Politics
Hundreds of Big Post-Election Donors Have Benefited From Trump’s Return to Office
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Hover to see donor details
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.
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.
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.
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.
In all, more than a dozen donors have been nominated or confirmed for ambassadorships.
Where donors received ambassadorships
Warren Stephens
Gave $6 million
Melissa Argyros Gave $2 million
Dan Newlin
Gave at least $1.5 million
Howard Brodie
Parents gave at least $1.5 million Benjamin León Jr.
Gave at least $1 million
Melinda Hildebrand
Gave combined $1 million together with her husband
Ken Howery Gave $1 million
Tilman Fertitta
Gave $1 million
Bernie Navarro
Gave $1 million Anjani Sinha
Gave $1 million
Peter Lamelas
Gave $250,000
Nicole McGraw Gave $250,000
John Breslow
Gave $250,000
Benjamin Landa
Gave $250,000 Joseph Victor Popolo Jr.
Gave $250,000
Donor
Nominated or
confirmed ambassador to…
United Kingdom
Latvia
Colombia
Finland
Spain
Costa Rica
Denmark
Italy
Peru
Singapore
Argentina
Croatia
Cyprus
Hungary
Netherlands
It is not possible to definitively link donations to nominations.
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.
Donors who received pardons, relaxed enforcement and other relief
Hover to see donor details
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.”
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.
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
Hover to see donor details
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.
“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.
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.”
Donors who received invitations, access and praise
Hover to see donor details
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Rubio targets Nicaraguan official over alleged torture tied to ‘brutal’ Ortega regime
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced Saturday that the Trump administration is sanctioning a senior Nicaraguan official over alleged human rights violations.
Rubio said the U.S. is designating Vice Minister of the Interior Luis Roberto Cañas Novoa for his role in “gross violations of human rights” under the government of President Daniel Ortega and Vice President Rosario Murillo, marking what he said was the latest effort to hold the regime accountable.
“The Trump administration continues to hold the Murillo-Ortega dictatorship accountable for brutal human rights violations against Nicaraguans,” Rubio said in a post on X. “I’m designating Nicaraguan Vice Minister of the Interior Luis Roberto Cañas Novoa for his role in human rights violations.”
RUBIO TESTIFIES IN TRIAL OF EX-FLORIDA CONGRESSMAN ALLEGEDLY HIRED BY MADURO GOVERNMENT TO LOBBY FOR VENEZUELA
Secretary of State Marco Rubio speaks at the State Department, April 14, 2026. The U.S. announced sanctions on a Nicaraguan official tied to alleged human rights abuses under the Ortega-Murillo government. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
The designation was made under Section 7031(c), which allows the State Department to bar foreign officials and their immediate family members from entering the United States due to involvement in significant corruption or human rights abuses.
The State Department has said the Ortega-Murillo government has engaged in arbitrary arrests, torture and extrajudicial killings following mass protests that began in April 2018.
“Nearly eight years ago, the Rosario Murillo and Daniel Ortega dictatorship unleashed a brutal wave of repression against Nicaraguans who courageously stood against the regime’s increased tyranny, corruption, and abuse,” the statement reads.
The State Department said that the sanction marked the anniversary of the 2018 protests, after which more than 325 protesters were murdered in the aftermath.
A panel of U.N.-backed human rights experts previously accused Nicaragua’s government of systematic abuses “tantamount to crimes against humanity,” following an investigation into the country’s crackdown on political dissent, according to The Associated Press.
The experts said the repression intensified after mass protests in 2018 and has since expanded across large parts of society, targeting perceived opponents of the government.
TRUMP ADMIN ANNOUNCES EXPANSION OF VISA RESTRICTION POLICY IN WESTERN HEMISPHERE
Nicaragua President Daniel Ortega delivers a speech during a ceremony to mark the 199th Independence Day anniversary, in Managua, Nicaragua Sept. 15, 2020. (Nicaragua’s Presidency/Cesar Perez/Handout via Reuters)
Nicaragua’s government has rejected those findings.
The designation follows a series of recent U.S. actions targeting the Ortega-Murillo government. In February, the State Department sanctioned five senior Nicaraguan officials tied to repression, citing arbitrary detention, torture, killings and the targeting of clergy, media and civil society.
Earlier this week, the department also announced sanctions on individuals and companies linked to Nicaragua’s gold sector, including two of Ortega and Murillo’s sons, accusing the regime of using the industry to generate foreign currency, launder assets and consolidate power within the ruling family.
The State Department said the move is part of ongoing efforts to hold the Nicaraguan government accountable for its actions.
Fox News Digital reached out to the Nicaraguan government and its embassy in Washington for comment but did not immediately receive a response.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
A man waves a Nicaraguan flag during a demonstration to commemorate Nicaragua’s national Day of Peace, which is celebrated in the country on April 19, and to protest against the government of Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega in San Jose, Costa Rica on April 16, 2023. (Jose Cordero/AFP)
The Trump administration has taken an increasingly aggressive posture in the Western Hemisphere in recent months, including a Jan. 3, 2026, operation that resulted in the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores.
The U.S. has also carried out a series of strikes targeting suspected drug-trafficking vessels in the region, part of a broader crackdown tied to regional security and narcotics enforcement efforts.
Politics
Outlines of a deal emerge with major concessions to Iran
WASHINGTON — Upbeat claims from President Trump over an imminent peace deal to end the war with Iran were met with deep skepticism Friday across the Middle East, where Iranian and Israeli officials questioned the prospects for a lasting agreement that would satisfy all parties.
The outlines of an agreement began to emerge that would provide Iran with a major strategic victory — and a potential financial windfall — allowing the Islamic Republic to leverage its control over the Strait of Hormuz to exact significant concessions from the United States and its ally Israel as Trump presses for a swift end to the conflict.
In a series of social media posts and interviews with reporters, Trump announced that the strait was “fully open,” vowing Tehran would never again attempt to control it. But Iranian officials and state media said that conditions remained on passage through the waterway, including the imposition of tolls and coordination with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
Iranian diplomats posted threats that its closure could resume at any time of their choosing, and warned that restrictions would return unless the United States agreed to lift a blockade of its ports. Trump had said Friday that the blockade would remain in place.
“The conditional and limited reopening of a portion of the Strait of Hormuz is solely an Iranian initiative, one that creates responsibility and serves to test the firm commitments of the opposing side,” said a top aide to Iran’s president, dismissing Trump’s statements on the contours of a deal as “baseless.”
“If they renege on their promises,” he added, “they will face dire consequences.”
In an overture to Iran, Trump said Israel would be “prohibited” from conducting additional military strikes in Lebanon, where the Israeli government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seeks to prevent Hezbollah, an Iranian proxy militia, from rearming, a potential threat to communities in the Israeli north.
But in a speech delivered in Hebrew, Netanyahu would say only that Israel had agreed to a temporary ceasefire, while members of his Cabinet warned that Israel Defense Forces operations in southern Lebanon were not yet finished. A top ally of the prime minister at a right-wing Israeli news outlet warned that Trump was “surrendering” to Iran in the talks.
It was a day of public messaging from a president eager to end a war that has proved historically unpopular with the American public, and has driven a rise in gas prices that could weigh on his party entering this year’s midterm elections.
Yet, Republican allies of the president have begun warning him that an agreement skewed heavily in Tehran’s favor could carry political costs of its own.
Trump was forced to deny an Axios report Friday that his negotiating team had offered to release $20 billion in frozen Iranian assets in exchange for Tehran agreeing to hand over its fissile material, buried under rubble from a U.S. bombing raid last year.
That sum would amount to more than 10 times what President Obama released to Iran under a 2015 nuclear deal, called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, that was the subject of fierce Republican criticism in the decade since.
“I have every confidence that President Trump will not allow Iran to be enriched by tens of billions of dollars for holding the world hostage and creating mayhem in the region,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a strong supporter of the war. “No JCPOAs on President Trump’s watch.”
Still, Trump said in a round of interviews that a deal could be reached in a matter of days, ending less than two weeks of negotiations.
He claimed that Tehran had agreed to permanently end its enrichment of uranium — a development that, if true, would mark a dramatic reversal for the Islamic Republic from decades developing its nuclear program, and from just 10 days ago, when Iranian diplomats rejected a U.S. proposal of a 20-year pause on domestic enrichment in favor of a five-year moratorium.
He said Iran had agreed never to build nuclear weapons — a pledge Tehran has made repeatedly, including under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, in a religious decree from then-Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and in the 2015 agreement — while continuing nuclear activities viewed by the international community as exceeding civilian needs.
And he repeatedly stated that Iran had agreed to the removal of its enriched uranium from the country, either to the United States or to a third party. Iranian state media stated Friday afternoon that a proposal to remove the country’s highly enriched uranium had been “rejected.”
Iran’s agreement to allow safe passage for commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz is linked to a ceasefire in Lebanon that the Israeli Cabinet approved for only a 10-day period. Regardless of whether it holds or is extended, Israeli officials said their military would not retreat from its current positions in southern Lebanon — opening up Israeli forces to potential attack by Hezbollah militants unbound by a truce brokered by the Lebanese government.
The Lebanese people, Hezbollah officials said, have “the right to resist” Israeli occupation of their land. Whether the fighting resumes, the group added, “will be determined based on how developments unfold.”
An Iranian official threw cold water on the prospects of reaching a comprehensive peace deal in the coming days, telling Reuters that a temporary extension of the current ceasefire, set to expire Tuesday, would “create space for more talks on lifting sanctions on Iran and securing compensation for war damages.”
“In exchange, Iran will provide assurances to the international community about the peaceful nature of its nuclear program,” the official said, adding that “any other narrative about the ongoing talks is a misrepresentation of the situation.”
Trump told reporters Friday that the talks will continue through the weekend.
While Trump claimed there aren’t “too many significant differences” remaining, he said the United States would continue the blockade until negotiations are finalized and formalized.
“When the agreement is signed, the blockade ends,” the president told reporters in Phoenix.
Times staff writer Ana Ceballos contributed to this report.
Politics
Read the Supreme Court’s Shadow Papers
CHAMBERS OF
JUSTICE ELENA KAGAN
Supreme Court of the United States Washington, D. C. 20343
February 7, 2016
Memorandum to the Conference
Re: 15A773 West Virginia, et al. v. EPA, et al.
15A776 Basin Elec. Power Cooperative, et al. v. EPA, et al. 15A787 Chamber of Commerce, et al. v. EPA, et al.
15A778 Murray Energy Corp., et al. v. EPA, et al.
-
15A793 North Dakota v. EPA, et al.
I agree with Steve that we should direct the States to seek an extension from the EPA before asking this Court to intervene. We could also include, at the end of such an order, language along the lines of the following, to encourage the D. C. Circuit to act expeditiously in its resolution of this matter: “In light of that court’s agreement to consider this case on an expedited schedule, we are confident that it will [or even: we urge it to] render a decision with appropriate dispatch.” See Doe v. Gonzales, 546 U. S. 1301, 1308 (2005) (GINSBURG, J., in chambers); Kemp v. Smith, 463 U. S. 1344, 1345 (1983) (Powell, J., in chambers); Holtzman v. Schlesinger, 414 U. S. 1304, 1305, n. 2 (1973) (Marshall, J., in chambers).
The unique nature of the relief sought in these applications gives me real pause. The applicants ask us to enjoin a regulation pending initial review in the court of appeals. As we often say, “we are a court of review, not of first view.” See Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U. S. 709, 718 n. 7 (2005); cf. Doe, 546 U. S., at 1308 (“Re- spect for the assessment of the Court of Appeals is especially warranted when that court is proceeding to adjudication on the merits with due expedition.”). As far as I can tell, it would be unprecedented for us to second-guess the D. C. Circuit’s deci sion that a stay is not warranted, without the benefit of full briefing or a prior judi- cial decision.
On the merits, this is a difficult case involving a complex statutory and regu- latory regime. Although the parties’ abbreviated discussion of the issues at stake here makes it difficult for me to determine with any confidence which side is likely to ultimately prevail, it seems to me that at this stage the government has the bet- ter of the arguments. The Chief’s memo focuses on the applicants’ argument that the “best system of emission reduction” refers “solely [to] installation of control technologies (e.g., scrubbers).” 2/5 Memo, at 2. The ordinary meaning of “system” is in fact quite broad, appearing to encompass what EPA has done here. Of course, we would want to consider this term in the larger context of the Clean Air Act’s regula-
-
Minnesota2 minutes agoBoldy, Eriksson Ek help Wild cruise past Stars in Game 1 of Western 1st Round | NHL.com
-
Mississippi8 minutes agoGeorge County High School senior killed in Highway 26 crash, MHP says
-
Missouri14 minutes ago
Missouri Lottery Powerball, Pick 3 winning numbers for April 18, 2026
-
Montana20 minutes ago
Montana Lottery Powerball, Lotto America results for April 18, 2026
-
Nebraska26 minutes agoGallery: Huskers Run-Rule No. 12 USC to Take Series
-
Nevada32 minutes agoIN RESPONSE: Cortez Masto lands bill would keep the proceeds in Nevada
-
New Hampshire38 minutes agoNew Hampshire grapples with nuclear waste storage – Valley News
-
New Jersey44 minutes agoNearby shooting interrupts 13-year-old’s birthday party in Paterson; 1 killed, 3 injured