inc. was given by a South Florida woman whose father months later received an unusually lenient deal from top Justice Department officials to settle charges that he bribed Puerto Rico’s then-governor in 2020.

Another $2.5 million pledged donation — this one to Mr. Trump’s White House ballroom project — came from Parsons Corporation, an engineering firm that has won government contracts for years, including under Mr. Trump, and is jockeying for some of the more than $1 trillion in contracts that could be awarded to build a missile defense system proposed by the president called the “Golden Dome.” Also giving $2.5 million to the ballroom project was the chief executive of Roblox, a popular online video game company that has applauded a Trump executive order and other initiatives involving children’s use of artificial intelligence.

Advertisement

A couple who donated $1 million to Mr. Trump’s inaugural committee and $500,000 to MAGA Inc., as well as an undisclosed amount to the ballroom fund, saw Mr. Trump nominate their son to be U.S. ambassador to Finland.

And a company that was accused last year by the Justice Department of colluding over ticket prices donated $250,000 to Mr. Trump’s inauguration. The president pardoned the company’s co-founder in a separate case this month.

In other cases, The Times was able to quantify large donations for which the amounts were previously unknown. Those included gifts from the technology firm Palantir, which donated $10 million to the ballroom project and $5 million to America250. Additionally, the Palantir co-founder Alex Karp donated $1 million each to the inauguration and to MAGA Inc. In Mr. Trump’s second term, Palantir has secured federal contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars, including to develop software to help Immigration and Customs Enforcement deport people. But a Palantir official said in a previously unpublished response to an inquiry from Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, that the company did not seek and was not offered any special consideration for its donation to the ballroom project.

Advertisement

While a foundation funded by Miriam Adelson, a casino magnate, mostly supports Jewish and Israeli causes, it pledged to donate $25 million to the ballroom project, according to two people familiar with the donation. In a speech at a White House Hanukkah party last week, Mr. Trump praised Dr. Adelson, a physician by training, for donating tens of millions of dollars to help his campaigns and using her access to lobby for greater U.S. backing for Israel. Calling her to the lectern, Mr. Trump said, “When somebody can give you $250 million, I think that we should give her the opportunity to say hello.” The two embraced and bantered about how Dr. Adelson would be willing to donate $250 million more to help Mr. Trump seek an unconstitutional third term.

Mr. Trump’s continued fund-raising is all the more striking given his boasts during his first presidential campaign a decade ago that he was an outsider whose personal wealth made him impervious to Washington’s pay-to-play politics and the manipulation of major donors, including Dr. Adelson’s late husband.

Advertisement

Liz Huston, a White House spokeswoman, rejected the suggestion that donors were getting special treatment. She said in a statement that Mr. Trump’s “only motivation as the president of the United States is improving the lives of the American people and making our country greater than ever before.” Donors who support him “should be celebrated, not attacked,” she said.

Donors who received administration jobs, government contracts, partnerships and approvals

Advertisement

While the donations far exceed most Americans’ means, the sums pale in comparison to the contracts being sought from the Trump administration.

Take Mr. Trump’s “Golden Dome” missile defense project, which could yield lucrative work for a number of contractors. Palantir has already held discussions about being involved. Firms including Lockheed Martin and Boeing also are expected to compete for pieces of the work; each company donated $1 million to Mr. Trump’s inaugural committee. That is the same amount they gave to President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s inaugural committee.

Advertisement

But Lockheed Martin also donated $10 million to the Trust for the National Mall for Mr. Trump’s ballroom project and $5 million to America250, according to two people familiar with the sums. Lockheed is the primary maker of F-35 fighter jets, which cost about $80 million to $110 million each. While some national security officials have expressed concern about selling the jets to Saudi Arabia, Mr. Trump announced last month that he planned to approve such sales. The next day, Lockheed’s chief executive attended a black-tie dinner at the White House honoring Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia, which was also attended by executives for other defense contractors.

As for Boeing, two months after the inauguration, Mr. Trump announced that the company would be paid to build more than 180 new advanced fighter jets for the Air Force.

Advertisement

Major defense contracts can take years to develop, bid and execute, and there is no evidence that any such contracts were awarded as a direct result of donations.

Boeing’s ability to pursue federal contracts could have been hindered by criminal charges stemming from two fatal crashes of its planes during Mr. Trump’s first term. But this year, the Trump Justice Department dropped the case, entering into a settlement that required the company to improve its safety and compliance programs and pay hundreds of millions of dollars into a fund for victims.

Presidents have long awarded their campaigns’ top donors with ambassadorships, jobs and appointments to boards and commissions. Mr. Trump appears to have taken that tradition to a new level, tapping at least 32 people for an array of positions — including in his cabinet — who have donated at least $250,000 each to his causes after the election, or whose companies or families have made such donations.

Advertisement

Among them is Howard Brodie, now the U.S. ambassador to Finland. His parents, Elizabeth and Stefan Brodie, donated to the Trump inauguration, MAGA Inc. and the ballroom project after Mr. Trump’s victory in the 2024 election. The elder Brodies were invited to the White House dinner last month honoring the Saudi crown prince, and Stefan Brodie attended a dinner the month before for major donors who gave at least $2.5 million for the ballroom.

Another Trump ambassador nominee, the Miami mortgage lender Bernie Navarro, gave a little-noticed $1 million donation to the inaugural committee through an obscure company registered in Puerto Rico. Mr. Navarro, a close ally of Secretary of State Marco Rubio, said in a statement that the donation was unrelated to his interest in becoming an ambassador. “In retrospect, he is doing such an amazing job that I wish I would have done more,” Mr. Navarro said of Mr. Trump.

Advertisement

In all, more than a dozen donors have been nominated or confirmed for ambassadorships.

Advertisement

Where donors received ambassadorships

Advertisement

Donor Nominated or
confirmed ambassador to…

Warren Stephens

Gave $6 million

United Kingdom

Melissa Argyros

Advertisement

Gave $2 million

Latvia

Dan Newlin

Gave at least $1.5 million

Colombia

Howard Brodie

Parents gave at least $1.5 million

Advertisement
Finland

Benjamin León Jr.

Gave at least $1 million

Spain

Melinda Hildebrand

Gave combined $1 million together with her husband

Costa Rica

Ken Howery

Advertisement

Gave $1 million

Denmark

Tilman Fertitta

Gave $1 million

Italy

Bernie Navarro

Gave $1 million

Advertisement
Peru

Anjani Sinha

Gave $1 million

Singapore

Peter Lamelas

Gave $250,000

Argentina

Nicole McGraw

Advertisement

Gave $250,000

Croatia

John Breslow

Gave $250,000

Cyprus

Benjamin Landa

Gave $250,000

Advertisement
Hungary

Joseph Victor Popolo Jr.

Gave $250,000

Netherlands

It is not possible to definitively link donations to nominations.

Advertisement

Tommy Pigott, a spokesman for the State Department, in a statement called Mr. Trump’s ambassadors “an America first diplomatic A-team,” adding that they “were chosen to help drive forward historic wins for the American people, and they have done exactly that.”

Four of Mr. Trump’s cabinet officials made personal or corporate donations of more than $250,000.

They include Kelly Loeffler, the administrator of the Small Business Administration. She and her husband, Jeffrey C. Sprecher, the chief executive of the parent company of the New York Stock Exchange, donated a combined total of $11 million to groups Mr. Trump favors, including $1 million to the inaugural committee and $5 million to MAGA Inc., as well as previously unreported donations totaling $5 million for the ballroom, according to records and a person familiar with the fund-raising.

Advertisement

Donors who received pardons, relaxed enforcement and other relief

Advertisement

Getting a reprieve from adverse state action can be just as valuable as winning a government contract or appointment.

Extremity Care, a company that makes a pricey form of bandages known as skin substitutes, donated $5 million to MAGA Inc. An executive from the company then attended a donor dinner in March at Mar-a-Lago where he lobbied Mr. Trump, whose administration announced the next month that it would delay a Biden-era plan to limit Medicare’s coverage of the bandages. Extremity Care or one of its affiliates subsequently donated $2.5 million to the ballroom.

Advertisement

And Mr. Trump has entered into deals with a number of drug makers, including several that donated to groups he supports, to lower prices in exchange for avoiding punitive measures including threatened tariffs.

In two instances, Mr. Trump pardoned people whose companies or families made donations.

In January, amid scrutiny from the Justice Department’s antitrust division, which had identified — but not charged — the venue management company Oak View Group in a lawsuit against Ticketmaster’s parent company, Oak View donated $250,000 to Mr. Trump’s inauguration.

Advertisement

The donation did not eliminate legal exposure for Oak View’s co-founder and then-chief executive, Timothy J. Leiweke. Months later, the antitrust division charged him in an unrelated case. He stepped down as head of Oak View, and the company agreed to pay $15 million in penalties. Mr. Leiweke pleaded not guilty. But this month, before the case went to trial, Mr. Trump pardoned him.

David B. Gerger, a lawyer for Mr. Leiweke, rejected a question about whether the donation was intended to avoid legal trouble.

Advertisement

“Any such innuendo — whether coming from ill will or just ignorance — is false,” he said in a statement.

In another case, the former health care entrepreneur Elizabeth Fago, after donating $1 million to MAGA Inc., attended a donor dinner with the president. Mr. Trump pardoned her son, Paul Walczak, less than three weeks later, sparing him from having to pay nearly $4.4 million in restitution and from reporting to prison for an 18-month sentence for employment tax crimes.

Another donor with an interest in the outcome of a criminal case was Isabela Herrera, who donated $2.5 million to MAGA Inc. late last year. At the time, her father, Julio Herrera Velutini, a Venezuelan-Italian banker, was being prosecuted by the Justice Department for trying to bribe the governor of Puerto Rico.

Advertisement

Mr. Herrera hired a former personal lawyer for Mr. Trump, who alleged that the case was an example of the political weaponization of the criminal justice system. Top Justice Department officials appeared to agree, authorizing a misdemeanor plea deal to settle the case and overruling career prosecutors who had pushed for a harsher sentence.

Mr. Herrera could still face a year in prison at sentencing, which is scheduled for next month.

Advertisement

Ms. Herrera and a lawyer for Mr. Herrera declined to comment.

A Justice Department spokeswoman said “the decision to settle this case was made through the proper channels and was not influenced by any donation to MAGA Inc.”

But John D. Keller, who oversaw the Justice Department division that handled the case, said in an interview that the difference between the deal and the more than 20 years Mr. Herrera could have faced if convicted of the original charges was “striking.” Mr. Keller, who resigned in protest when he was directed by Mr. Trump’s appointees to drop another politically fraught prosecution, said the Herrera case “appears to be another example of political considerations dictating the outcome in an individual criminal case.”

Advertisement

A broader relaxation of federal scrutiny has benefited cryptocurrency companies and other corporate interests that have showered donations on Mr. Trump’s groups.

The Securities and Exchange Commission largely abandoned its hard-line approach to crypto trading platforms, ending lawsuits against Coinbase, Kraken and Ripple after the companies each donated $1 million or more to Mr. Trump’s inaugural committee, and ending an investigation into Robinhood after it donated $2 million to the committee. Coinbase and Ripple also donated to the ballroom, while Coinbase gave to America250.

Advertisement

A spokesman for the S.E.C. said that “politics have had nothing to do with S.E.C. actions” on the cases. “Decisions on these cases turn on long held publicly expressed legal and policy views,” he added.

Donors in industries that benefited from administration policies

Advertisement

In addition to specific benefits enjoyed by individual companies and people, Mr. Trump has also enacted sweeping tax cuts and taken other actions that more broadly advantage a wide range of industries, major corporations and wealthy individuals.

Last week, Mr. Trump signed an executive order to downgrade cannabis from the most restrictive category of drugs, easing some limitations and allowing for more research. It was a major victory for a burgeoning industry that has spent heavily since the election on lobbying and donations, including a $1 million donation to MAGA Inc. from American Rights and Reform PAC, a pro-cannabis political committee; and a $750,000 donation to the inaugural committee from Trulieve, a leading marijuana retailer. Kim Rivers, Trulieve’s co-founder and chief executive, urged Mr. Trump to make the move during multiple meetings with him, including a donor dinner at his New Jersey golf club in August, according to a person familiar with the event, which was first reported by the Wall Street Journal.

Advertisement

“We are really thankful for the president,” Ms. Rivers said in an interview on Thursday. “He has been consistently supportive,” she added. She declined to comment when asked if she would have been granted the presidential audiences without donating.

The crypto industry writ large has benefited from Mr. Trump’s cheerleading, as well as his championing and signing into law a bill creating the first federal rules for stablecoins, a popular form of digital currency. At least 27 companies or executives with interests in crypto gave a total of at least $58 million to groups Mr. Trump favors after the election, The Times found.

Advertisement

Mr. Trump has also favored the fossil fuel industry, directing tens of billions of dollars in incentives to companies, allowing drilling in the Alaska wilderness, and repealing environmental regulations. About two dozen companies with interests in oil, gas and coal donated at least $41 million.

Likewise, the administration has pushed regulatory changes and other executive actions that benefit Big Tech, tobacco interests, private equity firms and the defense and aerospace industry. (In all of the industries discussed here, individuals and firms may have benefited to different degrees from these actions.)

Danielle Alvarez, a spokeswoman for the R.N.C., said Mr. Trump “has governed and delivered results for every American,” citing his efforts to secure the Southern border and crack down on fentanyl trafficking, among other initiatives. She said Mr. Trump “is grateful to his donors, but unlike the politicians of the past, he isn’t bought by anyone.”

Advertisement

Donors who received invitations, access and praise

Advertisement

Since retaking office, the president has lavished his post-election donors with praise and access to himself and his inner circle. In some cases, the attention can provide a competitive business advantage. In others, it may only mean bragging rights.

At least 100 donors have attended exclusive dinners and events with Mr. Trump at the White House, accompanied him on overseas trips that include meetings with foreign dignitaries and prospective business partners — or both. About half have popped up at multiple events. Regular visitors to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue include Jensen Huang, chief executive of Nvidia; Lisa Su, chief executive of AMD; Tim Cook, chief executive of Apple; and others.

Advertisement

Mr. Trump is fond of using these presidential forums to call out friends and donors in the room.

“So many of you have been really, really generous,” Mr. Trump told donors to the ballroom project he convened at the White House for a thank-you dinner in October. He singled out defense contractor donors (representatives for Booz Allen Hamilton, Lockheed Martin and Palantir were in the room), saying the United States was “the greatest manufacturer of weapons.”

And it’s not just Mr. Trump.

Advertisement

The White House has used government platforms to praise major donors to a wider audience. At least 67 post-election donors have been positively featured, often multiple times, in official press releases, social media posts and other communications.

There is a flip side to Mr. Trump’s willingness to reward loyalty. His efforts to punish perpetrators of perceived slights have been an animating theme of his second term — and a motivating factor for at least some of the donors to his favored causes, according to three people familiar with the fund-raising.

Advertisement

They said that major donors and corporations fear incurring Mr. Trump’s wrath by not giving, or not giving as much as their rivals, and that they donate out of concern that he might publicly attack them or even use the levers of government against them. Donations, they said, serve as a form of protection — or, if things have already soured, as an olive branch.

But it’s no guarantee. For some companies that have given large sums since the election, Mr. Trump and his administration’s actions have not been exclusively helpful.

Advertisement

Pilgrim’s Pride, a massive poultry producer, donated $5 million to Mr. Trump’s inaugural committee, making it the biggest donor. Good news for the poultry industry followed: In April, the Trump administration withdrew a Biden-era proposal that would have required poultry companies to keep levels of salmonella bacteria under a certain threshold and to test for six dangerous salmonella strains.

And in June, after years of attempts, federal regulators approved a public listing on the New York Stock Exchange for JBS, the Brazilian firm that owns Pilgrim’s Pride. But then last month, Mr. Trump directed the Justice Department to investigate JBS and three other meat packing giants, accusing them of “driving up the price of beef through illicit collusion, price fixing and price manipulation.”

In another example, Mr. Trump’s relationship with Mark Zuckerberg has been a mixed bag over the years. But when Mr. Trump won last fall, Mr. Zuckerberg and Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram and other platforms, took steps that seemed designed to appease the incoming president. Meta donated $1 million to his inauguration, as did other tech companies and executives that had occasionally been crosswise with Mr. Trump, including Amazon, Google and Apple’s chief executive, Mr. Cook. The companies’ executives were given prominent places behind Mr. Trump inside the Capitol rotunda as he was sworn in.

Advertisement

Days after the inauguration, Meta announced that it had agreed to pay $22 million to Mr. Trump’s library foundation to settle a lawsuit. Google agreed to donate a similar sum for the ballroom project to settle a similar suit. (Those settlement amounts are not included in the analysis presented in this article, nor are payments to the Trump library foundation by Paramount Global and ABC News to settle separate lawsuits brought by Mr. Trump.) Meta also donated at least $2.5 million for the ballroom project, according to a person familiar with the fund-raising.

And Amazon, Meta and Google each donated at least $200,000 to the White House Historical Association to sponsor the annual Easter Egg Roll. While Meta and Google had sponsored the event during the Biden administration, top sponsors have not traditionally been expressly offered access to a pre-event brunch with the first lady as a donor perk, according to a person familiar with the event.

Advertisement

The offer came from a private event production firm on contract with the association, and not the association itself, which does not offer access to the White House or first family as an inducement for donations, according to a person familiar with previous fund-raising efforts.

Mr. Zuckerberg unsuccessfully lobbied Mr. Trump and his aides to derail a federal antitrust lawsuit against Meta. (A judge dismissed the case on its merits last month.) But the company has won other victories from the administration. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ended an investigation into Meta’s advertising for financial products in September, amidst a Trump-led push to kill the agency. And Mr. Trump this month signed an executive order to neuter state laws that limit the artificial intelligence industry — a major growth area for Meta, Google and other tech companies.

(The New York Times has sued three tech companies that are among, or whose executives are among, the donors in this analysis — Microsoft, OpenAI and Perplexity — claiming copyright infringement of news content related to A.I. systems. The companies have denied the suits’ claims.)

Advertisement

As Mr. Trump’s term moves into its second year, there are signs that the president and his allies intend to continue the fund-raising push.

MAGA Inc. has already announced dinners for donors who give $1 million or more, with Mr. Trump at his golf club in the Virginia suburbs of Washington in January and at his Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Fla., in February, according to invitations reviewed by The Times.

Advertisement

And the Donald J. Trump Presidential Library Foundation has indicated in filings that it intends to raise $950 million before the beginning of Mr. Trump’s final year in office.

If anything, the buffet of options to which donors can give appears to be expanding.

Last week, Mr. Trump announced the creation of a new initiative called Freedom 250, which will raise money from corporations and donors to fund events and projects dear to him as part of the celebration of the 250th anniversary of the country’s independence. Those include an arch overlooking Washington in the style of the Arc de Triomphe in Paris, a National Garden of American Heroes, a prayer event on the National Mall and a four-day competition for high school athletes.

Advertisement

Freedom 250 will be housed inside the National Park Foundation, a nonpartisan nonprofit group. Last month, at the behest of the Trump administration, the foundation quietly added to its board Ms. O’Rourke, who will raise money for Freedom 250, and Chris LaCivita, who helped run Mr. Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign.

Ms. O’Rourke did not respond to a request for comment. Mr. LaCivita declined to comment.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Methodology

The Times created a database of every person, company and organization that Federal Election Commission filings indicated had donated at least $250,000 to the inaugural committee or MAGA Inc. after the 2024 election. After establishing this initial universe, The Times, through interviews and other reporting, expanded the database to include donors to Trump-supported groups and projects that — unlike the inaugural committee and MAGA Inc. — are not required to disclose their donors, including the White House ballroom project, the White House Easter Egg Roll and America250.

Reporters combed through documents and interviewed dozens of people to determine the donors behind each contribution (some of their identities were obscured in public filings by corporate structures), as well whether and how each donor may have benefited from actions by Mr. Trump or his administration. This involved reviewing lobbying disclosures; campaign finance and corporate filings; Securities and Exchange Commission reports; agency memos; government contracting databases; corporate and government press releases; White House pool reports; social media posts; transcripts, photographs and video from White House events; and other documents. The Times reached out to everyone identified as having benefited from actions by Mr. Trump or his administration. Some people and companies did not respond or declined to comment. Others said they did not benefit from the administration’s actions. And others did not dispute the characterization.

Advertisement

In some cases, companies had existing contractor relationships with the federal government; this analysis included new contracts and renewals only, not those awarded in previous administrations.

Politics

House Republicans push Johnson to go to war with Senate over SAVE Act

Published

on

House Republicans push Johnson to go to war with Senate over SAVE Act

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Several House Republicans are pushing Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., to go to war with the Senate GOP over an election security bill that has little chance of passing the upper chamber under current circumstances.

House GOP leaders convened a lawmaker-only call on Sunday in the wake of a massive military operation against Iran launched by the U.S. and Israel.

After leaders briefed House Republicans on how the chamber would respond to the ongoing conflict — including a vote on ending Democrats’ weeks-long government shutdown targeting the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) — Fox News Digital was told that several lawmakers raised concerns about the Senate not yet taking up the Safeguarding American Voter Eligiblity (SAVE America) Act. Among other provisions, the act would require voters in federal elections to produce valid ID and proof of citizenship.

Rep. Derrick Van Orden, R-Wis., was among those pushing the House to reject any bills from the Senate until the measure was taken up, telling Johnson according to multiple sources on the call, “If we don’t get this done, or at least show that we’ve got some backbone, we’re done. The midterms are over.”

Advertisement

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., pauses for questions from reporters as he arrives for an early closed-door Republican Conference meeting at the Capitol in Washington, Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2026. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo)

At least three other House Republicans shared similar concerns. Sources on the call said Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, argued that GOP voters were “not enthused” heading into November and that “the single biggest thing” to turn that around would be forcing the Senate to pass the SAVE America Act.

The SAVE America Act passed the House last month with support from all Republicans and just one Democrat, Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas.

JEFFRIES ACCUSES REPUBLICANS OF ‘VOTER SUPPRESSION’ OVER BILL REQUIRING VOTER ID, PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP

Republicans have pointed out on multiple occasions that voter ID measures have bipartisan support across multiple public polls and surveys. But Democrats have dismissed the legislation as an attempt at voter suppression ahead of the 2026 midterms.

Advertisement

 Senate Majority Leader John Thune speaks at a press conference with other members of Senate Republican leadership following a policy luncheon in Washington, D.C. on Oct. 28, 2025. (Nathan Posner/Anadolu via Getty Images)

The legislation would require 60 votes in the Senate to break filibuster, which it’s likely not to get given Democrats’ near-uniform opposition. But House Republicans have pressured Senate Majority Leader John Thune to use a mechanism known as a standing filibuster to circumvent that — which Thune has signaled opposition to, given the vast amount of time it would take up in the Senate and potential unintended consequences in the amendment process.

It also comes as Congress grapples with the fallout from the strikes on Iran and the need to ensure safety for the U.S. domestically and for service members abroad, both of which will require close coordination between the two chambers.

Johnson told Republicans several times on the Sunday call that he was privately pressuring Thune on the bill but was wary of creating a public rift with his fellow GOP leader, sources said.

HARDLINE CONSERVATIVES DOUBLE DOWN TO SAVE THE SAVE ACT

Advertisement

“If we’re going to go to war against our own party in the Senate, there may be implications to that,” Johnson said at one point, according to people on the call. “So we want to be thoughtful and careful.”

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, talks with a guest during a “Only Citizens Vote Bus Tour” rally in Upper Senate Park to urge Congress to pass the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act on Wednesday, Sept. 10, 2025. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

At another point in the call, sources said Rep. Andrew Clyde, R-Ga., suggested pairing a coming vote on DHS funding with the SAVE America Act in order to force the Senate to take it up.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

But both Johnson and House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Andrew Garbarino, R-N.Y., were hesitant about such a move given the enhanced threat environment in the wake of the U.S. operation in Iran.

Advertisement

Both spoke out in favor of the SAVE America Act, people told Fox News Digital, but warned the current situation merited leaving the DHS funding bill on its own in a bid to end the partial shutdown, so the department could fully function as a national security shield.

Related Article

Sen Lee dares Democrats to revive talking filibuster over SAVE Act, slamming criticism as ‘paranoid fantasy'
Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Trump justifies Iran attack as Congress and others raise objections

Published

on

Trump justifies Iran attack as Congress and others raise objections

According to President Trump, the United States attacked Iran because the Islamic Republic posed “imminent threats” to the U.S. and its allies, including through its use of terrorist proxies and continued pursuit of nuclear weapons.

“Its menacing activities directly endanger the United States, our troops, our bases overseas and our allies throughout the world,” he said in a recorded statement Saturday.

According to leading Democrats in Congress, Trump’s justification is questionable, especially given his claims of having “completely obliterated” Iran’s nuclear capabilities in separate U.S. bombings last June.

“Everything I have heard from the administration before and after these strikes on Iran confirms this is a war of choice with no strategic endgame,” said Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee and part of a small group of congressional leaders — the Gang of Eight — who were briefed on the operation by Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

That divide is bound to remain an issue politically heading into this year’s midterm elections, and could be a liability for Republicans — especially considering that some in the “America First” wing of the MAGA base were raising their own objections, citing Trump’s 2024 campaign pledges to extricate the U.S. from foreign wars, not start new ones.

Advertisement

The debate echoed a similar if less immediate one around President George W. Bush’s decision to go to war in Iraq following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, also based on claims that “weapons of mass destruction” posed an immediate threat. Those claims were later disproved by multiple findings that Iraq had no such arsenal, fueling recriminations from both political parties for years.

The latest divide also intensified unease over Congress ceding its wartime powers to the White House, which for years has assumed sweeping authority to attack foreign adversaries without direct congressional input in the name of addressing terrorism or preventing immediate harm to the nation or its troops.

Even prior to the weekend bombings, Democrats including Sen. Adam Schiff of California were pushing Congress to pass a resolution barring the Trump administration from attacking Iran without explicit congressional authorization.

“President Trump must come to Congress before using military force unless absolutely necessary to defend the United States from an imminent attack,” Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), a member of the armed services and foreign relations committees, said in a statement Thursday.

In justifying the daylight strikes that killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei just two days later, Trump accused the Iranian government of having “waged an unending campaign of bloodshed and mass murder” for nearly half a century — including through attacks on U.S. military assets and commercial shipping vessels abroad — and of having “armed, trained and funded terrorist militias” in multiple countries, including Hezbollah and Hamas.

Advertisement

Trump said that after the U.S. bombed Iran last summer, it had warned Tehran “never to resume” its pursuit of nuclear weapons. “Instead, they attempted to rebuild their nuclear program and to continue developing long-range missiles that can now threaten our very good friends and allies in Europe, our troops stationed overseas, and could soon reach the American homeland,” he said.

Other Republican leaders largely backed the president.

“The United States did not start this conflict, but we will finish it. If you kill or threaten Americans anywhere in the world — as Iran has — then we will hunt you down, and we will kill you,” said Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

“Every president has talked about the threat posed by the Iranian regime. President Trump is the one with the courage to take bold, decisive action,” said Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi.

While Iran’s coordination with and sponsorship of groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas are well known, Trump’s claims about Tehran’s ongoing development of nuclear weapons systems are less established — and the administration has provided little evidence to back them up.

Advertisement

Democrats seized on that lack of fresh intelligence in their responses to the attacks, contrasting Trump’s latest statements about imminent threats with his assertion after last year’s bombings that the U.S. had all but eliminated Iran’s nuclear aspirations.

“Let’s be clear: The Iranian regime is horrible. But I have seen no imminent threat to the United States that would justify putting American troops in harm’s way,” said Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and a member of the Gang of Eight. “What is the motivation here? Is it Iran’s nuclear program? Their missiles? Regime change?”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a statement that the Trump administration “has not provided Congress and the American people with critical details about the scope and immediacy of the threat,” and must do so.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said the Trump administration needs congressional authority to wage such attacks barring “exigent circumstances,” and didn’t have it.

“The Trump administration must explain itself to the American people and Congress immediately, provide an ironclad justification for this act of war, clearly define the national security objective and articulate a plan to avoid another costly, prolonged military quagmire in the Middle East,” he said.

Advertisement

After the U.S. military announced Sunday that three U.S. service personnel were killed and five others seriously wounded in the attacks, the demands for a clearer justification and new constraints on Trump only increased.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) said Sunday he is optimistic that Democrats will be unified in trying to pass the war powers resolution, and also that some Republicans will join them, given that the strikes have been unpopular among a portion of the MAGA base.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who partnered with Khanna to force the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files, has said he will work with him again to push a congressional vote on war with Iran, which he said was “not ‘America First.’”

Benjamin Radd, a political scientist and senior fellow at the UCLA Burkle Center for International Relations, said that whether or not Iran represented an “imminent” threat to the U.S. depends not just on its nuclear capabilities, but on its broader desire and ability to inflict pain on the U.S. and its allies — as was made clear to both the U.S. and Israel after the Hamas attacks on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, which Iran praised.

“If you are Israel or the United States, that’s imminent,” he said.

Advertisement

What happens next, Radd said, will largely depend on whether remaining Iranian leaders stick to Khamenei’s hard-line policies, or decide to negotiate anew with the U.S. He expects they might do the latter, because “it’s a fundamentalist regime, it’s not a suicidal regime,” and it’s now clear that the U.S. and Israel have the capabilities to take out Iranian leaders, Iran has little ability to defend itself, and China and Russia are not rushing to its aid.

How the strikes are viewed moving forward may also depend on what those leaders decide to do next, said Kevan Harris, an associate professor of sociology who teaches courses on Iran and Middle East politics at the UCLA International Institute.

If the conflict remains relatively contained, it could become a political win for Trump, with questions about the justification falling away. But if it spirals out of control, such questions are likely to only grow, as occurred in Iraq when things started to deteriorate there, he said.

Israel and the U.S. are betting that the conflict will remain manageable, which could turn out to be true, Harris said, but “the problem with war is you never really know what might happen.”

On Sunday, Iran launched retaliatory attacks on Israel and the wider Gulf region. Trump said the campaign against Iran continued “unabated,” though he may be willing to negotiate with the nation’s new leaders. It was unclear when Congress might take up the war powers measure.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Video: Trump’s War of Choice With Iran

Published

on

Video: Trump’s War of Choice With Iran

new video loaded: Trump’s War of Choice With Iran

Our national security correspondent David E. Sanger examines the war of choice that President Trump has initiated with Iran.

By David E. Sanger, Gilad Thaler, Thomas Vollkommer and Laura Salaberry

March 1, 2026

Continue Reading

Trending