🥊 The Corruption Series: What’s Trump's ballroom deal hiding?
HINT: Look under the floorboards.
Welcome to the second-issue in Upper Cut’s three-part corruption series — where we’re homing in on the rampant corruption of the Trump administration and, of course, highlighting ways blue states can fight back.
While Trump recently spent his time fighting for a $1.8 billion slush fund to pay back his political allies (which he’s temporarily backing down from after private litigants and a federal judge stepped in 🥊), millions of Americans struggle to afford basic necessities. And voters are paying attention: 74% of battleground voters say corruption raises healthcare costs, and 65% say it drives up grocery prices. That makes fighting corruption a major political opportunity for Democrats in 2026 — but only if they’re willing to take it on. As our polling showed, voters want fighters, and fighting corruption is a great opportunity. With the midterms approaching, it’s time to act.
Which corruption angle should we cover next?
This week, let’s go for a spin through Trump’s ballroom. Last October, Trump took a wrecking ball to the historic East Wing of the White House to fulfill a vanity project — a gilded $300 million ballroom (...whose price tag keeps ballooning). But the real scandal isn’t that Trump took bulldozers to the White House (bad), or that it costs a lot (also bad). It’s how this ballroom is being paid for, and how hard the administration is fighting to keep it a secret.
If you take Trump’s boasts about the project’s private funding at face value, you might think there’s nothing to hide. The White House even trotted out a list of donors — a who’s who of corporate giants with business interests before the federal government: Apple, Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Palantir, Coinbase, plus a parade of billionaires. What they wouldn’t disclose? The contract governing how their donations flowed to the project.
For good reason. Public Citizen got its hands on the funding agreement (thanks FOIA!), which shows us what they’ve been hiding: donations being routed through a 501(c)(3) called the Trust for the National Mall (most known for tending to the Tidal Basin cherry blossoms). It turns out it was a complex “Rube Goldberg contraption” engineered to enable anonymous donations and tax deductions, while exempting the part of the White House actually soliciting the money from conflict-of-interest review (“nothing more than a scam,” per a legal expert). In short:
The president gets a ballroom.
The public doesn’t know who is paying.
The secret donors get a tax break — while also getting on the President’s good side.
The abuse of 501(c)(3) rules isn’t new for the right-wing, or for Trump himself. Groups like the Heritage Foundation, which enjoy tax-exempt status claim in disclosures to publish “timely, accurate research.” Yet, at the same time, they advance misinformation, including about non-citizen voting and the Biden autopen conspiracy, that advance GOP priorities. And back in 2024, CREW reported that nonprofits tied to Leonard Leo, founder of the Federalist Society and darling of the conservative movement, paid Leo’s business more than $90 million over six years. In response, D.C. AG Brian Schwalb launched an investigation (which the House GOP then attempted to interfere with). The attempt at accountability clearly struck a nerve.
As for Trump? There’s plenty of nonprofit malfeasance to point to.
In 2019, NY AG Letitia James shut down the Trump Foundation for misusing funds for political purposes.
Then, in 2020 then-D.C. AG Karl Racine sued his tax-exempt inaugural committee for funneling more than $1 million in payments to the Trump International Hotel, including throwing a private party for the Trump children on the nonprofit’s dime — resulting in a $750,000 settlement.
Meanwhile, red states are weaponizing state power against tax-exempt organizations they don’t like. Texas AG Ken Paxton spent years investigating (and ultimately sued) ActBlue, the Democratic fundraising platform. He opened the probe just 24 hours after a Texas Democratic Senate candidate broke fundraising records on it. He also launched an investigation into Media Matters after it reported on ads from major brands appearing next to antisemitic posts. And just last month, Florida AG James Uthmeier announced a consumer protection investigation into the Southern Poverty Law Center (coming soon after DOJ’s indictment of SPLC).
The lesson: the GOP sees nonprofit laws as yet another tool for power — and they won’t stop unless blue states make them.
We have some ideas for how.
THE PUNCH LIST
Are you a state AG? Investigate nonprofits that misrepresent their activities or misuse charitable funds. Most nonprofits are organized both as a 501(c)(3), a federal designation under the IRS, and as charities under state law. Generally, nonprofits must register and file disclosures in states where they raise money or do business — giving state attorneys general broad oversight powers. States should enforce their charitable solicitation laws. Subpoena board minutes. Examine fundraising practices. Tax-exemption is a privilege, not a right. D.C. AG Brian Schwalb has shown us how it’s done: forcing the NRA Foundation to return $6.2 million in charitable assets that had been diverted to the NRA’s political work.
Do you work for a state AG? Use consumer protection laws against political conduct dressed up as charity work. Every state has broad unfair and deceptive practices statutes. If nonprofits or affiliated entities mislead donors about how funds will be used or conceal conflicts of interest, blue-state AGs could investigate and sue. For example, California’s Unfair Competition Law and New York General Business Law § 349 prohibit deceptive practices. If a nonprofit solicits donations using misleading representations? That’s grounds for a state AG to start investigating.
Are you a state legislator? Expand the definition of public official in your state’s anti-corruption laws to include federal officials. When states criminalize public corruption, most states limit definitions of who is covered to state and local actors. This leaves a gap when federal officials engage in misconduct with a clear state nexus — like if, hypothetically, a company in Maryland makes a donation to the Trump ballroom in the hope of securing regulatory relief. States should expand those definitions to include federal officials. They wouldn’t be the first — Colorado, Indiana, and Maine already do.
FIGHTING FIRE WITH FIRE
🥊 MN AG Keith Ellison (and 14 of his state AG colleagues) sent a warning shot. In May, the AGs sent a letter to prominent donor-advised funds who “de-banked” SPLC after the DOJ’s controversial indictment. Next up? We could see an investigation.
🥊 NY AG Letitia James put nonprofits on notice. Late last year, James sued VDARE — an anti-immigrant nonprofit — alleging “rampant self-dealing and misuse of millions in charitable assets.”
🥊 Former NJ AG Matt Platkin turned up the heat. In 2023, he subpoenaed anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers to find out whether they were breaking any state laws by deceiving or defrauding New Jerseyans. The more you know…
THE FIGHT FOR DISCLOSURE CONTINUES
Public Citizen Democracy Advocate Jon Golinger laid out what the Trump ballroom contract means:
“This document reveals that anonymous donations are the heart of this agreement. The questions this raises are, of the hundreds of millions being funneled in secret, who are these anonymous donors, and what are they hiding? The American people deserve answers, and we’ll keep fighting until they get them.”
Upper Cut is a collaboration between Salt River Valley Project and Evergreen Legal — two organizations that believe punching back is the policy playbook this moment demands. It’s how we fight a rigged system, make courage contagious, and deliver for people against the leaders holding them down.