On February 27, as he was ordering military strikes against Iran, President Donald Trump met at Mar-a-Lago with super PAC contributors who paid $1 million per plate. Securing access to Trump through campaign contributions represents just one method of winning his favor. Reporting on the family’s cryptocurrency dealings has shown it’s also simpler than ever to channel funds straight into his family’s personal accounts. Consequently, worries about possible corruption within the highest ranks of government have grown.
However, this issue extends beyond any individual politician, no matter how prominent the current White House resident may be.
Certainly, Trump has pushed these concerns to unprecedented levels. Analysis of Federal Election Commission data by my Brennan Center colleagues reveals that Trump’s super PAC, MAGA, Inc., has collected more than $300 million since the 2024 election. This surpasses the prior fundraising record for a second-term president by over fivefold, with nearly all contributions coming from donors of $1 million or more. The data indicates the funds are flowing in from cryptocurrency and fossil fuel industry leaders; business owners whose firms have substantial government contracts; and affluent individuals who’ve secured major administration positions or even presidential pardons for relatives. One pardoned corporate leader even highlighted his mother’s campaign contributions in his pardon request.
Recent reports also indicate the Trump family has generated substantial profits during his presidency, though precise figures differ based on varying measurement standards and limited public disclosure. In August 2025, The New Yorker reported the Trump family may have gained $3.4 billion. By January 2026, the magazine reported that amount had swelled to $4 billion.
“Mr. Trump has leveraged the presidency to earn at least $1.4 billion,” The New York Times reported. “We recognize this figure as an undercount because portions of his gains stay concealed from public scrutiny.”
These numbers raise concerns for several reasons. Unlike contributions to MAGA, Inc., cryptocurrency funds can originate from overseas individuals pursuing preferential treatment from the administration. Consider Chinese billionaire Justin Sun, who allegedly acquired over $90 million in Trump-associated cryptocurrencies. Several months after he “began investing in Trump’s cryptocurrencies,” a SEC fraud case against him “was suspended pending settlement negotiations,” Bloomberg noted. (Both parties rejected any wrongdoing.)
Such funds may also derive from foreign states. For example, The Wall Street Journal reported that the United Arab Emirates obtained access to America’s most sophisticated and highly protected computer chip technology—following a UAE government official’s acquisition of a 49 percent share in the family’s primary crypto enterprise, World Liberty Financial. The transaction allegedly yielded $187 million for the Trumps and an additional $31 million for organizations linked to the family of Trump’s Middle East representative Steve Witkoff.
Yet it would be erroneous to assume this pattern starts and stops with the president—or belongs to only one political party.
Previous presidents have also pursued campaign contributions from billionaires. The principal super PAC connected to Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential bid substantially outraised Trump that year, and both parties grew more dependent on their biggest contributors (those giving $5 million or more) during the 2024 presidential contest. Both parties have also increasingly utilized dark money from anonymous sources, with most dark money expenditures in the 2024 presidential race supporting Vice President Kamala Harris. And affluent donors from both parties have historically influenced government policy. For example, between 1875 and 1885, a Gilded Age railroad corporation spent roughly $500,000 annually (equivalent to about $15 million today) to gain influence with government officials.
Trump doesn’t exclusively control self-enrichment, a problem that reaches past the executive branch. Lawmakers from both parties in Congress seem to have exploited their access to significant confidential information to benefit from stock transactions. Supreme Court justices have received extravagant gifts from individuals with cases before the Court.
Alarmingly few of these connections are clearly unlawful.
The current merging of private wealth and political authority partly originates from fifty years of Supreme Court decisions many consider misguided. The most well-known of these, Citizens United, reversed long-standing restrictions on independent campaign spending by corporations and cleared the path for super PACs.
The subsequent breakdown of campaign finance regulations has merged with a revival of the type of high-level self-dealing that was widespread during the Gilded Age, when bribery and corruption were routine, and companies employed their riches to obtain monopolies, government aid, and other advantages.
As before, the question now is who will provide Americans with a genuine alternative, featuring a pledge to eradicate self-dealing across all three government branches. This should start with a constitutional amendment to reinstate sensible campaign finance restrictions previously dismantled by the Supreme Court. It must also involve restricting the president’s pardon authority to avoid preferential treatment for political supporters, implementing a complete prohibition on political expenditures by major government contractors seeking deals, and abolishing congressional stock trading, along with other changes. All of these measures will demand bold congressional action. There is no other option.
For our representative democracy to function, citizens need some assurance that, through voting and other political participation, they have a realistic opportunity to translate their priorities into governmental policy. Far too many Americans have surrendered that belief, citing widespread corruption at the summit of our government as a major cause. Yet cycles of corruption succeeded by reform represent a persistent characteristic of American history.
A fresh wave of bold reform is long past due.