Trump orders Justice Department to investigate top Democrat fundraising platform
US President Donald Trump has ordered the Justice Department to investigate the Democratic Party's top fundraising platform.
Mr Trump, in an executive order signed on Thursday, directed attorney general Pam Bondi to investigate allegations made by Republicans that ActBlue allows illegal campaign donations.
Democrats, who had anticipated they would be targeted, condemned the move on Thursday.
ActBlue called it an 'oppressive use of power' by the White House.
'The Trump Administration's and GOP's targeting of ActBlue is part of their brazen attack on democracy in America. Today's escalation by the White House is blatantly unlawful and needs to be seen for what it is: Donald Trump's latest front in his campaign to stamp out all political, electoral and ideological opposition,' ActBlue said in a statement.
Mr Trump holds up a signed executive order in the Oval Office of the White House on April 23 (Alex Brandon/AP)
ActBlue said it would pursue 'all legal avenues to protect and defend itself'.
'ActBlue will continue its mission and work undeterred and uninterrupted, providing a safe, secure fundraising platform for the millions of grassroots donors who rely on us.'
Mr Trump's order directs Ms Bondi, in consultation with the Treasury Department, to investigate allegations that online fundraising platforms, and specifically ActBlue, have been used by some to 'make 'straw' or 'dummy' contributions or foreign contributions to political candidates and committees'.
The findings of the investigation will be reported back within 180 days, according to the order.
Since taking office, Mr Trump has sought to use the powers of the government to retaliate against his opponents, including ordering security clearances to be stripped and punishing law firms linked to prosecutors who have investigated him or who have ties to his adversaries.
ActBlue, which Democratic campaigns have used for two decades, has helped power an outpouring of small-dollar donations to candidates and causes.
It was so successful that Republicans eventually created a counterpart, WinRed — which Mr Trump did not target in the order.
Republican National Committee chairman Michael Whatley applauded the investigation, saying in a statement: 'The Democrats' Dark Money scam has gone on long enough.'
FILE – Democratic National Committee chairman Ken Martin (Rod Lamkey, Jr, File/AP)
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairwoman Suzan DelBene, Democratic National Committee chairman Ken Martin, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee chairwoman Kirsten Gillibrand, and Democratic Governors Association chairwoman Laura Kelly denounced the executive order in a joint statement.
'Donald Trump's memorandum targeting ActBlue is designed to undermine democratic participation — and it's no wonder why,' the statement said.
'He knows Americans are already fed up with his chaotic agenda that is driving the economy off a cliff, so he's trying to block lawful grassroots donations from supporters giving just five dollars (£3.76) or 10 dollars (£7.52) to candidates who oppose him while further empowering the corrupt billionaires who already control his administration.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
an hour ago
- Irish Times
Los Angeles is only the beginning: Trump is normalising military enforcement of law and order
When a country's leader celebrates their birthday with a big military parade it doesn't look much like democracy. Today, as Donald Trump turns 79, that is precisely what will happen in Washington, DC. Yet as tanks roll down the city's wide avenues, a nationwide mass opposition movement is forming. Trump casts the use of the military as a necessary tool against growing disorder, while his opponents will try to frame it for what it is: a power grab that threatens the foundations of American democracy. Today's events will escalate the conflict that began in Los Angeles over the past several days – and ratchet up the battle to control the narrative. On June 6th, workplace raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) rounded up and imprisoned hundreds of people, many of whom have the legal right to live and work in the United States . Inevitably these raids sparked protests, which Trump used as justification to call in the national guard and the marines. He depicted LA as a city 'invaded and conquered by a foreign enemy' that 'would be burning' if he had not acted decisively. Armed forces have rarely been used to suppress civil unrest in the history of the US or any other democracy. One has to go back to the Rodney King riots of 1992 – also in Los Angeles – for precedent, and all the way back to the Selma marches of 1965 when they were deployed to protect a peaceful civil rights march, despite the objections of state and local authorities. READ MORE It is deeply ironic that Trump poses as a figure of law and order when a mob of his supporters led an insurrection at the US Capitol on January 6th, 2021 during which more than 150 police officers were injured. Trump called it a 'day of love' and pardoned all of the perpetrators on his first day in office. Now he also grossly misrepresents the real situation in Los Angeles. While there is sporadic violence, it is hardly on the scale of the King uprising or even, arguably, this week's rioting in Ballymena. Most protesting in LA has been non-violent, and it was entirely non-violent until June 7th, when Trump called in the national guard. His actions have provoked violence, not quelled it. Yet images of a few protesters burning self-driving cars or throwing rocks at the police, endlessly circulated on right-wing social media, give ostensible credence to his claims. Trump appears to have deliberately manufactured a crisis for political reasons. In the short term, he needed to rally his base behind him. His budgetary legislation – his so-called 'big, beautiful Bill' – is stalled in Congress. Because it would massively inflate the national debt, it has proved controversial among many of his own supporters, most notably Elon Musk, with whom Trump had a very public falling out earlier this month. But the spectacle of public disorder in a liberal city and state more friendly to undocumented migrants has united his supporters. Trump's actions also have a longer-term political goal: normalising the use of military forces in law enforcement. American law generally forbids the domestic deployment of the armed forces. Two of the exceptions are in cases of invasion or insurrection. It is hardly a coincidence that the US president and his supporters have consistently referred to the 'invasion' of migrants and labelled protesters exercising a basic democratic right as 'insurrectionists'. Yet Trump's actions do not come free of political risk. His show of force is actually an admission of weakness. After all, if the Maga movement could be sure of winning future elections, it wouldn't need to resort to military force. But it would likely lose fair and free contests in 2026 and 2028. A majority of Americans disapprove of Trump's performance as president. His economic policy – a main reason he was elected – will hurt ordinary voters. In addition to inflating the national debt, the 'big, beautiful Bill' would massively redistribute wealth upwards to the richest Americans, take away health insurance from millions of Americans and stoke inflation. Most Americans may approve of Trump's goal of deporting undocumented migrants but most disapprove of the draconian methods he is using. The deployment of armed forces to LA has not been popular. Trump needed to generate political unrest to act the strongman, but in so doing he has sparked the first massive protest movement against his rule. Protests have spread beyond Los Angeles to other big cities including Chicago, Houston, New York and San Francisco. The vast majority of protesters have been non-violent. The previously planned 'No kings' demonstrations – happening today to challenge Trump's military display and his authoritarianism – have been given new energy. More than 2,000 demonstrations are planned throughout the country. Trump has also unified the political opposition. The Democratic Party, which has been lost at sea for much of Trump's second term, now seems to understand its role. Democrats at all levels of government are voicing their support for peaceful protest and their opposition to Trump's use of the military and taking some personal risk in doing so. California governor Gavin Newsom has become a prominent spokesperson, a role that led Trump to threaten his arrest. Senator Alex Padilla from California was tackled and handcuffed by FBI and Secret Service agents just for trying to ask questions during a press conference by Kristi Noem, Trump's homeland security secretary. Much of what happened in the US these past several days was predictable, but it is unclear how things will play out from here. The potential for violent clashes is very high. So far, Trump's narrative of civil unrest is focused on the meme of protesters burning cars. The authoritarian danger of his use of the military remains abstract, as troops have not yet been used to suppress protests. The opposition may soon have its own defining image if a US soldier is recorded beating, clubbing or shooting a nonviolent protester. Trump's second term might well be defined by violent clashes on American streets and the reverberating battles of interpreting that unrest. Los Angeles is only the beginning.
Irish Times
an hour ago
- Irish Times
Israeli attacks may give Iran's nuclear programme greater impetus
While the sudden and devastating Israeli attacks on Iran 's nuclear programme of the past 48 hours raise fears of a wider conflagration in the Middle East, the events of the past two and a half years seem to dictate a limited Iranian response at least in the short term. This is notwithstanding the scale of the Israeli assault – the attacks hit dozens of targets in Iran, in particular nuclear facilities and missile sites, including the Natanz nuclear facility which is one of the key sites for uranium enrichment in Iran. Senior military figures, including the head of Iran's Revolutionary Guard, the army chief of staff and several nuclear scientists were killed. The attacks came at a time when US president Donald Trump was offering optimistic prognostications concerning the likelihood of a deal on Iran's nuclear programme following talks earlier this year, the first round of which took place on April 12th in Oman. As recently as Thursday Omani authorities were confirming the sixth round of talks would take place on Sunday even as the US was ordering an evacuation of its Iraqi embassy and authorising the departure of military dependents from locations across the Middle East. In a telephone call on June 10th, Trump warned Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu he opposed military action in Iran. He expressed scepticism at Israeli claims that Iran should be presented with a credible military threat, and instead told Netanyahu the Iranians could be convinced to make a deal. All of this is in line with Trump's own vision of himself as a peace broker, despite his limited success to date in that regard. [ Most Israelis view a nuclear Iran as an existential threat Opens in new window ] Notwithstanding the announcement of more talks and Trump's expressions of optimism regarding the possibility of a deal, negotiations had stalled over US demands that Iran end all uranium enrichment and destroy its stockpile of enriched uranium. Iranian officials indicated they would be willing to stop enrichment at higher levels used for nuclear weapons and scrap its stockpile but would not agree to stop enrichment entirely, arguing it had the right to do so for civilian purposes under international law. READ MORE Trump's renewed interest in a negotiated deal with Iran was in stark contrast to his decision, during his first term in the White House, to pull the US out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. The deal, reached in 2015 between Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany, bound Iran to limiting its nuclear weapons programme in return for sanctions relief and other measures. There are clear indications the regime has been significantly penetrated by Israeli intelligence while its capacity to defend itself from aerial bombardment appears to be quite diminished For Netanyahu, who opposed negotiations with Iran from the outset, the decision to strike was prompted by a ruling issued by the board of the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) on Thursday that Iran was in violation of its nuclear non-proliferation obligations for the first time in 20 years. This followed a recent report from the IAEA which stated Iran had enough uranium enriched to 60 per cent purity to make nine nuclear bombs. Iran denies having ever sought to produce nuclear weapons. Indeed, its supreme leader reportedly stated in 2010 that the use of such weapons was contrary to Islamic precepts. In a television broadcast, Netanyahu justified the attacks, stating that Iran has recently taken steps to weaponise enriched uranium, which was 'a clear and present danger to Israel's very survival'. This wasn't the first time Netanyahu suggested Iran was on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons. As far back as September 2012, he told a US audience Iran was six months away from having enough enriched uranium to produce a nuclear weapon. In any case, while the ruling of the IAEA may have provided Netanyahu with the immediate motivation for Israeli action, it is clear from the scale and complexity of the attacks that these were many months in the planning. This in turn raises the obvious question as to how Iran may respond. The options available to the regime in Tehran are more limited than ever. In the first instance, Iran is undoubtedly possessed of a significant military capacity. Its armed forces are among the largest in the Middle East – 580,000 active-duty personnel and a reserve force of 200,000 in the conventional army and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. In addition, it has one of the largest arsenals of missiles and drones in the region – cruise missiles and anti-ship missiles and ballistic missiles with a range of more than 1,200 miles. Its bases and storage facilities are buried deep underground and difficult to destroy from the air. Many Iranian leaders feel that a bomb would provide them with protection as it has for North Korea However, there are clear indications the regime has been significantly penetrated by Israeli intelligence while its capacity to defend itself from aerial bombardment appears to be quite diminished. Israeli newspaper reports suggest that Israel built a secret drone base in Iran in advance of the attacks and its intelligence forces engaged in pre-emptive strikes targeting Iranian missile infrastructure and air defence systems. In addition, Israel has been carrying out daytime attacks with limited or no concern for Iranian air defences. It remains the case that the Iranian leadership is unwilling to take retaliatory actions that might invite direct military confrontation with the US, while the position of Iran's allies in the so-called Axis of Resistance has been weakened dramatically over the course of the conflict which began in October 2023. Clearly, Hamas is engaged in a struggle for survival in Gaza and Hizbullah in Lebanon continues to deal with the aftershocks of Israeli attacks on its leadership and rank and file. But, while the Israeli ambition is to degrade Iran's nuclear capability, the most significant impact of the attacks may be the strengthening of the position of those in the leadership who oppose negotiations on the nuclear issue. In its response to the attacks, the Iranian government stated that the world now better understands its insistence on 'the right to enrichment, nuclear technology and missile power', in an indication that it may feel a more urgent need to develop nuclear weapons in response to Israeli attacks. Many Iranian leaders feel that a bomb would provide them with protection as it has for North Korea. For some, this is an existential issue for the Islamic Republic. Ironically and worryingly, Netanyahu's project for the eradication of the nuclear threat may have the opposite effect of giving Iran's nuclear programme greater impetus. Dr Vincent Durac lectures in Middle East politics in the UCD School of Politics and International Relations
RTÉ News
3 hours ago
- RTÉ News
Trump approves US Steel, Nippon Steel partnership
President Donald Trump signed an executive order approving a partnership between US Steel and Nippon Steel after the companies reached agreement on US national security guarantees. The deal brings an end to the long-running saga over foreign ownership of a key national asset which began in December 2023, when US Steel and Nippon Steel announced plans for a $14.9 billion (€12.8 billion) merger. Nippon's acquisition of US Steel was held up by former president Joe Biden, who blocked it in his last weeks in the White House on national security grounds. Mr Trump initially opposed Nippon Steel's takeover plan, calling for US Steel to remain domestically owned, but he threw his support behind a "partnership" in May. "US Steel will REMAIN in America, and keep its Headquarters in the Great City of Pittsburgh," the US president said in a Truth Social post. In a joint statement, US Steel and Nippon Steel said Mr Trump "has approved the Companies' historic partnership that will unleash unprecedented investments in steelmaking in the United States, protecting and creating more than 100,000 jobs." "In addition to President Trump's Executive Order approving the partnership, the Companies have entered into a National Security Agreement (NSA) with the US Government," they said, which calls for approximately $11 billion in new investments to be made by 2028. Mr Trump's executive order did not provide details about the NSA but he reserved the authority to issue further orders "as shall in my judgment be necessary to protect the national security of the United States." Yesterday's announcement follows a review of the deal by the government's Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which is tasked with analysing the national security implications of foreign takeovers of US companies.
