Report Flags Potential Conflicts in $2B Raised for Trump’s Pet Projects

A new report details how allies of President Donald Trump have raised around $2 billion to fund some of his favorite projects, raising questions about conflicts of interest as hundreds of those donors have also benefited from actions by the Trump administration.

The report from The New York Times does not directly state that the donations are part of a pay-to-play scheme; however, several commentators and government watchdog groups have noted that they could be just that, especially since there is a lack of transparency regarding the gifts and how the donors have benefited from the administration’s policies.

The publication was unable to unearth all of the donors’ records, as the administration has at times offered anonymity to donors, and these types of donations aren’t legally required to be made public.

Still, the records that the Times did uncover are enough to raise alarm.

More than half a billion dollars have been raised among 346 donors identified by the paper, with each of those donors giving at least $250,000 each. According to the report, more than half of those donors (56 percent) “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.”

Some of the projects funded by the donations include Trump’s inauguration fund, the America250 project (a nonprofit that aims to celebrate the country’s 250th birthday), the annual White House Easter Egg Roll, and Trump’s White House ballroom construction. Past reports have also indicated that donors to these projects have collectively benefited from the administration’s actions to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars.

It’s not unusual for presidents to raise sums of money for such projects. However, Trump is doing so at a much higher rate than others, and it’s typical for a second-term president to slow down their fundraising.

The Times article noted numerous examples of companies donating to Trump’s favorite projects and later receiving positive outcomes from the administration. For instance, military contractor Lockheed Martin gave at least $1 million to Trump’s inaugural committee, a gift that is not unusual. (They gave around the same sum to former President Joe Biden’s inauguration.) But the corporation also gave $10 million to Trump’s ballroom project, and another $5 million to America250.

Last month, the Trump administration announced that it would approve sales of military jets from Lockheed Martin to Saudi Arabia, a move that some questioned over national security concerns.

Trump’s pardons and commutations have also received scrutiny. While the bulk of his pardons have focused on political allies (including hundreds of participants in the January 6 Capitol attack and individuals who led efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election), others have seen commutations following donations to Trump on their behalf.

A pardon for Changpeng “CZ” Zhao, a Bitcoin mogul, came after the company he founded, Binance, struck a multi-billion dollar deal with the Trump-family-owned World Liberty Financial. (Shortly after the pardon, Trump said he didn’t know who Zhao was.)

Trump also pardoned reality TV stars Julie and Todd Chrisley, after their family members donated to his election campaign and launched a campaign of their own, praising the then-GOP candidate for president and asking him to commute their sentences for bank fraud and tax evasion charges.

Following the new report from The New York Times, several critics spoke out against the Trump administration, alleging that the donations (and the actions taken by the White House) could be unethical.

“President Trump’s second term is filled with pay-to-play politics, blatant conflicts of interest, and worse. … Trump is allowing many of these donors to remain anonymous, keeping the public completely in the dark,” Rep. Mike Levin (D-California) wrote on social media, adding that he viewed the situation as “corruption on a historic scale.”

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-California) agreed. “This is corruption in plain sight,” he said.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) also spoke out against the administration’s actions, writing in a Bluesky post that cited the Times article that “The majority of donors contributing large sums also have a lot riding on the administration’s actions,” and that the donations and subsequent policy moves “suggest[ed] massive levels of transactionalism.”