How much did Russia donate to the Clinton foundation

1. The claim being tested: “Russia donated $145 million”

The widely circulated figure — that “Russia” donated $145 million to the Clinton Foundation — is a mischaracterization traceable to reporting about donations tied to Uranium One investors and other donors, but independent fact‑checks conclude the headline number is incorrect and that the bulk of the large donations cited were from non‑Russian actors (notably Frank Giustra, a Canadian), not the Russian state ^{[1] [4]}.

2. What the detailed reporting actually finds about Uranium One‑linked donations

The New York Times and follow‑up coverage documented that investors connected to Uranium One and its chairman made donations to the Clinton Foundation while Rosatom acquired stakes in Uranium One, including roughly $2.35 million from the family foundation of Uranium One’s chairman Ian Telfer and smaller gifts from other investors; independent reviewers and PolitiFact reduced the pool of clearly Russia‑linked gifts to only a few million dollars rather than the six‑ or seven‑figure hundreds claimed in political posts ^{[2] [4] [1]}.

3. The Giustra and other major donors were not Russian

A substantial share of money discussed in the controversy came from Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining businessman whose donations to the Clintons totaled tens of millions and who is not Russian; PolitiFact and multiple news outlets emphasize that Giustra, not the Russian government, accounted for much of the large giving that critics lump together as “Russian” money ^{[1] [4]}.

4. The $500,000 Bill Clinton speech: tied to a Russian‑linked bank, not a direct Kremlin donation

Bill Clinton received a $500,000 speaking fee from Renaissance Capital — a Russian investment bank that was promoting Uranium One stock — shortly after the Rosatom acquisition was announced; that fee is factual and documented, but it is distinct from a donation to the Clinton Foundation and does not, by itself, demonstrate Kremlin payments to the Foundation ^{[3] [4]}.

5. Official and investigative follow‑ups found limited evidence of wrongdoing

Congressional letters and later Justice Department and FBI inquiries examined these ties; while they highlighted uncomfortable optics and incomplete donor disclosure, the investigations and reporting did not substantiate that the Russian government funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation or that Secretary Clinton personally intervened to approve the deal — decisions on the Uranium One transactions were made by a committee of agencies, not unilaterally by the Secretary of State ^{[5] [6] [7]}.

6. Why the aggregate figures are easily misread and politically charged

The confusion arises from aggregating donations from many sources (some Canadian, some individual investors, some Russian‑linked firms) and from counting both foundation gifts and separate commercial payments (like speaking fees) as a single “Russian” total; fact‑checkers caution that lumping these items together inflates the appearance of a Kremlin payout and masks where the money actually came from ^{[1] [2]}.

7. Bottom line and limits of available evidence

The best, sourced summary: there is no verified record that the Russian government gave $145 million to the Clinton Foundation; documented donations by Uranium One‑connected individuals amount to a few million dollars (e.g., $2.35 million from the Telfer family foundation), larger sums cited in controversy were from non‑Russian donors like Frank Giustra, and Bill Clinton’s $500,000 speech fee was paid by a Russian‑linked bank — all facts reported and assessed by major outlets and fact‑checkers ^{[2] [4] [3] [1]}. If any claim beyond those documented numbers is asserted, the public record in these sources does not support it and further primary evidence would be required ^{[1] [5]}.