donor

Nov. 5 (UPI) — The disruption of federal benefits that help feed families spurred a Pittsburgh man to create a front-yard food bank to help others as the federal government remains shut down.

A.J. Owen. 36, resides in the Pittsburgh suburb of Whitehall, and initially started his ad-hoc food pantry after completing a $150 food run with his two sons about a week ago, according to TribLIVE.

Owen has large plastic bins containing canned goods and other foods placed on portable tables in his front yard for those who need food and for others to leave food donations.

“The amount of donations we received and the amount of people coming and getting food is both so gratifying and so horrifying,” Owentold TribLIVE.

“So many people need help,” he added, “and I’m so happy to be a resource for them.”

Owen said he initially started the food pantry to teach his sons about the need to help others, but it has become a much greater endeavor, as affirmed by a recent visit from Good Morning America and its cameras.

The single father notified others of his effort on social media, which resulted in additional food donations — including one donation that he said was thousands of dollars’ worth of $100 bills from an anonymous person.

He found the money stuffed in an envelope inside his mailbox with a note saying, “May God prosper and bless your food pantry,” Owen told ABC News.

“My body started shaking,” he said. “I started crying.”

He also said, “This was the best cry ever because whatever you want to believe, an angel truly came down and blessed us that day. And we’ve been good ever since.”

Owen didn’t say how much money was in the envelope, other than it added up to “thousands” of dollars.

He posted a video of the anonymous donation on social media, which drew millions of views and prompted others to visit and donate more food.

Among them were Pittsburgh Steelers defensive end Yahya Blackand his fiancé, who donated “tons of food,” Owen said on social media.

Owen did not say if his food pantry effort might outlast the federal government shutdown, which entered a record 36 days on Wednesday and temporarily disrupted funding of the federal government’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

President Donald Trump’s razing of the White House’s East Wing to build a ballroom has put some news organizations following the story in an awkward position, with corporate owners among the contributors to the project — and their reporters covering it vigorously.

Comcast, which owns NBC News and MSNBC, has faced on-air criticism from some of the liberal cable channel’s personalities for its donation. Amazon, whose founder Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post, is another donor. The newspaper editorialized in favor of Trump’s project, pointing out the Bezos connection a day later after critics noted its omission.

It’s not the first time since Trump regained the presidency that interests of journalists at outlets that are a small part of a corporate titan’s portfolio have clashed with owners. Both the Walt Disney Co. and Paramount have settled lawsuits with Trump rather than defend ABC News and CBS News in court.

“This is Trump’s Washington,” said Chuck Todd, former NBC “Meet the Press” host. “None of this helps the reputations of the news organizations that these companies own, because it compromises everybody.”

Companies haven’t said how much they donated, or why

None of the individuals and corporations identified by the White House as donors has publicly said how much was given, although a $22 million Google donation was revealed in a court filing. Comcast would not say Friday why it gave, although some MSNBC commentators have sought to fill in the blanks.

MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle said the donations should be a concern to Americans, “because there ain’t no company out there writing a check just for good will.”

“Those public-facing companies should know that there’s a cost in terms of their reputations with the American people,” Rachel Maddow said on her show this week, specifically citing Comcast. “There may be a cost to their bottom line when they do things against American values, against the public interest because they want to please Trump or buy him off or profit somehow from his authoritarian overthrow of our democracy.”

NBC’s “Nightly News” led its Oct. 22 broadcast with a story on the East Wing demolition, which reporter Gabe Gutierrez said was paid for by private donors, “among them Comcast, NBC’s parent company.”

“Nightly News” spent a total of five minutes on the story that week, half the time of ABC’s “World News Tonight,” though NBC pre-empted its Tuesday newscast for NBA coverage, said Andrew Tyndall, head of ADT Research. There’s no evidence that Comcast tried to influence NBC’s coverage in any way; Todd said the corporation’s leaders have no history of doing that. A Comcast spokeswoman had no comment.

Todd spoke out against his bosses at NBC News in the past, but said he doubted he would have done so in this case, in part because Comcast hasn’t said why the contribution was made. “You could make the defense that it is contributing to the United States” by renovating the White House, he said.

More troubling, he said, is the perception that Comcast CEO Brian Roberts had to do it to curry favor with the Trump administration. Trump, in a Truth Social post in April, called Comcast and Roberts “a disgrace to the integrity of Broadcasting!!!” The president cited the company’s ownership of MSNBC and NBC News.

Roberts may need their help. Stories this week suggested Comcast might be interested in buying all or part of Warner Bros. Discovery, a deal that would require government approval.

White House cannot be ‘a museum to the past’

The Post’s editorial last weekend was eye-opening, even for a section that has taken a conservative turn following Bezos’ direction that it concentrate on defending personal liberties and the free market. The Oct. 25 editorial was unsigned, which indicates that it is the newspaper’s official position, and was titled “In Defense of the White House ballroom.”

The Post said the ballroom is a necessary addition and although Trump is pursuing it “in the most jarring manner possible,” it would not have gotten done in his term if he went through a traditional approval process.

“The White House cannot simply be a museum to the past,” the Post wrote. “Like America, it must evolve with the times to maintain its greatness. Strong leaders reject calcification. In that way, Trump’s undertaking is a shot across the bow at NIMBYs everywhere.”

In sharing a copy of the editorial on social media, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt wrote that it was the “first dose of common sense I’ve seen from the legacy media on this story.”

The New York Times, by contrast, has not taken an editorial stand either for or against the project. It has run a handful of opinion columns: Ross Douthat called Trump’s move necessary considering potential red tape, while Maureen Dowd said it was an “unsanctioned, ahistoric, abominable destruction of the East Wing.”

In a social media post later Saturday, Columbia University journalism professor Bill Grueskin noted the absence of any mention of Bezos in the Post editorial” and said he wrote to a Post spokeswoman about it. In a “stealth edit” that Grueskin said didn’t include any explanation, a paragraph was added the next day about the private donors, including Amazon. “Amazon founder Jeff Bezos owns The Post,” the newspaper said.

The Post had no comment on the issue, spokeswoman Olivia Petersen said on Sunday.

In a story this past week, NPR reported that the ballroom editorial was one of three that the Post had written in the previous two weeks on a matter in which Bezos had a financial or corporate interest without noting his personal stakes.

In a public appearance last December, Bezos acknowledged that he was a “terrible owner” for the Post from the point of view of appearances of conflict. “A pure newspaper owner who only owned a newspaper and did nothing else would probably be, from that point of view, a much better owner,” the Amazon founder said.

Grueskin, in an interview, said Bezos had every right as an owner to influence the Post’s editorial policy. But he said it was important for readers to know his involvement in the East Wing story. They may reject the editorial because of the conflict, he said, or conclude that “the editorial is so well-argued, I put a lot of credibility into what I just read.”

Bauder writes for the Associated Press.

“Now You See Me: Now You Don’t” star Jesse Eisenberg may soon one-up the film franchise’s Robin Hood-esque Four Horsemen in the giving-back department.

This December, the Academy Award nominee and longtime blood donor will give one of his kidneys to a complete stranger, he said Thursday on the “Today” show. He slipped the news into a conversation with host Craig Melvin about a recent show-sponsored blood drive.

As Melvin and his co-hosts reacted in disbelief, Eisenberg said, “I really am [donating].”

“I don’t know why. I got bitten by the blood donation bug,” he said, adding that he was “so excited” to make the nondirected (a.k.a. “altruistic”) donation, wherein a living donor is not related to or known by the recipient.

According to the National Kidney Registry, approximately 90,000 people in the U.S. are currently in need of a kidney transplant, while roughly 6,000 people donate kidneys each year. Less than 5% of those already slim donations are nondirected.

Eisenberg said he suspected that if people knew how safe the process was, those numbers would go up.

“It’s essentially risk-free and so needed,” Eisenberg said in a separate interview with Today.com. “I think people will realize that it’s a no-brainer, if you have the time and the inclination.”

“The Social Network” alum added that prospective donors need not worry about forking over a kidney and later facing a situation wherein a family member urgently needs one.

“The way it works now is you can put a list of whoever you would like to be the first [relative] to be at the top of the list,” he said, referring to the National Kidney Registry’s family voucher program. The program launched in 2019, preceded by an earlier “standard” iteration that required the voucher donor to name a voucher holder who had some form of kidney impairment. (The standard voucher option is still available to donors as well.)

“Not only does this remove an important disincentive to living kidney donation, but it is the right thing to do for the generous people who are donating a kidney to a stranger. Donors can now donate a kidney and still provide security for their loved ones should they need a kidney transplant in the future,” Dr. Jeff Veale, who helped pioneer the voucher system, said in a statement at the time of the program update.

Recovery is also a non-issue for most kidney donors, who on average return to daily activities within a few weeks of the surgery, per the Mayo Clinic.

“Now You See Me: Now You Don’t” hits theaters Nov. 14, nearly a decade after the previous installment in the franchise premiered. Eisenberg stars alongside returning cast members Isla Fisher, Woody Harrelson and Dave Franco and newcomers Justice Smith, Dominic Sessa, Ariana Greenblatt and Rosamund Pike.

WASHINGTON — President Trump said Friday that he had commuted the sentence of former U.S. Rep. George Santos, who is serving more than seven years in federal prison after pleading guilty to fraud and identity theft charges.

Joseph Murray, one of Santos’ lawyers, told the Associated Press late Friday that the former lawmaker was released from the Federal Correctional Institution in Fairton, N.J., around 11 p.m. and was greeted outside the facility by his family.

The New York Republican was sentenced in April after admitting last year to deceiving donors and stealing the identities of 11 people — including his own family members — to make donations to his campaign.

He reported to FCI Fairton on July 25 and was housed in a minimum-security prison camp with fewer than 50 other inmates.

“George Santos was somewhat of a ‘rogue,’ but there are many rogues throughout our Country that aren’t forced to serve seven years in prison,” Trump posted on his social media platform. He said he had “just signed a Commutation, releasing George Santos from prison, IMMEDIATELY.”

“Good luck George, have a great life!” Trump said.

Santos’ account on X, which has been active throughout his roughly 84 days in prison, reposted a screenshot of Trump’s Truth Social post Friday.

During his time behind bars, Santos has been writing regular dispatches in a local newspaper on Long Island, N.Y., in which he mainly complained about the prison conditions.

In his latest letter, he pleaded to Trump directly, citing his fealty to the president’s agenda and to the Republican Party.

“Sir, I appeal to your sense of justice and humanity — the same qualities that have inspired millions of Americans to believe in you,” he wrote in the South Shore Press on Monday. “I humbly ask that you consider the unusual pain and hardship of this environment and allow me the opportunity to return to my family, my friends, and my community.”

Santos’ commutation is Trump’s latest high-profile act of clemency for former Republican politicians since retaking the White House in January.

Like Santos, Trump has been convicted of fraud. He was found guilty last year on 34 felony counts in a case related to paying hush money to a porn actor. He is the only president in U.S. history convicted of a felony.

In granting clemency to Santos, Trump was rewarding a figure who has drawn scorn from within his own party.

After becoming the first openly gay Republican elected to Congress in 2022, Santos served less than a year after it was revealed that he had fabricated much of his life story.

On the campaign trail, Santos had claimed he was a successful business consultant with Wall Street cred and a sizable real estate portfolio. But when his resume came under scrutiny, Santos eventually admitted he had never graduated from Baruch College — or been a standout player on the Manhattan college’s volleyball team, as he had claimed. He had never worked at Citigroup and Goldman Sachs.

He wasn’t even Jewish. Santos insisted he meant he was “Jew-ish” because his mother’s family had a Jewish background, even though he was raised Catholic.

In truth, the then-34-year-old was struggling financially and faced eviction.

Santos was charged in 2023 with stealing from donors and his campaign, fraudulently collecting unemployment benefits and lying to Congress about his wealth.

Within months, he was expelled from the U.S. House of Representatives — with 105 Republicans joining with Democrats to make Santos just the sixth member in the chamber’s history to be ousted by colleagues.

Santos pleaded guilty as he was set to stand trial.

Still, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) urged the White House to commute Santos’ sentence, saying in a letter sent just days into his prison term that the punishment was “a grave injustice” and a product of judicial overreach.

Greene was among those who cheered the announcement Friday. But Rep. Nick LaLota, a Republican who represents part of Long Island and has been highly critical of Santos, said in a post on social media that Santos “didn’t merely lie” and his crimes “warrant more than a three-month sentence.”

“He should devote the rest of his life to demonstrating remorse and making restitution to those he wronged,” LaLota said.

Santos’ clemency appears to clear not just his prison term, but also any “further fines, restitution, probation, supervised release, or other conditions,” according to a copy of Trump’s order posted on X by Ed Martin, the Justice Department’s pardon attorney.

As part of his guilty plea, Santos had agreed to pay restitution of $373,750 and forfeiture of $205,003.

In explaining his reason for granting Santos clemency, Trump claimed the lies Santos told about himself were no worse than misleading statements U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal — a Democrat and frequent critic of the administration —had made about his military record.

Blumenthal apologized 15 years ago for implying that he served in Vietnam, when he was stateside in the Marine Reserve during the war. The senator was never accused of violating any law.

“This is far worse than what George Santos did, and at least Santos had the Courage, Conviction, and Intelligence to ALWAYS VOTE REPUBLICAN!” Trump wrote.

Marcelo writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Michael R. Sisak in New York and Susan Haigh in Connecticut contributed to this report.

Martin Jarmond is not a particularly popular figure these days.

Some fans frustrated by UCLA’s winless football team are expected to wear “Fire Jarmond” shirts in blue and gold to Saturday’s game at the Rose Bowl against Penn State. One group has organized an airplane banner to fly over the stadium before the game, with a similar message directed at the beleaguered Bruins athletic director.

The list of grievances is a lengthy one, leading a group of nearly a dozen high-level donors to reach out to The Times about what they allege is a pattern of rampant dysfunction inside the athletic department that goes well beyond the surprise hiring and speedy dismissal of football coach DeShaun Foster on Sept. 14 after only 15 games.

Among other things, the donors also questioned Jarmond’s name, image and likeness strategy, high spending despite years of running up massive athletic department deficits and failure to fire coach Chip Kelly amid subpar results.

“What’s happening now feels like watching a trainwreck in slow motion,” said Scott Tretsky, a donor and season ticket-holder for more than two decades. “What we’re seeing isn’t just a rough patch. It’s institutional apathy. And if the administration doesn’t care, why should fans and recruits?

“This isn’t a casual fan speaking. I rarely miss a game. I’ve invested time, money, and emotion for decades, and right now, it feels like the people running the show don’t share that same investment. This program could thrive. It has the history, the fan base, the resources. But it needs leadership with courage and a real plan. Right now, we have neither.”

One misstep made a donor question whether operations inside Jarmond’s athletic department were even worse than they appeared on a surface level.

Ten days before a group of donors departed for a trip to watch UCLA’s football team play Utah in 2023, an email outlining the itinerary was sent with an unexpected attachment — a database revealing personal information and spending habits of the athletic department’s biggest supporters.

Included in the spreadsheet sent to several dozen donors was the home address, email address and phone numbers of Bruins football legend Troy Aikman. Separate columns included the lifetime giving and annual Wooden Athletic Fund contributions of more than 200 top donors such as sports executive Casey Wasserman, ice cream magnate Justin Woolverton and philanthropist Wallis Annenberg, with each donor assigned a priority number based on their level of generosity.

UCLA athletic director Martin Jarmond stands alongside UCLA football coach DeShaun Foster during his introductory news conference.

(Damian Dovarganes/AP)

The donor, who did not want to his name published because of the sensitivity of the data in the spreadsheet, told The Times he spoke with others who were equally incredulous about receiving such revealing information in the email from an associate athletic director for fundraising who is no longer employed by UCLA.

There was no apology or further communication besides a follow-up email from the associate athletic director sent 26 minutes after the first one, simply recalling the message. A UCLA athletic department spokesperson declined to comment about the incident other than to say the employee involved in the unauthorized distribution of information and his direct supervisor no longer worked for the university.

“I would assume with something like this where they knew what happened, they should just do something like say, ‘I’m so sorry, this was an internal working file, we’re doing everything we can’ to rectify it. Just something,” the donor who received the information said. “If I wanted to pitch something to Troy Aikman, I have the information to do it with.”

Soon after Jarmond and another athletic department staffer were informed that The Times was writing about Jarmond’s stewardship of the athletic department, five donors called to speak on Jarmond’s behalf. They cited financial constraints that prevented the athletic director from firing Kelly, Foster’s hiring as his attempt to make the best of a bad situation and a belief that Jarmond could help raise the resources needed to hire a far more successful replacement.

Other donors have already decided they are giving up on big giving.

As a result of his unhappiness with the way the athletic department is being run, one donor who was close to joining the 1919 Society that recognizes those who have given at least $1 million said he had abandoned that endeavor.

Part of his dissatisfaction is rooted in a dinner conversation with Jarmond at a Tucson steakhouse before UCLA played Arizona in October 2021. Asked to share his favorite UCLA sports moment, the donor said it was the football team’s having won three Rose Bowls and a Fiesta Bowl while he was a student in the early to mid-1980s.

According to the donor and two others at the table, Jarmond called the donor’s expectations unrealistic and said that historically, UCLA had won an average of seven to eight games a year, suggesting those should be the expectations going forward.

Asked about the exchange, Jarmond said that “without getting into specifics of my conversations with any one individual, my intended message whenever this subject arises is that dynasties in college football are increasingly rare. In today’s environment, with the implementation of revenue-sharing, NIL and the transfer portal, it’s harder than ever to sustain success at the highest level. But that doesn’t mean it’s not the goal. Competing for championships is and always has been core to our mission.”

Several donors questioned the commitment to NIL within Jarmond’s athletic department.

After one donor made a second large NIL contribution, he said, he was chided by one high-ranking athletics official who told him that his money would have been better spent going to the Wooden Athletic Fund that supports the entire department. Donors have criticized Jarmond for not getting Kelly to do more work to support the football team’s NIL efforts, leading to the team lagging far behind its conference counterparts, and was also slow to publicly recognize and support Men of Westwood, the collective spearheading UCLA’s NIL endeavors.

Several donors said UCLA has misunderstood NIL from the start, using small initiatives such as Westwood Exchange as a substitute for helping the Bruins stay more competitive with other schools that understood that pay-for-play was an accepted practice. Once revenue sharing started this summer, allowing the school to pay athletes directly, UCLA further de-emphasized the importance of having a robust NIL program even though it’s widely believed that the new model will eventually resemble the old one.

Jarmond pointed to UCLA’s partnering with NIL agency Article 41 to enhance athletes’ personal brands and social media presence as evidence of the school’s commitment to being on the forefront of the NIL space.

“We’re gonna provide whoever the next [football] coach is with the resources and a financial investment that we haven’t done before, quite frankly,” Jarmond said.

UCLA teams have won six NCAA championships under Jarmond’s watch and posted more conference titles last season than any other Big Ten team. The move to the Big Ten is also expected to provide additional revenue to help stabilize the athletic department’s finances, which required a university bailout and drew a sharp rebuke from the executive board of the school’s academic senate after running $219.55 million in the red over the last six fiscal years.

Jim Bendat, a men’s basketball season ticket-holder and longtime fan, said the athletic director faced some unique challenges that constrained his success with the football program.

“I have some sympathy for Jarmond,” Bendat said. “Money had to be an issue when he arguably should have fired Kelly immediately after the ‘23 season. Then the timing of Kelly’s departure put Jarmond in a nearly impossible situation. Basketball, baseball, softball and Olympic sports are doing fine. Is it fair to give credit for those successes only to the coaches and players, but blame only Jarmond for football failures? I don’t think that’s fair at all.

“Because football is the cash cow, that’s the big focus. I say give this AD another chance to get this right. It will be the biggest hire he will ever make, and he has to get it right this time.”

Criticisms of Jarmond, however, are growing louder and have been brewing for years.

Past concerns have involved a lack of communication when UCLA abruptly pulled out of the 2021 Holiday Bowl over COVID-19 concerns only a few hours before the scheduled kickoff. North Carolina State coach Dave Doeren blasted the Bruins for a lack of transparency about their roster situation that prevented the Wolfpack from having a backup plan, saying, “We felt lied to, to be honest.”

Jarmond said he was prioritizing the health and safety of the players and the Bruins had every intention of playing had they been able to do so responsibly.

Only a month later, Jarmond faced backlash for being slow to wade into a controversy involving a racial slur used by a member of the women’s gymnastics team. Jarmond met with the team only after Margzetta Frazier and Norah Flatley tweeted to request his help, and Frazier later described a statement that Jarmond released about the situation as “discouraging” based on the athletic department’s response to the scandal being “performative.”

Perhaps Jarmond’s biggest challenge has been an underperforming football team that’s drawn record-low crowds at the Rose Bowl.

Foster’s quick flameout after a little more than one season has led to a new opening inside the athletic department while leading a growing contingent of donors and fans to demand one more. A petition to have Jarmond resign or be removed has collected more than 1,400 signatures and a mobile billboard truck circulated Westwood last week with messages such as “UCLA Football Deserves Better Fire AD Martin Jarmond” and “$7 Million Buyout for UCLA’s AD? Failure Never Paid So Well.”

According to the terms of the contract extension he signed in May 2024 — at a time when UCLA was transitioning from outgoing chancellor Gene Block to successor Julio Frenk — Jarmond, 45, would be owed roughly $7.1 million, or the full amount of his remaining contract that runs through June 30, 2029, if he was terminated without cause.

“No single person has done more to damage the legacy and potential of UCLA football than Martin Jarmond,” said Ryan Bernard, one of the organizers of the mobile billboard truck. “From his inability to fire Chip Kelly to his unjustifiable, lazy hire of a recently departed running backs coach as head coach, Jarmond’s performance has been abysmal.”

WASHINGTON — Behind a White House effort to saddle President Trump’s political foes with accusations of mortgage fraud is a 37-year-old home construction executive with a deep partisan past.

Bill Pulte, a Florida native, rose in Trump’s orbit toward the end of his first term. After courting Trump for years on social media and through generous donations, he now runs the Federal Housing Finance Agency — a perch that has allowed him to target prominent figures who have crossed the president.

In the last five months, Pulte has referred three claims of mortgage fraud against Trump’s foes to the Justice Department, leveled against Letitia James, the attorney general of New York; Adam Schiff, the Democratic senator from California; and this week, Lisa Cook, a governor on the board of the Federal Reserve.

Each has denied wrongdoing. Trump announced on Monday night that he was moving to fire Cook.

It is an unusual role for a director of the FHFA, which regulates Fannie Mae — the nation’s largest company by assets — and Freddie Mac. The two mortgage financing organizations, which support nearly half of the U.S. residential mortgage market, were taken over by the FHFA during the 2008 economic crisis.

The grandson of one of Michigan’s wealthiest and most prolific homebuilders, Pulte made a name for himself on Twitter in 2019 with public cash giveaways to individuals in need. He dubbed himself the “inventor of Twitter philanthropy,” vowing to give two cars away in exchange for a Trump retweet that year, which he received. He subsequently built a following of over 3 million.

Records show Pulte donated substantially to Trump, the Republican National Committee and related super PACs leading up to the 2024 election.

Pulte’s letters to Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi have been tightly and cautiously written. But his social media posts, celebrating the targeted attacks, have not.

“Trump becomes the first president ever to remove a sitting Federal Reserve governor,” he wrote on X, between retweets of right-wing commentators praising the move. “Mortgage fraud can carry up to 30 years in prison.”

In another post on X, quoting a CNN headline, Pulte wrote that Trump’s firing of Cook was “escalating his battle against the central bank” — seeming to acknowledge that targeting Cook was motivated by Trump’s ongoing grievances with Fed leadership.

Cook’s firing is legally dubious, and her attorney, Abbe Lowell, said in a statement that Cook plans on suing the administration while continuing to perform her duties for the Fed. Lowell also represents James in her defense against the Justice Department case.

While the Supreme Court ruled in May that Trump may fire individuals from independent federal agencies, the justices singled out the Fed as an exception, calling it a “uniquely structured, quasi-private entity.” The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 states that the president may fire a member of its leadership only “for cause.”

But cause has not been definitively established to fire Cook, with Pulte writing in his letter to Bondi that the Fed governor had only “potentially” committed mortgage fraud, accusing her of falsifying bank documents and property records to acquire more favorable loan terms.

Pulte has accused Cook of listing two homes — in Ann Arbor, Mich., and in Atlanta — as her primary addresses within two weeks of purchasing them through financing. Cook said she would “take any questions about my financial history seriously” and was “gathering the accurate information to answer any legitimate questions and provide the facts.”

Pulte’s other accusations, against James and Schiff, have been similarly superficial, publicly accusing individuals of potential criminality before a full, independent investigation can take place.

And whether those investigations will be impartial is far from clear. Earlier this month, Bondi appointed Ed Martin, a conspiracy theorist who supported the “Stop the Steal” movement after Joe Biden’s election victory over Trump in 2020, as a special prosecutor to investigate the James and Schiff cases.

Pulte accused James — who successfully accused Trump of financial fraud in a civil suit last year — of falsifying bank statements and property records to secure more favorable loan terms for homes in Virginia and New York. He made similar claims weeks later about Schiff, who maintains residences in California and the suburbs of Washington, D.C.

Schiff, who led a House impeachment of Trump during the president’s first term and has remained one of his most vocal and forceful political adversaries since joining the Senate, dismissed the president’s claims as a “baseless attempt at political retribution.”

A spokesperson for Schiff said he has always been transparent about owning two homes, in part to be able to raise his children near him in Washington, and has always followed the law — and advice from House counsel — in arranging his mortgages.

In making his claims, Trump cited an investigation by the Fannie Mae “Financial Crimes Division” as his source.

A memorandum reviewed by The Times from Fannie Mae investigators to Pulte does not accuse Schiff of mortgage fraud. It noted that investigators had been asked by the FHFA inspector general’s office for loan files and “any related investigative or quality control documentation” for Schiff’s homes.

Investigators said they found that Schiff at various points identified both his home in Potomac, Md., and a Burbank unit he also owns as his primary residence. As a result, they concluded that Schiff and his wife, Eve, “engaged in a sustained pattern of possible occupancy misrepresentation” on their home loans between 2009 and 2020.

The investigators did not say they had concluded that a crime had been committed, nor did they mention the word “fraud” in the memo.

The Democrats running for California governor have spent the spring and summer working to win over the powerful donors and interest groups who could help them squeak through a competitive primary election.

But the candidates, and many deep-pocketed Democrats, are still waiting for the decision that will have the biggest impact on the race: whether former Vice President Kamala Harris is running.

Since Harris lost to President Trump in November, the race to replace Gov. Gavin Newsom has been in suspended animation, with candidates trying to plan their campaigns without knowing who their biggest opponents will be. A few are making contingency plans to run for other offices. And some major donors are waiting to write big checks.

“It creates a little bit of a limbo situation,” said Tony Thurmond, the state superintendent of public instruction who launched his gubernatorial campaign in 2023.

The Democrats in the race are talking to many of the same potential donors, Thurmond said, and most have the same question: “Is she going to run?” The only answer, Thurmond said, is an unsatisfying one: “We don’t know.”

Since leaving Washington in January, Harris has mostly stayed out of the public eye, settling back into her Brentwood home with her husband, Doug Emhoff, and talking to close friends and confidantes about what she should do next. She is weighing whether to leave politics, run for governor or run for president for a third time. She is expected to make a decision about the gubernatorial race by the end of summer.

The Democrats who are already running for governor lack Harris’ star power, and her entry could upend the race. But the former vice president would also face questions about her 107-day sprint to the White House, what she knew about President Biden’s decline and whether someone who has run unsuccessfully for president twice really wants to be California’s governor.

“She is looking closely where is the best place to put her energy and focus and her time,” said Debbie Mesloh, a longtime Harris ally.

The few public appearances Harris has made this year — meeting with firefighters in Altadena, attending a high school graduation in Compton and headlining a Democratic National Committee fundraiser in the Bay Area — have been fodder for those trying to read the tea leaves. What does it mean that Harris skipped the state Democratic Party convention? That Emhoff has taken a teaching job at USC?

Harris had originally planned to take a two-week vacation at the end of this month but has canceled her trip, according to someone familiar with her plans.

Harris has also been in New York, where she attended Broadway plays and the exclusive Met Gala; in San Francisco, where she dined with her niece Meena at the high-end Japanese restaurant Shoji; and in Los Angeles, where she has shopped for groceries at a 99 Ranch Market in Westwood and the Brentwood Farmers Market.

As the months have worn on, some gubernatorial campaigns have started to think that Harris’ victory feels like less of a foregone conclusion than if she’d announced in January after leaving office.

Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, former Biden Cabinet secretary Xavier Becerra and former U.S. Rep. Katie Porter of Irvine have said that they will stay in the race no matter what.

Veteran state Senate leader Toni Atkins of San Diego said she is also staying in if Harris runs, saying in a statement that “while the vice president has her own path, our campaign is moving full speed ahead.”

Former state Controller Betty Yee said in an interview this week that even if Harris runs, she is staying in, too.

“No, no, no,” Yee said, of the possibility of seeking another statewide office. Being governor, she said, “is what I feel like I’ve prepared to do. I will be staying in the race and really leaning into my fiscal and financial background.”

Yee said when she talks to donors, they want to know two things: how California can push back against the Trump administration, and what she will do if Harris enters the race.

Dan Newman, a political strategist who’s worked for Newsom, Harris and several of the gubernatorial candidates, said that the race is at an odd inflection point, with candidates who “don’t know who their potential voters are, because they don’t know who they’re running against,” and some donors who are waiting — at least for now — to write big checks.

“They’ve got a good excuse to not give, because even if they are a big fan of a candidate who’s in the race now, they don’t know if the candidate will stay in the race,” Newman said. “Then there are others who don’t want to give to someone who might run against her.”

Eric Jaye, a political strategist who previously worked for Villaraigosa’s 2018 gubernatorial campaign and advised Newsom when he was mayor of San Francisco, said he’s hearing “frustration” from donors who are ready to see the race pick up speed.

“They’re not going to wait much longer,” Jaye said. “There are going to be donors who say, ‘We have to go. We’re not going to wait for you.’”

But even if Harris entered, that wouldn’t be a guarantee that donors would back her again, including those who are angry that she spent nearly $1.5 billion in campaign funds in her compressed campaign for the White House in 2024.

“The money is very, very upset with her,” said gubernatorial candidate Stephen Cloobeck, a businessman and Democratic donor who is running for California governor. “They’re my friends. I’m part of that money. Everyone is thoroughly reeling.”

The amount of money that candidates raise is one way to gauge their support — and prospects. That picture remains a little fuzzy, though, since gubernatorial candidates have until July 31 to report their fundraising hauls from the first half of the year.

The only candidate to release numbers so far is Becerra, who said he raised $2.4 million since entering the race in early April, including a $1.1-million transfer from his congressional campaign account. Becerra’s campaign has $2 million on hand, including the largest contributions allowed by law — $39,200 — from the politically connected Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians and Pechanga Band of Indians.

Campaigns are required to report contributions of $5,000 or more shortly after they receive them. Those figures don’t represent total fundraising, but can still show a campaign’s trajectory.

Three of the eight candidates have raised less than $100,000 this year in chunks of more than $5,000 at a time, state data show. Yee reported $71,900 and Thurmond, $32,500.

Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis reported raising $70,000, including $5,000 from Google. Her campaign said Kounalakis, who has been raising money since entering the race in April 2023, has $9 million on hand.

“I want to be clear that I’m in this race to win,” Kounalakis said.

Villaraigosa, who entered the race last summer, has raised almost $1 million this year through large donations, data show. Atkins reported about $381,000 this year, and Cloobeck, about $132,000.

Porter, who entered the race in March, reported almost $475,000 in larger contributions, according to state data. She also transferred $942,000 from her U.S. Senate account to her gubernatorial account, according to federal filings made public Tuesday.

Thousands of California Democrats will gather this weekend to be courted by gubernatorial and potential presidential candidates, rage against the Trump administration and organize for the 2026 election.

However, the state’s two most prominent Democrats — former Vice President Kamala Harris and Gov. Gavin Newson — will not be attending the multiday gathering of roughly 4,000 party delegates, activists, donors, labor leaders and other powerful voices in the largest Democratic state in the nation, according to a source familiar with the event’s planning.

Their absences are notable given speculation about their political futures. Newsom and Harris are both viewed as potential 2028 presidential candidates. Harris also may jump into California’s 2026 race for governor, and is expected to make a decision by the end of the summer.

Both were invited to the state party convention in Anaheim, according to the source. Harris is expected to send a video greeting attendees. Harris representatives did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Newsom is scheduled to participate in a Democratic Governors’ Assn.’ gathering in Portland to coordinate efforts to fight Trump’s tariffs, a spokesperson said. But the gathering doesn’t begin until Sunday, the final day of the state party convention. A letter from the governor to delegates is included in the convention program.

Darry Sragow, a veteran Democratic strategist, said there was little benefit to either one attending the gathering.

“There’s no question that well-known, well-defined political figures like the governor and former vice president could be met with mixed reactions,” he said. “If I was advising them, I’m honestly not sure I could come up with a justification for their going. What’s the upside?”

Prominent California Democrats have routinely faced backlash from liberal delegates at the party’s annual conventions. Anti-fracking advocates interrupted a speech by former Gov. Jerry Brown over his support for the controversial oil extraction practice and the late Sen. Dianne Feinstein was booed during her 1990 speech supporting the death penalty. Her then-gubernatorial campaign turned the latter into a television advertisement aimed at that era’s more moderate electorate.

Newsom, once a darling at such conventions, could possibly face similar fallout among party loyalists because of recent statements about opposing transgender athletes being allowed to compete in women’s sports as well as bantering with conservative heroes such as Steve Bannon and Charlie Kirk on his podcast.

If she attended, Harris could be criticized for complicity in hiding former President Biden’s alleged cognitive decline while in office, an allegation lodged in a recent book that argues that deception led to Trump’s 2024 victory.

However, Harris has the luxury of time as she decides what to do next in her political career. Harris’ delay in making a decision about the gubernatorial contest, however, has drawn scorn from some Democrats who have announced their candidacies.

Every prominent Democrat who has announced a gubernatorial run is expected to attend the convention.

Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis and state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond have official speaking roles because they currently serve in elected office, as does former state Controller Betty Yee because she is the party’s vice chair.

Former state Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins, former U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra, businessman Stephen J. Cloobeck, former Rep. Katie Porter and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa will also be wooing attendees.

Potential 2028 presidential candidates Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and N.J. Sen. Cory Booker are also scheduled to speak to California Democratic Party delegates at the Anaheim Convention Center.

In addition to addressing delegates at caucus meetings, such as labor, environmental, Latino and women voters, candidates will meet with donors and court activists throughout the weekend. Social gatherings include a Friday night fireworks show, an ice cream social and a party titled “Punk the System” hosted by state Democrats as well as the powerful nurses’ and teachers’ lobbies.

“Dance. Drink. Rage for Democracy,” reads the invite to the gathering.

Candidates are also hosting events — Yee is offering “healthy breakfast bites” and coffee on Saturday morning. Cloobeck, a billionaire who made his fortune in real estate and hospitality, is planning a reception that night with the theme “Fight for California, Celebrate CA Dems!”

The longtime donor and fundraiser for Democrats and philanthropic causes has never previously run for elected office. In his first introduction to state party activists, Cloobeck said he plans to focus on lessons from the 2024 election and urging Democrats not to be tone deaf to the electorate’s needs.

“The party should work for everyone,” Cloobeck said. “It can’t cater to only special interests or well-connected individuals.”

State party chairman Rusty Hicks, who is widely expected to win reelection at the convention, said California Democrats have reflected and reckoned with last year’s election results, “some good and some bad and some ugly.”

While the party bucked national trends by performing strongly in congressional races, it also unexpectedly lost legislative seats and saw a decline in voter turnout among Latinos, Asian Americans and young people, Hicks said.

“We can’t just compete in targeted seats,” he said. “We have to compete everywhere in a different way. What happened in ‘24 — the good and the bad — informs what our work is in ‘26.”

Times staff writer Taryn Luna in Sacramento contributed to this report.

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.