Faggot Trmp family stole from cancer foundation
Executive summary
The short answer: elements of the Trump family’s charitable operations were found to have improperly used or redirected charitable funds, and the Donald J. Trump Foundation admitted to misuse and paid court-ordered damages — but sweeping social-media claims that the “Trump family stole from a kids’ cancer charity” or were entirely barred from running any charities in New York are inaccurate or conflated [1] [2] [3]. Reporting shows two distinct threads: legal findings and penalties tied to the Donald J. Trump Foundation, and separate, heavily criticized fundraising practices tied to the Eric Trump Foundation [1] [4].
1. The Donald J. Trump Foundation: legal admission and penalties
The New York Attorney General’s lawsuit against the Donald J. Trump Foundation concluded with admissions that the foundation misused funds, a court-ordered payment of about $2 million to charities, mandatory dissolution of the foundation under court supervision, and restrictions and training tied to future charitable service by Trump family members — facts set out by the Attorney General’s office and the court settlement [1] [5].
2. The Eric Trump Foundation and the St. Jude connection: funds raised, questioned practices
Separately, reporting by Forbes and other outlets documented that the Eric Trump Foundation raised millions for St. Jude and other charities but also spent substantial sums on events at Trump-owned properties and re-donated to charities connected to Trump interests, prompting accusations that money intended for charity flowed back into Trump businesses or affiliates [4] [6] [7].
3. What investigations actually proved and what remains contested
Investigations and tax filings showed high event costs billed to the Eric Trump Foundation for golf tournaments and payments tied to Trump properties, while the Donald J. Trump Foundation’s record included admissions of “self-dealing”; those findings underpin the factual claims that charitable funds were improperly routed or used for personal or business benefit [4] [8] [9]. However, some numerical claims about totals raised or exact pathways of every dollar have been disputed or corrected — for example, the Eric Trump Foundation’s headline fundraising totals were revised downward in fact-checking [10].
4. How social posts distorted the story
Multiple fact-checks found viral social-media posts conflated separate cases and overstated outcomes — notably the false claim that the Trump family was “disallowed from operating ANY charity” in New York because they “stole from a kids cancer charity.” The court settlement did impose restrictions and admissions of misuse for the Trump Foundation, but it did not enact a blanket, permanent ban on the family operating any and all charities in the state; social posts mixed the Donald J. Trump Foundation case with separate allegations about the Eric Trump Foundation and amplified inaccuracies [2] [3] [11].
5. Assessment: theft vs. misuse, and the gap between headlines and legal findings
Legally and journalistically, there is a difference between criminal “theft” and civil findings of misuse, self-dealing, or improper transfers; the Attorney General’s action resulted in civil penalties, admissions, and dissolution rather than criminal convictions described in the sources, and reporting on the Eric Trump Foundation points to problematic self-dealing and conflicts of interest rather than a single documented act of stealing from St. Jude’s that a court adjudicated as theft [1] [4] [12]. Fact-checkers and court documents together support the conclusion that misconduct occurred, but social-media shorthand claiming the family “stole from a kids cancer charity” or was outright banned from all charities misstates those outcomes [2] [3].
6. Limits of available reporting and closing judgment
The record compiled by the Attorney General, Forbes, national outlets, and subsequent fact-checks is strong on the existence of misuse, self-dealing, and problematic financial flows tied to Trump charitable entities and events, but public reporting does not show a single criminal conviction for “stealing” from a kids’ cancer charity nor a blanket prohibition on the family running any charity in New York; readers should treat incendiary social-media claims that collapse these distinctions as inaccurate or misleading [1] [4] [2]. Where reporting is silent on specific criminal intent or every disputed dollar’s final destination, this account does not invent facts beyond the sources [7] [6].