Fact check: Can foreign-owned companies make donations to the White House or US politicians?

1. What people are saying — the core claims pulled apart

Multiple claims converge: that foreign nationals cannot directly donate to federal campaigns or the White House; that some U.S.-registered companies with foreign owners nevertheless spend money in U.S. politics; and that states are moving to restrict foreign-influenced corporate political spending. Federal sources assert a broad ban on contributions by foreign nationals including indirect contributions, while reporting shows foreign-owned or foreign-controlled firms have historically funneled money into U.S. state elections, prompting legislative responses ^{[1] [4] [3]}. White House statements and investigations in 2025 emphasize enforcement but do not erase complexity about corporate structures and anonymous donations ^{[2] [5]}.

2. Federal law’s blunt instrument — what the statute actually prohibits

Federal campaign finance law prohibits contributions or expenditures by foreign nationals in connection with federal, state, or local elections and bars solicitation, direction, receipt, or making of such funds ^[1]. The prohibition includes funds "directly or indirectly" from foreign nationals, which targets obvious foreign donors and many straightforward attempts to channel money through intermediaries. The statute extends beyond individuals to cover contributions directed by foreign principals and flags potential criminal liability for evasion schemes often termed "straw donor" operations, leading to investigations ordered in 2025 into unlawful foreign-sourced contributions ^{[1] [2]}.

3. State-level tightening — why governors and legislatures are stepping in

A wave of state laws redefines foreign corporate ownership and foreign-influenced entities, restricting spending and requiring disclosure in state and local elections; lawmakers cite growing evidence of U.S.-registered subsidiaries of foreign companies funding campaigns ^{[3] [4]}. These state measures vary: some bar contributions outright from entities with defined foreign ownership thresholds, while others impose reporting obligations aimed at transparency. The state-level push reflects concern that legal loopholes allow foreign influence to seep into subnational politics even while federal law covers federal elections, creating a patchwork of obligations and enforcement frameworks ^{[3] [4]}.

4. The corporate-subsidiary wrinkle — who counts as a foreign donor?

Legal and reporting lines blur where U.S.-registered corporations are majority-owned by foreign parents or have foreign partners in LLCs; federal law focuses on "foreign nationals," but corporate structure can obscure true control and funding sources ^{[1] [4]}. Enforcement guidance treats contributions by domestic subsidiaries or entities with foreign national partners as potentially forbidden if funds derive from foreign principals or if foreign nationals direct political spending. The result is a contested terrain where corporations argue compliance while regulators and states press for stricter definitions to capture foreign-influenced money ^{[1] [4]}.

5. Foreign Agents Registration Act adds a different angle

FARA targets individuals and organizations acting under the direction or control of foreign principals to influence U.S. policy or public opinion; it is not a campaign-finance statute but overlaps where advocacy dovetails with political spending ^[6]. Recent enforcement trends in 2025 increased scrutiny of nonprofits and advocacy groups with foreign ties, signaling that organizations accepting foreign direction could face registration and disclosure requirements, and possibly referrals for further campaign-finance scrutiny. FARA’s exemptions are highly fact-specific, so organizations must assess whether lobbying or messaging efforts cross the FARA threshold ^[6].

6. Recent events: investigations, anonymous donations, and political optics

In 2025 the President ordered an investigation into unlawful straw-donor and foreign contributions, and the White House publicly disclaimed accepting foreign contributions for a major renovation project, underscoring heightened executive sensitivity to foreign money ^{[2] [5]}. Simultaneously, reporting about large anonymous donations and a $130 million private contribution tied to federal activity raised questions about transparency and whether funds have foreign links; public statements insist on legality but do not fully disclose donor identities, leaving enforcement and public trust issues unresolved ^{[7] [5]}.

7. Where facts diverge and what’s missing from coverage

Sources uniformly stress the federal prohibition on foreign nationals, but they diverge on the practical reach of that rule against U.S.-registered subsidiaries and anonymous donors; state reporting documents large sums from foreign-influenced entities at the subnational level while federal guidance and enforcement remain case-specific ^{[1] [4]}. Important gaps include transparent mapping of corporate ownership structures, public disclosure of donor identities in disputed cases, and consistent federal-state coordination on enforcement. These omissions enable differing narratives: compliance by corporations, aggressive state reformers, and heightened prosecutorial interest ^{[3] [4] [2]}.

8. Bottom line — what this means for donors, officials, and watchdogs

The plain legal rule: foreign nationals may not contribute to U.S. elections or federal political actors, and indirect schemes risk criminal exposure; corporate subsidiaries and foreign-influenced entities inhabit a gray zone that states are rapidly trying to clarify through new laws and disclosure mandates ^{[1] [3]}. Officials and donors should prioritize transparent ownership disclosure, rigorous legal counsel, and coordinated enforcement to prevent foreign influence, while watchdogs and journalists should press for more complete public records to resolve open questions about anonymous or large private donations that could mask foreign ties ^{[6] [5]}.