Contribution

Proposition 50 would shift the state’s congressional district lines to favor Democrats. It is Gov, Gavin Newsom’s response to a similar effort in Texas designed to put more Republicans in Congress. The new district lines would override those created by the state’s nonpartisan, independent redistricting commission.

Supporters include Democratic politicians and party organizations and labor unions. Newsom has said that this is a needed step to counter President Trump and to protect Californians. Republicans oppose the measure, arguing that partisan maps would take the state backward.

Overall fundraising

The Times is tracking contributions to one committee supporting Proposition 50 and two committees opposing the measure. Many committees have contributed to these main committees.

How money has flowed in over time

Since the proposal was announced in August, donations supporting the measure have poured in.

Biggest supporters

The Times is tracking contributions to the main fundraising committee supporting Proposition 50, which is controlled by Newsom. George Soros’ Fund for Policy Reform is the top donor with $10 million. House Majority PAC, the second-largest donor, aims to elect Democrats to the U.S. House of Representatives. Labor unions are also major supporters.

The measure has received support from several business executive and philanthropist donors, including Michael Moritz, Gwendolyn Sontheim and Reed Hastings.

Almost 150,000 individuals gave $100 or more. More than $11 million, about 14% of the total raised, came from small-dollar contributors, or those who gave less than $100.

Biggest opposition

The Times is also tracking contributions to two main opposition committees. Most of the money to these groups has come from extremely large contributions from a handful of donors.

Charles Munger, Jr., son of the former Berkshire Hathaway vice chairman, contributed more than $32 million to the Hold Politicians Accountable PAC.

Small-dollar contributions have made up $7,500 of the total raised.

The Congressional Leadership Fund has given $5 million to the Stop Sacramento’s Power Grab committee.

Faced with the current turbulent international situation, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) countries have deepened security cooperation and implemented global security initiatives. There’s a huge role for China in promoting security cooperation and safeguarding regional peace and tranquility, as China’s presidency of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in 2025 will be a pivotal moment for promoting sustainable development, as preparations for the upcoming Tianjin Summit in China prepare for the upcoming summit. Leaders of more than 20 countries and international organizations will convene to discuss security, economic, and cultural cooperation issues, coinciding with the 80th anniversary of China’s victory over fascist Japan in World War II.

 At the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) Summit, China adopts the principle of consensus, ensuring that the interests of all members are taken into account, creating an environment for civilized dialogue and cooperation among countries with diverse political systems and cultures.

 By chairing the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit this year, China calls for strict adherence to the norms and principles of international law and the UN Charter regarding the inadmissibility of the use of force in international relations and the infringement of sovereignty and territorial integrity. Through the organization, China is committed to resolving disputes between countries peacefully through dialogue and consultation.

Here, China rejects all Western and American claims that the Shanghai Cooperation Organization is a military-political bloc. Rather, it is a peaceful bloc that enjoys consensus among its members.

Ensuring peace, security, and stability is a priority for China during its 2025 Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) presidency. This issue will receive significant attention at the Tianjin Summit, and the outcomes of the discussions will be reflected in the Tianjin Declaration, the SCO Development Strategy up to 2035, and relevant leaders’ decisions.

China calls on all SCO member states to commit themselves to combating the “three evil forces” of terrorism, separatism, and extremism, as well as drug trafficking, transnational organized crime, and other destructive phenomena.

China’s celebration of the 80th anniversary of its victory in World War II against Japan’s fascist militarist empire carries profound significance, especially as China has directed several heads of state participating in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) Summit to attend the military parade in Beijing on September 3, 2025, to commemorate China’s victory over Japan. China is also keen to issue a statement during the summit affirming its commitment, along with member states, to promoting world peace and supporting the United Nations.

Since assuming the rotating chairmanship of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in July 2024, China has adhered to the theme of “Promoting the Shanghai Spirit: The SCO in Action,” steadily strengthening its chairmanship efforts and achieving positive progress and results. China has carried out more than 100 chairmanship activities covering a wide range of fields, including politics, security, military, economy, trade, investment, energy, education, communication, scientific and technological innovation, green industries, the digital economy, and people-to-people exchanges. These activities have helped SCO countries enhance solidarity and mutual trust, foster learning and mutual benefit, and achieve win-win outcomes.

China, along with all member states, is promoting reform and innovation in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization’s mechanisms, cooperation models, and permanent institutions, ensuring the smooth and efficient functioning of the organization. The parties are accelerating discussions on establishing a comprehensive center to address security threats and challenges, an information security center, a center to combat transnational organized crime, and a center to combat drugs, with the aim of strengthening cooperation in law enforcement and security and establishing a new framework for regional security cooperation.

During its chairmanship of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), China has strongly expressed its positions on major international and regional issues, upheld the multilateral trading system, strongly condemned the use of force, and issued a strong message of fairness and justice. China has actively participated in exchanges and dialogues with political parties, media outlets, and think tanks in its member states, contributing to the consolidation of the “Shanghai Spirit” and bringing the “SCO family closer.”

  From this, we understand that the measures China will announce during the 2025 Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) Summit in Tianjin will transform the organization into a more interconnected community with a shared future and enhance security and cooperation initiatives. Through these measures, China will present a civilized model of cooperation based on mutual respect and partnership as an alternative to the conflict and unilateralism led by the United States and its allies around the world.

WASHINGTON — When Bill Pulte was nominated as the country’s top housing regulator, he told senators that his “number one mission will be to strengthen and safeguard the housing finance system.”

But since he started the job, he’s distinguished himself by targeting President Trump ‘s political enemies. He’s using property records to make accusations of mortgage fraud and encourage criminal investigations, wielding an obscure position to serve as a presidential enforcer.

This week, Trump used allegations publicized by Pulte in an attempt to fire Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve board, as he tries to exert more control over the traditionally independent central bank.

Pulte claims that Cook designated two homes as her primary residence to get more favorable mortgage rates. Cook plans to fight her removal, laying the groundwork for a legal battle that could reshape a cornerstone institution in the American economy.

Trump said Tuesday that Cook “seems to have had an infraction, and you can’t have an infraction,” adding that he has “some very good people” in mind to replace her.

Pulte has cheered on the president’s campaign with a Trumpian flourish.

“Fraud will not be tolerated in President Trump’s housing market,” he wrote on social media. “Thank you for your attention to this matter.”

Pulte targets Democrats but not Republicans

Pulte, 37, is a housing industry scion whose official job is director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. He oversees mortgage buyers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were placed in conservatorship during the Great Recession almost two decades ago.

Like other political appointees, he routinely lavishes praise on his boss.

“President Trump is the greatest,” he posted over the weekend.

Pulte has made additional allegations of mortgage fraud against Sen. Adam Schiff, one of Trump’s top antagonists on Capitol Hill, and New York Attorney General Letitia James, who filed lawsuits against Trump. Those cases are being pursued by Ed Martin, a Justice Department official.

“In a world where housing is too expensive, we do not need to subsidize housing for fraudsters by letting them get better rates than they deserve,” Pulte wrote on social media.

Pulte has ignored a similar case involving Ken Paxton, the Texas attorney general who is friendly with Trump and is running for Senate in his state’s Republican primary. Paxton took out mortgages on three properties that were all identified as his primary residence.

He also has mortgages on two other properties that explicitly prohibit him from renting the properties out, but both have been repeatedly listed for rent, according to real estate listings and posts on short-term rental sites.

Asked about Pulte’s investigations and Trump’s role in them, the White House said that anyone who violates the law should be held accountable.

“President Trump’s only retribution is success and historic achievements for the American people,” said Davis Ingle, White House spokesman.

It’s unclear whether Pulte is using government resources to develop the allegations he has made. Mortgage documents are generally public records, but they are typically maintained at the county level across most of the U.S., making them difficult to comprehensively review. However, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are both government-sponsored entities, purchase large tranches of mortgages from lenders, which could centralize much of that information, real estate and legal experts say.

FHFA did not respond to a detailed list of questions from the AP, including whether Pulte or his aides used government resources to conduct his research.

It’s not just mortgages

Pulte’s broadsides go beyond mortgages. He’s been backing Trump’s criticism of Jerome Powell, chair of the Federal Reserve, over expensive renovations at the central bank’s headquarters. Trump is pressuring Powell to cut interest rates in hopes of lowering borrowing costs, and his allies have highlighted cost overruns to suggest that Powell is untrustworthy or should be removed from his position.

“This guy is supposed to be the money manager for the world’s biggest economy, and it doesn’t even look like he can run a construction site,” Pulte said while wearing a neon safety vest outside the building. “So something doesn’t smell right here.”

Since returning to the White House, Trump has reached deep into the government to advance his agenda. He’s overhauled the federal workforce with the Office of Personnel Management, pushed ideological changes at the Smithsonian network of museums and fired the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics when he didn’t like a recent report on job numbers.

With Pulte in charge, the Federal Housing Finance Agency is becoming another instrument of Trump’s mission to exert control and retaliate against enemies.

It’s a contrast to the Internal Revenue Service, where Trump has unsuccessfully discussed ways to use tax policies as a pressure point. For example, during battles over higher education, Trump threatened to take away Harvard’s long-standing tax-exempt status by saying, “It’s what they deserve.”

However, there are more restrictions there, dating back to the Watergate scandal under President Richard Nixon.

“It’s been hard for the administration to use the inroads it wants to use to pursue its enemies,” said Vanessa Williamson, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.

She said, “The law is very clear about taxpayer privacy and the criminal penalties at play are not small.”

Before going on the attack, Pulte played nice online

Pulte is heir to a home-building fortune amassed by his grandfather, also named William Pulte, who founded a construction company in Detroit in the 1950s that grew into the publicly traded national housing giant now known as the Pulte Group.

He spent four years on the company’s board, and he’s the owner of heating and air conditioning businesses across the U.S. He had never served in government before being nominated by Trump to lead the Federal Housing Finance Agency.

“While many children spent their weekends at sporting events, I spent mine on homebuilding jobsites with my father and grandfather,” Pulte said in written testimony for his nomination hearing. “From the ground up, I learned every aspect of housing — whether it was cleaning job sites, assisting in construction, or helping sell homes.”

He once tried to make a name for himself with good deeds, describing himself as the “Inventor of Twitter Philanthropy” and offering money to needy people online. He was working in private equity at the time, and he told the Detroit Free Press that he funded his donations with some “very good liquidity events” to power his donations.

Even six years ago, he appeared focused on getting attention from Trump.

“If @realDonaldTrump retweets this, my team and I will give Two Beautiful Cars to Two Beautiful Veterans on Twitter.”

Trump replied, “Thank you, Bill, say hello to our GREAT VETERANS!”

Pulte, whose most recent financial disclosure shows a net worth of at least $180 million, was also ramping up his political donations.

Over the past six years, he and his wife have donated over $1 million to the political efforts of Trump and his allies, including a $500,000 contribution to a super PAC affiliated with Trump that was the subject of a campaign finance complaint made with the Federal Election Commission.

The Pultes’ $500,000 contribution was made through a company they control named ML Organization LLC, records show. While such contributions are typically allowed from corporations, the same is not always true for some limited liability companies that have a limited business footprint and could be set up to obscure the donor.

The FEC ultimately exonerated the Pultes, but found in April that the Trump super PAC, Make America Great Again, Again! Inc., did not properly disclose that the Pultes were the source of the donation, said Saurav Ghosh, the Campaign Legal Center’s director of federal campaign finance reform.

Ghosh said the donation raises serious questions about Pulte’s appointment to lead FHFA.

“Why is Bill Pulte even in a government position?” he said. “Maybe he’s qualified, maybe he isn’t. But he did pour hundreds of thousands of dollars into a pro-Trump super PAC. And I think it’s clear there are these types of rewards for big donors across the Trump administration.”

Megerian, Slodysko and Hussein write for the Associated Press.

Puerto Rican pop visionary Rauw Alejandro will be honored at the 38th annual Hispanic Heritage Awards.

On Wednesday, the Hispanic Heritage Foundation announced that the singer-songwriter will receive the 2025 Hispanic Heritage Award for Vision, a title that honors his groundbreaking contributions to Latin music and his role in shaping its global future.

“As an artist in constant motion, Rauw Alejandro embodies the very essence of the vision award, bold in creativity, future-focused in his global impact and unapologetically original in everything he does,” says Antonio Tijerino, president and chief executive of HHF. “His work is not just music, it’s a movement that confirms what Latin artists mean to the world.”

The award, established by the White House in 1998, is bestowed on notable public figures for their accomplishments and cultural contributions to the Latino community. Past honorees, specifically in the vision category, include Wisin, Ivy Queen, Bad Bunny, Residente and more.

The 32-year-old songwriter from San Juan welcomed the award with an unveiling of his own: the title of his next album, “Cosa Nuestra: Capítulo 0.”

“This is just the beginning … with my next project ‘Capítulo 0’ I want to keep showcasing not only Puerto Rico, but the full essence of the Caribbean.”

News of this honor should not come as a surprise to those who have been following Rauw Alejandro’s career and hustle. His 2020 debut album, “Afrodisíaco,” earned him his first Grammy nomination for best urban music album, as well as a Grammy nod for best new artist.

Throughout the years, the eclectic singer-songwriter and dance phenom has innovated the Latin music scene with the release of experimental albums like his electronic and R&B-inspired LP, “Vice Versa,” in 2021; his techno-infused psychedelic album, “Saturno,” in 2022; and his beachy follow-up, “Playa Saturno,” in 2023.

In 2024, Rauw Alejandro released his fifth studio album, “Cosa Nuestra,” a project inspired by New York City’s salsa music scene in the 1970s. Upon its release, the record landed him the No. 1 spot on Billboard’s Latin Albums chart, and No. 6 on the Billboard 200. The critically-acclaimed album is likely to claim top prizes at the upcoming 2025 Latin Grammys.

“‘Cosa Nuestra’ has always been my way of representing my island, my culture, and my people — wherever they may be,” said Rauw Alejandro in a statement. “Every detail — the beats, the visuals, the dancing — reflects part of our Puerto Rican roots and our connection with other sister cultures, because we’ve been shaping the history of music for a long time.”

The 38th annual Hispanic Heritage Awards will take place on Sept. 4 at the Warner Theatre in Washington, D.C. To date, this year’s honorees include NPR’s Felix Contreras, stoner comic Cheech Marin, Rizos Curls chief executive Julissa Prado and more.

OK, I’ll say it. I’m sick of superheroes. I blame the Marvel Cinematic Universe (36 movies and counting over 17 years) and the DC Extended Universe (43 movies and counting, mostly since the late 1970s). Maybe Earth’s not big enough for two universes. They’re running pretty thin these days, down to rebooting reboots, making sequels for prequels and squeezing every ounce from the intellectual property tube to fill out streaming platform minutes.

But there’s always Superman. The Krypton-born alien, orphaned, sent off into space for survival and then raised by adoptive parents in Kansas. He’s now been with American pop culture for 10 decades (eight in film). Despite an outfit modeled after a circus strongman, he’s become a durable, transcendent symbol of the ultimate immigrant and somehow a simultaneous embodiment of “Truth, Justice, and the American Way.”

Superman’s the classic American good guy, and so this weekend’s opening of the new “Superman” with David Corenswet is a great time to think about the real good guys and gals in American life — that is, if you can find any. Where are all the good guys and gals in America? What qualifies someone for the title these days?

The idea has definitely shifted. It’s as if by sheer screen volume the fake superheroes overwhelmed the public consciousness. Superheroes are dialed up so high we can’t hear what real heroes sound like anymore. A 2008 poll in Britain found almost a quarter thought Winston Churchill was fake, while a majority of Britons believed Sherlock Holmes was real.

We’ve become confused: We prefer to watch fake heroes on screen rather than expect real ones to emerge in life. And so the fake ones become the only kind of hero we recognize.

The historian Daniel Boorstin described this transition from heroism to fame in his 1961 book “The Image.” He noted that heroes in American history were typically known for great public contribution through immense difficulty and danger. It didn’t matter much what they looked like because their deeds had saved lives and mattered to so many.

But pictures and movies changed everything in the 20th century. Heroes became celebrities. We traded away enduring contributions to the public good in exchange for flimsy, flashy fame that works for a paycheck. Value over values; money over all.

This isn’t hard to see. Look at how college sports has been conquered by contracts and name-image-likeness deals. How law firms kowtowed to an administration making unprecedented demands. How media heavyweights keep bending knees to the same. And let’s not get started with social media “influencers” except to say that doing the right and honest thing has been swept aside by the twin tsunamis of popularity and the Almighty Buck.

Where’s our real truth, our real justice, our real American way?

Not in Congress. The “Big Beautiful Bill” is a perfect example. It might take a Mt. Rushmore makeover to honor the profound contributions to cowardice in the votes surrounding this act. Rep. Jeff Crank (R-Colo.) couldn’t vote fast enough to add trillions to the national debt despite arguing, less than a year ago, that Congress is “turning a blind eye to this $35 trillion in debt,” that it’s “unsustainable” and that “we have to get our fiscal house in order, and we have to do this for our children and our grandchildren.”

Or Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), long-time fiscal hawk on the debt, who repeatedly railed against the Big Beautiful Bill’s deficit spending in the final stretch. And then he voted for it.

Or Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), known for saying “we must ignore calls to cut Medicaid” because “slashing health insurance for the working poor” would be “both morally and politically suicidal.” That was in May. But come July, Hawley voted to cut Medicaid.

The final vote came down to Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). In a mid-June town hall, she said, “I have made clear very early on that we cannot move forward with a bill that makes cuts to Medicaid.” And yet, despite the fact that nearly 40,000 Alaskans (more than 5% of the state’s population) will likely lose their healthcare coverage as a direct result of the bill, Murkowski caved.

Sarah Longwell, founder and publisher of the Bulwark, spared nothing in her criticism of Murkowski. She wrote that this one action “defines our pathetic political moment,” embodying:

“Selfishness: I’m taking care of me and mine, the rest of you can pound sand;

Lack of accountability: I know the bill is bad, hopefully someone else will fix it;

Cowardice: I’m scared of Trump and his voters and need to go-along to get along with my GOP colleagues;

Moral rot: I know the difference between right and wrong, and actively chose wrong.”

Not exactly Superman. Sounds more like Lex Luthor at his most self-serving and callous.

We don’t need someone faster than a speeding bullet in the House. We don’t need senators leaping tall buildings in a single bound. We don’t need Superman.

But we do need our Clark Kents and Lois Lanes to step up. We do need our real heroes right now. Maybe Crank or Roy or Hawley or Murkowski will see the movie this weekend. Maybe they’ll find some courage for the next vote.

Maybe.

ML Cavanaugh is the author of the forthcoming book “Best Scar Wins: How You Can Be More Than You Were Before.” @MLCavanaugh

In a Congress addicted to bad ideas and bloated spending — something we saw again last week — it’s rare to find a tax policy with broad, bipartisan support that also happens to be good policy. Health savings accounts, known as HSAs, are one of those rare gems. They promote individual responsibility, reduce healthcare costs and enjoy overwhelming support from voters across the political spectrum.

The good news is that for all its flaws, the “Big Beautiful Bill” that was just signed by the president includes several expansions to the program.

In a perfect world, we wouldn’t need tax-protected healthcare savings accounts. The tax code wouldn’t punish saving in the first place. Income would only be taxed once and not a second time through taxes on returns generated by savings. Families could set aside money for future expenses without being hit with additional penalties.

But that’s not the tax system we have. The double taxation of saving discourages people from preparing for medical and other costs.

Ideally, individuals would also be able to make their own decisions about health. But for the past century, Congress has used the tax code to pressure workers into accepting employer-controlled health insurance by penalizing those of us who choose otherwise. As Michael F. Cannon of the Cato Institute has demonstrated, this system effectively strips workers of control over roughly $1 trillion of their income. Imagine the possibilities if we could each demand more value and accountability for our share.

HSAs offer a partial solution to both of these problems. They can shelter a small portion of income and allow people to make their own decisions about some healthcare purchases without the government penalizing them. Since their creation in 2003, HSAs have become a lifeline for nearly 40 million account holders.

The accounts are triple tax-advantaged: Contributions go in tax-free, grow tax-free and can be withdrawn tax-free for qualified medical expenses. They reward frugality, encourage price sensitivity (in a way most health insurance plans do not) and allow families to build health-related savings year after year.

Still, HSAs have benefited only a small segment of workers. To truly bring about individual healthcare freedom, it is essential that Congress expand them to everyone and end the preferential tax treatment for employer-based coverage. And to give credit where it’s due, Congress did indeed deliver on at least part of this agenda.

The House version of the budget included long-overdue HSA reforms, most notably a fix to a particularly maddening and regressive feature of current law: If you’re a working senior who needs to claim Social Security at 65 to make ends meet, you’re automatically enrolled in Medicare Part A — and disqualified from contributing to an HSA. A wealthier colleague who delays retirement can continue to enjoy tax-free contributions. Same job. Same employer. Different treatments based purely on wealth.

In addition to abolishing this injustice by allowing working seniors enrolled in Part A to remain eligible for HSA contributions, the House bill expanded the menu of healthcare options that can be paid for with HSA funds. It made gym memberships, personal training, preventive care and wellness among the new options — a smart, targeted reform.

Unfortunately, the Senate stripped many of the House’s reforms, but enough were retained in the final version of the bill for it to expand access to HSAs and make a significant difference.

Starting Jan. 1, 2026, Americans enrolled in Bronze or Catastrophic Affordable Care Act plans may contribute to HSAs — around 7.3 million people who previously lacked access in 2025. The bill also allows HSA funds to pay for direct primary care memberships — modernizing how Americans can save for and manage healthcare expenses — and makes permanent the ability of high-deductible health plans to waive the deductible for telehealth visits.

By some measures, these might be the most popular tax provisions in the entire package. As Cannon has pointed out, large majorities of Democrats (73%), Republicans (74%) and independents (65%) have shown past support for HSAs. A Luntz poll found 83% support for working seniors on Medicare to be allowed to contribute to HSAs.

In other words, this wasn’t just smart policy, it was a political layup.

There is still a lot of work to be done, such as delinking HSA eligibility from high-deductible plans entirely, expanding contribution limits and eliminating barriers for all Medicare recipients. These moves would further reduce tax-code distortions and reinforce a healthcare system rooted in choice and accountability.

Nevertheless, HSA reform is one instance of the “Big Beautiful Bill” producing good and popular policy.

Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate.

WASHINGTON — When President Trump directed his attorney general last month to investigate online fundraising, he cited concerns that foreigners and fraudsters were using elaborate “schemes“ and “dummy accounts” to funnel illegal contributions to politicians and causes.

Instead of calling for an expansive probe, however, the president identified just one potential target: ActBlue, the Democrats’ online fundraising juggernaut, which has acknowledged receiving over 200 potentially illicit contributions last year from foreign internet addresses.

Trump’s announcement contained a glaring omission — his political committees also received scores of potentially problematic contributions.

An Associated Press review of donations to Trump over the past five years found 1,600 contributions from donors who live abroad, have close ties to foreign interests or failed to disclose basic information, often making it difficult, if not impossible, to identify them and verify the legality of their donations Among those was $5,000 linked to a derelict building, and $5,000 from a Chinese businessman who listed a La Quinta Inn as his address. Another sizable donation — $1 million — was made by the wife of an African oil and mining magnate.

It’s against the law for U.S. candidates and political committees to accept contributions from foreign nationals. Laws also place strict limits on donation amounts and prohibit the laundering of contributions to get around legal caps. For the most part, such donations have been policed by campaigns and the Federal Election Commission, with only the most egregious examples being targeted by federal law enforcement.

But after reclaiming the White House, Trump embarked on a campaign of retribution against his perceived enemies, launching broadsides against universities, law firms and his own former officials. If the Justice Department were to investigate ActBlue, it could imperil a key fundraising tool for Trump’s political rivals before the 2026 midterm elections, when Republicans’ threadbare House majority — and the president’s ability to pass an agenda through Congress — will be on the line.

“This is him taking direct aim at the center of Democratic and progressive fundraising to hamstring his political opponents,” said Ezra Reese, an attorney who leads the political law division at the Elias Law Group, a leading Democratic firm that does not represent ActBlue. “I don’t think there’s any question that they picked their target first. He’s not even pretending.”

Trump’s committees collected scores of donations from people living overseas

The White House did not respond to questions about Trump’s fundraising, including what sort of fraud prevention measures his committees have in place. Instead, a senior administration official pointed to the findings of a recent House Republican investigation of ActBlue that the White House alleges “uncovered specific evidence of potentially unlawful conduct.”

“The memorandum directs the attorney general to investigate this matter broadly, and she will follow the evidence and take appropriate action as warranted,” said the official, who insisted on anonymity to discuss the matter.

Neither the Justice Department nor Trump’s 2024 campaign co-manager Chris LaCivita responded to requests for comment.

U.S. citizens living abroad are free to donate to politicians back home. But it can be difficult even for campaigns to discern who is allowed to give and whether a person may be serving as a “straw” donor for someone else seeking to influence U.S. elections.

The AP identified only two Trump donors out of more than 200 living abroad whose U.S. citizenship was listed as “verified” in the president’s campaign finance reports. He received over 1,000 contributions from 150 donors who omitted key identifying details such as their city, state, address or country. Trump also received at least 90 contributions from people who did not give a full name, are listed as “anonymous” or whose donations include the notation “name not provided.”

Many of these Trump donors contributed through WinRed, the Republicans’ online fundraising platform that is the GOP’s answer to ActBlue. Only about three dozen of these contributions were rejected, most of which came from an unknown source and were paid in cryptocurrency, campaign finance disclosures show.

WinRed officials did not respond to a request for comment.

“Foreign money in our elections is a legitimate concern,” said Dan Weiner, a former Federal Election Commission attorney who is now director of the Brennan Center’s elections and government program. “What’s not legitimate is to single out one political opponent and pretend the problem is limited to them.”

Donating from a La Quinta Inn

Jiajun “Jack” Zhang, for example, is a jet-setting Chinese businessman whose Qingdao Scaffolding Co. boasts of being one of the “biggest manufacturers and suppliers in China” of scaffolding. In October, he used WinRed to donate $5,000 to Trump, campaign finance disclosures show.

Zhang lives in China’s Shandong province, according to his LinkedIn account, and is described in French business filings as a Chinese national. But his contribution to Trump lists a La Quinta Inn in Hawaiian Gardens, California, as his address, records show. The donation was made around the time that Zhang posted a photo on social media of his family visiting Disneyland, which is near the hotel.

Zhang did not respond to an email seeking comment.

Other potentially troublesome donations include four from unnamed donors listing an address of “999 Anonymous Dr.”

There is also a series of contributions made through WinRed that listed the donor’s address as a vacant building in Washington that was formerly a funeral home. The donor, identified only as “Alex, A” on Trump’s campaign finance report, gave nearly $5,000, spread across more than 40 separate transactions last year. Those types of donations tend to draw scrutiny from campaigns and regulators.

Regulators and watchdogs have also long been concerned about donations from individuals with ties to foreign interests. Trump has received many such contributions, including one in December from Nnenna Peters, the wife of Benedict Peters, a Nigerian billionaire who is the founder and CEO of oil and mining businesses.

Nnenna Peters, who goes by Ella, gave $1 million to Trump’s inaugural committee. A naturalized citizen, Nnenna Peters — who lives in Potomac, Maryland, a tony suburb of the capital — is allowed to make campaign donations.

Federal law, however, bars U.S. citizens from making contributions on behalf of a noncitizen spouse if the money is not a shared asset. For example, experts said, a husband could be prohibited from making a campaign donation using funds from a checking account solely in his wife’s name.

In practice, such a prohibition is hard to enforce because it is difficult to assess whether spouses are acting on their own accord or on behalf of significant others. Government watchdogs say donations like these raise the risk of an attempt to influence U.S. policy on behalf of a foreign interest.

That was precisely the kind of problem Trump cited in his executive order that singled out ActBlue.

Benedict Peters, as it turns out, has a lot to offer that could be of interest to Trump, who has made the extraction of natural resources a focus on his second administration. In particular, the Trump administration has sought to secure access to critical minerals that help power modern technology. Peters’ Aiteo Group markets itself as one of the largest energy conglomerates in Nigeria, while his company, Bravura Holdings, purports to hold the rights to vast critical mineral deposits across Africa.

His wife’s donation stands out in light of her past giving: She donated exclusively to Democrats, records show, including a $66,800 contribution to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign.

“This clearly could have come from her husband,” said Craig Holman, a registered lobbyist for Public Citizen, a Washington-based government watchdog group. “This is something the FEC should take a very, very close look at.”

Benedict and Ella Peters did not respond to requests for comment.

Indifference towards campaign finance rules

The questionable donations fit a pattern for Trump, who has in the past exhibited indifference toward campaign finance rules and used his presidential powers to assist those facing legal trouble in such matters.

In January, Trump’s Justice Department dropped its case against former Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, a Nebraska Republican accused of accepting a $30,000 contribution from a Nigerian billionaire. During his first term, Trump pardoned conservative commentator Dinesh D’Souza and Republican donor Michael Liberty, who were both convicted of using straw donors to evade contribution limits. He also pardoned former California Rep. Duncan Hunter, who was convicted in 2020 of stealing $250,000 from his campaign fund.

Trump’s political efforts have also drawn contributions from straw donors and foreigners who have been subjected to legal scrutiny.

Among them is Barry Zekelman, a Canadian steel industry billionaire, who was fined $975,000 in 2022 by the Federal Election Commission for funneling $1.75 million to America First Action, Trump’s official super PAC, in 2018. The contribution helped Zekelman secure a dinner with Trump at which steel tariffs were discussed.

Two Soviet-born U.S. citizens, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, were convicted in a straw donor scheme that funneled $325,000 to the same super PAC in the runup to Trump’s losing 2020 reelection campaign.

Jesse Benton, a Republican political operative, was convicted in 2022 of serving as a straw donor for a Russian businessman who contributed $25,000 to Trump’s 2016 campaign.

Democrats say Trump’s focus on ActBlue is a lot to stomach in light of Trump’s acceptance of questionable donations and his seeming lack of interest in enforcing campaign finance laws more generally. They noted that Trump in February fired a commissioner at the Federal Election Commission. The firing, followed by the resignation of a Republican commissioner, has denied the agency the quorum necessary to enforce campaign finance laws and regulations.

“It’s telling that while Trump and his allies attack grassroots-funded platforms like ours, their own campaigns have welcomed money from questionable sources,” ActBlue spokesperson Megan Hughes said.

Republicans counter that there is well-founded reason to investigate the Democratic platform, which eased some fraud detection protocols in 2024 before the presidential election.

Democrats are concerned about ActBlue’s future

There is, however, a political upside to investigating ActBlue. The platform has proved more successful than WinRed, the Republican platform designed to imitate it, which took in less than half of the $3.8 billion that ActBlue raised during the 2024 election cycle.

ActBlue representatives declined to say whether they have been contacted by the Justice Department.

ActBlue is expected to battle any investigation. It took a different approach when a Republican-led congressional committee launched an investigation in 2023. That committee’s findings turned out to be the basis for some of the allegations cited by Trump in his executive order.

Democrats, meanwhile, are preparing for the worst.

“There is a pervasive fear that ActBlue could cease to exist,” said Matt Hodges, a veteran Democratic operative who served as the director of engineering for Joe Biden’s 2020 campaign. “That’s the worst fear people have — that this will escalate or drain legal resources that hinder their ability to operate.”

He predicted that the Democrats could lose more than $10 million in the short term if ActBlue were forced to shut down. That has led some Democrats to begin thinking about alternatives, but they acknowledged it might be too late to create something as successful as ActBlue with the midterms around the corner.

Slodysko and Peoples write for the Associated Press. Peoples reported from New York.