Which individuals or organizations received allegedly misused funds from the Trump Foundation and for what purposes?
Executive summary
The Trump Foundation was found by New York authorities to have paid out or been used to benefit a mix of bona fide charities, political activity and personal expenses; the most prominent alleged misuses included funds routed through a 2016 Iowa “veterans” fundraiser (which the campaign controlled), direct reimbursements for personal items such as a $10,000 portrait and $11,525 in memorabilia and champagne, and other donations and transactions that watchdogs and prosecutors said benefited Donald Trump’s political and business interests [1] [2] [3].
1. Veterans charities routed through the Iowa fundraiser — and who controlled the money
A centerpiece of the attorney general’s case was a January 2016 televised Iowa fundraiser ostensibly raising money for veterans: the court found that the Trump campaign, not the Foundation, planned and organized the event and “dictated the timing, amounts, and recipients” of grants to “charitable organizations supporting military veterans,” meaning proceeds intended for veterans groups were in practice controlled to aid the campaign [1] [4] [5].
2. The eight judicially approved charities that received redistributed assets
When the foundation was dissolved under the settlement, the remaining liquid assets were ordered split among eight charities approved by the court; the attorney general’s office and press release list recipients including the United Negro College Fund, the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, the Children’s Aid Society and United Way among others, with each of the eight receiving an equal share when Trump paid the court-ordered restitution [3] [6] [7].
3. Direct personal expenditures paid from foundation funds: portrait, memorabilia and champagne
Court filings and reporting document specific personal expenditures charged to the foundation: Trump acknowledged arranging for the charity to pay $10,000 for a six‑foot portrait of himself, and agreed to reimburse $11,525 the Foundation spent on sports paraphernalia and champagne at a gala — items the AG’s office characterized as personal or self-dealing [2] [3] [7].
4. Alleged political payoffs and favor-seeking donations — the Pam Bondi example
Reporting and public filings flagged earlier donations the Foundation made that raised conflict-of-interest concerns, notably a $25,000 donation to then‑Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi while her office was reviewing allegations against Trump University; critics and the AG alleged such payments resembled political influence or pay‑to‑play, though defenders framed some donations as routine philanthropy [8] [7].
5. Business-related transactions and the broader pattern alleged by prosecutors
Investigators and the AG’s suit alleged the Foundation also served non‑charitable business purposes, including paying liabilities connected to Mr. Trump’s for‑profit interests and routing funds in ways that benefited business or campaign priorities—facts prosecutors cited in arguing the Foundation operated as a “checkbook” for the Trumps rather than a properly governed charity [9] [8] [6].
6. Legal outcome, admissions and limits of the public record
The settlement required Trump to admit to nineteen stipulations acknowledging personal misuse, to dissolve the Foundation under court supervision, to pay $2 million in damages to the listed charities and to reimburse the foundation for certain purchases, and imposed restrictions on future charitable activity in New York; reporting and court documents provide detailed findings about the Iowa fundraiser and specific transactions but do not exhaustively catalogue every recipient of Foundation grants across all years [3] [1] [2].
Conclusion — what the record shows and what it does not
The public record compiled by the New York attorney general, court rulings and press reports identifies three concrete categories of alleged misuse: veterans‑fundraiser proceeds steered by the campaign rather than the charity, personal purchases charged to the Foundation (portrait, memorabilia, champagne), and donations and transactions that critics say were political or business favors (including the Pam Bondi donation); the settlement redistributed remaining assets to eight court‑approved charities and imposed financial penalties and admissions, while some details about other individual grant recipients across the Foundation’s history remain subject to reporting limits and the underlying tax returns and investigative files [1] [2] [3] [8] [6].