logo
Trump hasn't said who funded his presidential transition effort despite pledging to disclose donors

Trump hasn't said who funded his presidential transition effort despite pledging to disclose donors

NBC News05-05-2025

President Donald Trump's administration has not publicly released any accounting of who funded the transition efforts after he won the 2024 election, blowing past the timeline in which previous administrations have disclosed transition donors, despite pledging last year to release the names.
Unlike other transition efforts, Trump's most recent transition was not subject to the disclosure requirements or donation limits laid out in federal law. That's because it chose not to accept public funds for the effort. Otherwise, it would have been required to make those disclosures 30 days after taking office and cap donations at $5,000.
Still, the Trump transition team said in a November statement that 'donors to the transition will be disclosed to the public,' and those disclosures have not yet been made. The White House did not reply to multiple questions from NBC News about when the transition team would release a list of its donors. Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, was the spokesperson for the president's transition.
Rules regarding presidential transition funding are governed by the Presidential Transition Act of 1963. Most of the law outlines how nominees and presidents-elect are able to get a jump start on the massive change from campaigning to governing a federal bureaucracy, laying out topics like what can be done before or after the election, how the transition team can work with the outgoing administration and what should be spelled out in a transition team's ethics plan.
But the act also includes guardrails for how these efforts are funded, both publicly and privately.
The federal government allows presidents-elect to tap into a pool of millions of dollars for transitions, including for securing office space and hiring staff. It also allows for private donations, capped at $5,000 per donor.
But the donation cap and the requirement to lay out the transition team's donors are contingent on accepting the public funding in the first place. If a transition doesn't take public dollars, then it doesn't need to follow those rules.
That's what the Trump transition decided to do, in a break with tradition. In a November news release announcing that it had signed a memorandum of understanding with the outgoing administration, the Trump transition team disclosed it would 'utilize private funding ... providing cost savings to the American taxpayers.'
Left unsaid was that the decision unshackled the Trump team from those disclosure requirements and fundraising limits. But the Trump transition did add that 'donors to the Transition will be disclosed to the public' and 'the Transition will not accept foreign donations.'
The novel decision by the Trump transition to eschew public funding, placing it outside the purview of disclosure law and donation caps, prompted some experts to question whether the law needs to be strengthened to mandate disclosure in more cases.
'The Presidential Transition Act assumes that candidates want to accept the services of government agencies before the election, before inauguration,' Valerie Smith Boyd told NBC News in February when she was the director of the Center for Presidential Transition at the nonpartisan Partnership for Public Service. She's no longer with the organization.
'The transparency requirements are tied to accepting those services. There is a new question as to whether that is the right recipe in the law,' she added.
Trump's transition ahead of his first term agreed to accept public funding and raised an additional $6.5 million and spent almost $4.7 million, according to a report filed with the General Services Administration in February 2017. While donations have to be specifically itemized, the only information typically disclosed about spending is how much was spent in certain categories, such as payroll, travel and legal expenses.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Musk: 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election'
Musk: 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election'

Daily Mail​

timean hour ago

  • Daily Mail​

Musk: 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election'

By Published: Updated: Elon Musk and President Donald Trump's spectacular falling out quickly turned personal Thursday as the world's richest man claimed the president would have lost the 2024 election without his help. Musk had publicly endorsed Trump on the heels of the July 13th assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania and poured around $290 million of his fortune into the Republican's campaign. The billionaire also joined Trump on the campaign trail when he returned to the site of the Butler shooting in early October, a month before Election Day. Trump said he likely still would have won the key state of Pennsylvania without Musk's assistance, partly because Kamala Harris didn't choose the state's governor, Josh Shapiro, to be her running mate. Even with Shapiro on the Democratic ticket, Trump claimed, 'I would have won Pennsylvania, I would have won by a lot.' Musk said that was laughable. 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate,' Musk claimed. 'Such ingratitude,' the billionaire added on X. Musk's comments came moments after Trump told reporters in the Oval Office, during German Chancellor Friedrich Merz's visit, that his bromance with the DOGE leader was likely over. 'Elon and I had a great relationship. I don't know if we will any more, I was surprised,' Trump said. The president suggested that Musk was angry - not over the bill ballooning the deficit - but because the Trump administration has pulled back on electric vehicle mandates, which negatively impacted Tesla. He also indicated that there was a problem when he rejected Musk's preferred nominee to lead NASA because his choice was a Democrat. 'And you know, Elon's upset because we took the EV mandate, which was a lot of money for electric vehicles, and they're having a hard time the electric vehicles and they want us to pay billions of dollars in subsidy,' Trump said. 'I know that disturbed him.' Shares of Tesla dipped 8 percent amid the spat. Over the weekend, Trump pulled the nomination of Jared Isaacman to lead NASA. Isaacman had worked alongside Musk at SpaceX. 'He recommended somebody that I guess he knew very well, I'm sure he respected him, to run NASA and I didn't think it was appropriate and he happened to be a Democrat, like totally Democrat,' Trump continued. 'We won, we get certain privileges and one of the privileges is we don't have to appoint a Democrat.' Musk posted to X repeatedly as Trump's press conference was going on. 'Whatever,' the billionaire wrote, as he continued to criticize what Trump has called his 'big, beautiful' spending bill. 'Keep the EV/solar incentive cuts in the bill, even though no oil & gas subsidies are touched (very unfair!!), but ditch the MOUNTAIN of DISGUSTING PORK in the bill,' he advised. 'In the entire history of civilization, there has never been legislation that [is] both big and beautiful. Everyone knows this!' Musk continued. 'Either you get a big and ugly bill or a slim and beautiful bill. Slim and beautiful is the way.' In the Oval Office, Trump insisted that Musk knew the contents of the bill before the House passed it. Trump is now pushing Republican senators to back it so he can sign it before the July 4 holiday. 'He became a little bit different. I can understand that. But he knew every aspect of this bill. He knew it better than almost anybody, and he never had a problem until right after he left,' Trump protested. Musk immediately pushed back on X - sharing the clip of Trump's comments. 'False, this bill was never shown to me even once and was passed in the dead of night so fast that almost no one in Congress could even read it!' Musk said. At the top of Musk's X profile on Thursday, the billionaire had pinned a tweet that said 'Wise words,' highlighting a Trump tweet from 2013 that said, 'I cannot believe the Republicans are extending the debt ceiling—I am a Republican & I am embarrassed!' Trump noted that until recently Musk had 'said the most beautiful things about me.' Trump said Musk's about-face represented a greater trend. 'People leave my administration and they love us and then, at some point, they miss it so badly. And some of them embrace it and some of them actually become hostile. I don't know what it is, it's sort of Trump Derangement Syndrome, I guess they call it,' the president said. 'They leave, they wake up in the morning and the glamour is gone, the whole world is different and they become hostile.' The president's comments come less than a week after he feted Musk in the Oval Office, giving him an official farewell as the billionaire moved out of special government employee status and back into the private sector. Trump noted that he had given Musk a 'wonderful send-off' on Friday before he headed to Pittsburgh to tout a steel deal between Nippon and U.S. Steel. 'Remember, he was here for a long time. You saw a man who was very happy. He stood behind the Oval desk. Even with a black eye,' Trump said. 'I said, "do you want a little makeup?" And he said, "No I don't think so," which was interesting.' 'And very nice,' Trump added. 'He wants to be who he is,' the president shrugged.

As feud escalates, Trump implies government could cut contracts and subsidies to Musk's companies
As feud escalates, Trump implies government could cut contracts and subsidies to Musk's companies

NBC News

timean hour ago

  • NBC News

As feud escalates, Trump implies government could cut contracts and subsidies to Musk's companies

President Donald Trump has escalated his sudden rupture with Elon Musk by implying the government could sever ties with the tech titan's businesses. "The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts. I was always surprised that Biden didn't do it" Trump wrote in a Truth Social post Thursday afternoon. Trump's post comes in the midst of a stunning exchange between Musk and Trump that erupted Thursday when the president told reporters in the Oval Office that he was disappointed with Musk's criticism ofthe Republican policy bill that is making its way through Congress. Musk then launched into a tire on X, where he posted throughout early Thursday a variety of critiques of Trump, the bill and other Republican politicians. In response to another Trump post, Musk said the president was lying. Various estimates have put forward of just how much Musk's firms, primarily SpaceX and Tesla, benefit from government contracts and subsidies. The Washington Post has put the figure at $38 billion. The value of government support to SpaceX, which includes Musk's high-profile space-launch ventures in addition to its Starlink satellite subsidiary — is worth $22 billion alone according to comments made by SpaceX chief Gwynne Shotwell. Tesla has benefited from approximately $11.4 billion in regulatory credits aimed at boosting electric-vehicle purchases, though that figure also includes state subsidies. Reuters has reported that the true figure is classified due to the nature of many of the contracts Musk's firms are under. Shares in Tesla, which had already fallen 8% Thursday as the tit-for-tat escalated on social media, declined as much as 12% following Trump's post.

Increased UK defence spending only makes war more likely
Increased UK defence spending only makes war more likely

The National

timean hour ago

  • The National

Increased UK defence spending only makes war more likely

For any country, reviewing defence in the modern age is a valuable exercise. The UK's new strategic defence review fails to get to grips with those challenges, and perpetuates a view of security as being solely about the aggressive projection of military power. We do face direct threats that we need to acknowledge, not least from the brutal Putin regime. A military-only response risks seeing the whole world 'tooling up' for conflict, creating a tinderbox situation, and also misses the other action we can take which we know improves human security and makes conflict less likely. READ MORE: BBC Debate Night branded 'farce' as formal complaint made over 'bias' Strong international cooperation and a commitment to the international rule of law are critical to improving security, yet the UK continues to arm war criminal regimes instead of pursuing justice against them. Alliances must be fostered with countries we trust, and the threat of far-right regimes must be acknowledged. Yet the UK continues to treat the Trump regime as though it's a reliable ally, while it threatens democratic countries like Greenland and Canada. Food and water security, and so much else that international development invests in, also provide the basis for a more secure world. Yet the UK has followed the lead of the Trump White House by slashing development aid. The climate emergency is barely mentioned in the review, and where it does come up it's mostly about access to Arctic waters rather than the profound threat it poses to human and environmental security around the world. And of course the UK's continued attachment to nuclear weapons continues unabated. Reconsidering the vastly expensive replacement of Trident doesn't even merit a line. In truth, Trident poses a greater threat to the people of Scotland than it does to anyone else. Its record of accidents and poor maintenance goes back a long way, and its presence makes the west coast of Scotland a key target in any potential conflict. The hundreds of billions of pounds spent on these weapons could be far better spent on international development, climate action, or emerging issues like cybersecurity or biosecurity which can't be addressed by just hiking military spending. There's so much that's needed aside from military responses that can actually reduce the threats we face instead of funnelling even more funds towards nuclear weapons. Let's also remember that these are weapons which cannot discriminate between military and civilian targets, and whose use in any circumstances would surely be the biggest war crime in human history. Such a decision made now will lock us into a more dangerous world, for decades to come. And that decision would be at the expense of action that could be taken to promote peace, and make progress towards a world that's safer because it's fairer, greener, and more just. As for the claims about jobs, this truly is a red herring. Spend tens of billions on pretty much anything and you'll create jobs, and in truth there are far better ways to build an economy that works for people than making a '10 times more lethal' army. A defence review that really engages with the changing world we live in is something I'd really like to see. This simply isn't it.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store