Trump calls to prosecute Beyoncé based on a nonexistent $11 million payment
Trump claimed in a social media post that Beyoncé broke the law by supposedly getting paid $11 million for her endorsement of Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris during an October 2024 event in Houston. But there is simply no basis for Trump's claim that Beyoncé received an $11 million payment related to the Harris campaign, let alone for the endorsement in particular.
Federal campaign spending records show a $165,000 payment from the Harris campaign to Beyoncé's production company, which the campaign listed as a 'campaign event production' expense. A Harris campaign spokesperson told Deadline last year that they didn't pay celebrity endorsers, but were required by law to cover the costs connected to their appearances.
Regardless of the merits of this particular $165,000 expenditure, it's far from an $11 million one. Nobody has ever produced any evidence for the claim of an eight-figure endorsement payment to Beyoncé since the claim that it was '$10 million' began spreading last year among Trump supporters on social media. Fact-check websites FactCheck.org and PolitiFact looked into the '$10 million' claim during the campaign and did not find any basis for it.
The White House did not immediately respond to a CNN request late Saturday for any evidence of Trump's $11 million figure. When Trump previously invoked the baseless figure, during an interview in February, he described his source in the vaguest of terms: 'Somebody just showed me something. They gave her $11 million.'
A Harris spokesperson referred CNN on Saturday to a November social media post by Beyoncé's mother Tina Knowles, who called the claim of a $10 million payment a 'lie' and noted it was taken down by Instagram as 'False Information.'
'When In Fact: Beyonce did not receive a penny for speaking at a Presidential candidate Vice President Kamala Harrris's (sic) Rally in Houston,' Knowles wrote.
A spokesperson for Beyoncé told PolitiFact in November that the claim about a $10 million payment is 'beyond ridiculous.'
Trump revived the false claim in a social media post published after midnight early Sunday morning in Scotland, where he is visiting. He wrote that he is looking at 'the fact' that Democrats 'admit to paying, probably illegally, Eleven Million Dollars to singer Beyoncé for an ENDORSEMENT.'
Democratic officials actually reject the claim of an $11 million payment. The White House did not immediately respond to CNN's request for any evidence of a Democratic admission of such a payment.
Trump went on to criticize other payments from the Harris campaign to organizations connected to prominent endorsers. He asserted without evidence that these payments were inaccurately described in spending records. And he wrongly asserted that it is 'TOTALLY ILLEGAL' to pay for political endorsements, though no federal law forbids endorsement payments.
Trump concluded: 'Kamala, and all of those that received Endorsement money, BROKE THE LAW. They should all be prosecuted! Thank you for your attention to this matter.'
Trump has repeatedly called for the prosecution of political opponents. His Saturday post about Harris and celebrity endorsements was an escalation from a post in May, when he said he would call for a 'major investigation' on the subject but did not explicitly mention prosecutions. — CNN
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Arabiya
3 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
Trump administration slashed federal funding for gun violence prevention
The Trump administration has terminated more than half of all federal funding for gun violence prevention programs in the US, cutting $158 million in grants that had been directed to groups in cities like New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington, DC, and Baltimore. Of the 145 community violence intervention (CVI) grants totaling more than $300 million awarded through the US Department of Justice, 69 grants were abruptly terminated in April, according to government data analyzed by Reuters. The elimination of CVI programs is part of a broader rollback at the department's grant-issuing Office of Justice Programs, which terminated 365 grants valued at $811 million in April, impacting a range of public safety and victim services programs. A DOJ official told Reuters the gun violence grants were eliminated because they 'no longer effectuate the program's goals or agency's priorities.' Thousands of Office of Justice Programs grants are under review, the official said, and are being evaluated, among other things, on how well they support law enforcement and combat violent crime. The majority of CVI grants were originally funded through the 2022 Bipartisan Safer Communities Act and part of a push by former President Joe Biden to stem the rise of gun violence in America, including establishing the first White House Office for Gun Violence Prevention. That office was 'dismantled on day one' of Trump taking office, said former deputy director of the office, Greg Jackson. Prior to the Biden-era funding, most gun violence prevention programs were funded on the state level. 'These programs five years ago, if they did exist, had very small budgets and didn't have large, multimillion-dollar federal investments,' said Michael-Sean Spence, managing director of community safety initiatives at Everytown for Gun Safety, which has worked with 136 community-based violence intervention organizations since 2019. Twenty-five of the groups were impacted by funding cuts. The grants supported a wide range of CVI programming to prevent shootings such as training outreach teams to de-escalate and mediate conflict, social workers to connect people to services and employment, and hospital-based programs for gun violence victims. '[It's] preventing them from doing the work in service of those that need it the most at the most urgent, and deadliest time of the year,' Spence said, referring to summer months when there's typically an uptick in shootings. Gun violence deaths in the US grew more than 50 percent from 2015 to the pandemic-era peak of 21,383 in 2021, according to the Gun Violence Archive. Since then, deadly shootings have been in decline, falling to 16,725 in 2024, which is more in line with the pre-pandemic trend. As of May 2025, deaths are down 866 from the same period last year. Defunded programs While cities like New York City, Chicago and Los Angeles received the bulk of gun violence prevention funding, southern cities like Memphis, Selma, Alabama and Baton Rouge, Louisiana also received millions and were more reliant on the grants due to limited state support for the programs, experts told Reuters. 'Very few state legislatures are passing funding right now, that's why the federal cuts were such a tragic hit,' said Amber Goodwin, co-founder of Community Violence Legal Network, who's part of a coalition of lawyers working to get grants reinstated. Nearly a dozen interviews with legal experts, gun violence interventionists, and former DOJ officials said funding cuts threaten the long-term sustainability of community violence intervention initiatives that have taken years to establish and are embedded in predominantly Black and Latino communities. Pha'Tal Perkins founded Think Outside Da Block in 2016, a nonprofit based in Chicago's violence-plagued Englewood neighborhood. Federal funding allowed him to hire full-time staff, but when grants were stripped, he was forced to lay off five team members. 'Being able to have outreach teams at specific places at the right time to have conversations before things get out of hand is what people don't see,' Perkins said. The programs initiated in 2022 marked the first time grassroots organizations could apply for federal community violence prevention funding directly, without going through law enforcement or state intermediaries, according to three former DOJ officials. Aqeela Sherrills, co-founder of Community Based Public Safety Collective in Los Angeles, provided training on implementing violence intervention strategies to nearly 94 grantees, including states, law enforcement agencies, and community-based organizations. Prior to the cuts, 'we were onboarding 30 new grantees through the federal government. Many of these cities and law enforcement agencies have no idea how to implement CVI,' Sherrills said. Police support Some critics of CVI argue that the programs aren't effective and that federal dollars would be better spent on law enforcement to stymie gun violence. Others view the initiatives as inherently 'anti-gun' and are 'nothing more than a funnel to send federal tax dollars to anti-gun non-profits who advocate against our rights,' said Aidan Johnston, federal affairs director of the Gun Owners of America. That view is not universally shared by law enforcement, however. In June, a letter signed by 18 law enforcement groups and police chiefs in Louisville, Minneapolis, Tucson and Omaha called on Attorney General Pam Bondi to reinstate funding that has resulted in 'measurable and significant reductions in violence and homicides.' 'These aren't feel-good programs; they're lifesaving, law-enforcement-enhancing strategies that work,' they wrote. Columbia, South Carolina Deputy Police Chief Melron Kelly, who was unaware of the letter, told Reuters that CVI programs were relatively new in the city, but as a result, the police began collaborating more with community organizations. Kelly said Columbia's CVI programs focused on preventing retaliatory shootings that can escalate a neighborhood conflict. 'Public safety really starts in the neighborhood before police get involved. CVI work is very important; we've seen a drastic reduction in violent crime post-COVID and shootings are almost at a 10-year low,' Kelly said. Now, organizations are trying to figure out how to keep the doors open now that federal money has run dry. Durell Cowan, executive director of HEAL 901, a community violence prevention nonprofit in Memphis, received a $1.7 million CVI grant in October 2024. Cowan's organization received $150,000 in federal funds since the beginning of the year before his grant was canceled. He's had to dip into his personal savings to keep his 14-person staff on payroll, he said. Recently, he secured funding from an out-of-state nonprofit as well as a $125,000 emergency grant from the city. Still, he may be forced to conduct layoffs if federal government dollars don't start flowing again. 'We shouldn't be pulling from our own personal finances and life insurance policies to cover the cost of public safety,' he said.
Al Arabiya
3 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
Trump calls NY shooting ‘senseless' violence by ‘crazed lunatic'
US President Donald Trump on Tuesday called a mass shooting in New York a 'senseless act of violence' carried out by a 'lunatic.' Trump posted on social media that he had been briefed on late Monday's incident, in which a gunman shot four people, then apparently took his own life, in a Manhattan skyscraper. One of those killed was a police officer. 'I trust our Law Enforcement Agencies to get to the bottom of why this crazed lunatic committed such a senseless act of violence,' Trump posted. The shooter was identified by police as Shane Tamura, a once-promising school-level American football player, who was reportedly carrying a note that referred to CTE -- a form of brain damage from contact sports. His attack took place at the tower housing the headquarters of the National Football League and New York's Mayor Eric Adams said authorities were focusing on whether Tamura was targeting the organization.
Al Arabiya
4 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
Government shutdown talk is starting early ahead of a difficult funding fight in congress this fall
It's become tradition. Congressional leaders from both major political parties blame each other for a potential government shutdown as the budget year draws to a close. But this year the posturing is starting extraordinarily early. The finger-pointing with more than two months to go in the fiscal year indicates the threat of a stoppage is more serious than usual as a Republican-controlled Congress seeks to make good on its policy priorities often with no support from the other political party. Democratic leadership from both chambers and the two panels responsible for drafting spending bills met behind closed doors recently to discuss the strategy ahead. The leaders emerged demanding that Republicans work with them but were careful to avoid spelling out red lines if Republicans don't. 'We are for a bipartisan bicameral bill. That's what always has been done,' said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer. 'The onus is on the Republicans to help us make that happen.' On the Republican side lawmakers describe the Democrats as itching for a shutdown. Senate Majority Leader John Thune said Schumer had threatened a shutdown should Republicans pass a bill to roll back $9 billion in public broadcasting and foreign aid funds. Republicans subsequently passed those cuts. 'It was disturbing to see the Democratic leader implicitly threatening to shut down the government in his July 'Dear Colleague' letter, but I'm hopeful that he does not represent the views of Senate Democrats as a whole,' Thune said. Where things stand on government funding: The federal government is operating on a full-year continuing resolution that provided about $1.7 trillion in spending for defense and non-defense programs. The funding expires Sept. 30. President Donald Trump requested a comparable amount for the coming fiscal year, but the Republican proposed dramatically overhauling how that money is distributed to include more for defense and border security and significantly less for health, education, housing, and foreign assistance. So far the House has approved two of the 12 annual spending bills. The Senate has yet to approve any, but those bills that have advanced out of the Senate Appropriations Committee are enjoying bipartisan support, while the House bills are generally advancing out of committee on party line votes. This week the Senate is expected to consider the appropriations bill to fund military construction projects and the Department of Veterans Affairs, generally one of the easier spending bills to pass. One or two others could get added to the package. Congress got off to a late start on the funding process. Republicans prioritized Trump's tax and spending cut bill. Most lawmakers agree Congress will need to pass a stop-gap measure before Sept. 30 to avoid a shutdown and allow lawmakers more time to work on the full-year spending measures. The view from Democrats: Democrats overwhelmingly opposed this year's funding bill that expires in two months. But in the end, Schumer and nine Democratic colleagues decided a government shutdown would be even worse. They voted to allow the bill to proceed and overcome a filibuster giving Republicans the ability to pass it on their own on a final vote. Schumer took considerable heat from progressives for his strategy. House Democratic leadership issued a statement at the time saying, 'House Democrats will not be complicit.' And members of his own caucus publicly expressed disagreement. 'If we pass this continuing resolution for the next half year, we will own what the president does,' said Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif. 'I am not willing to take ownership of that.' Some liberal groups threatened to hold protests at various events Schumer was planning to promote a new book, and some of those events ended up being postponed due to security concerns. The Democratic frustrations have only grown stronger in the ensuing months. First, the Democrats watched the Trump administration slow-walk or block hundreds of billions of dollars from going out, in part through the work of its Department of Government Efficiency. Then they watched as Republicans passed Trump's big tax and spending cut bill without any Democratic votes. Finally, they watched as Republicans this month canceled $9 billion in foreign aid and public broadcasting funds when much of it had been previously agreed to on a bipartisan basis. Meanwhile, Trump's director of the Office of Management and Budget, Russ Vought, declared that the appropriations process has to be less bipartisan. Democrats complain that much of the work taking place in the House has been a waste of time since those partisan bills have no chance of getting 60 votes in the 100-member Senate. 'At this point in time, why have appropriations if they can just unilaterally through rescissions whack it all away?' said Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Ill. 'I think what you're seeing is more frustration than I've ever witnessed.' Republicans position for impasse: Republicans control all the levers of power in Washington. That could make it harder to blame Democrats for a shutdown. But in the end, any bill will need some Democratic support to get the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster. 'Our concern is that from their standpoint they want to have a shutdown,' Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D. said of Democrats. '... The Democrats see it as a way to derail the agenda that we're putting through.' Sen. John Barrasso, the No. 2-ranked Republican in the Senate, said Republicans were determined to hold votes on the 12 spending bills. He said that Schumer had unilaterally shut down the appropriations process in previous years by not holding such votes, moving instead to negotiate directly with GOP leadership in the House and then-President Joe Biden's Democratic administration on an all-encompassing spending package. 'If Democrats walk away from this process again simply to protect wasteful Washington spending,' Barrasso said, 'they will be the ones sabotaging the Senate and shutting down the government.'
