What are the documented details and outcomes of the Trump Foundation donation tied to Pam Bondi?
Executive summary
The Donald J. Trump Foundation made a $25,000 donation in September 2013 to a political committee backing then-Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi while her office was contemporaneously being asked about joining a New York investigation into Trump University; watchdogs and media flagged that as an illegal use of a 501(c) charitable foundation and a potential conflict of interest [1] [2] [3]. The matter produced IRS and state-level reviews, a CREW complaint, a refunded contribution and a small IRS penalty paid by Trump, prosecutors declining bribery charges, and ultimately factored into a wider New York civil case that forced the Trump Foundation to shut down with monetary penalties years later [2] [4] [5] [6].
1. The donation, timing and immediate red flags
Records show a $25,000 payment from the Donald J. Trump Foundation to "And Justice For All," a pro-Bondi political group, was recorded on Sept. 17, 2013—four days after Bondi's office publicly said it might join the New York attorney general’s investigation of Trump University—prompting questions about whether the foundation’s contribution improperly influenced the probe or was a prohibited political gift from a 501(c) charity [7] [1] [3].
2. Watchdog complaints and the "clerical error" defense
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed IRS complaints alleging the foundation illegally donated to a political campaign and possibly attempted to conceal the payment; Trump Organization officials countered that the donation was a clerical mistake and that Trump personally reimbursed the foundation and later paid the IRS penalty tied to the improper contribution [8] [2] [4].
3. IRS and refund outcomes
The Trump camp ultimately paid a small IRS penalty—reported as $2,500—and the pro-Bondi PAC refunded the $25,000 to the foundation, consistent with the Trump Organization’s explanation that the payment was corrected after scrutiny [2] [4] [9].
4. Criminal probe attempts and prosecutorial findings
Multiple inquiries and at least one formal bribery complaint were routed to state prosecutors; a prosecutor in southwest Florida concluded the complaint lacked reasonable suspicion to proceed and found insufficient evidence to support bribery charges against Trump or Bondi, a conclusion reported by CBS, AP and others [5] [10] [11].
5. Political and ethical fallout beyond the local case
The episode became a recurring political theme—CREW and media framed it as emblematic of pay-to-play concerns, Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee later urged the Justice Department to investigate, and the donation was cited in broader criticism of the Trump Foundation’s practices that culminated in New York’s 2019 civil action requiring the foundation’s closure and a $2 million payment for misuse of funds [7] [8] [6].
6. Bondi’s response and the limits of the public record
Bondi has consistently denied wrongdoing, saying she did not personally investigate Trump when she solicited the donation and that she returned the money when it was revealed to come from the foundation rather than Trump personally; the public record contains conflicting accounts about who in her office reviewed the New York matter and whether senior officials were aware, and reporting cites Bondi’s denial alongside documents showing lower-level staff considered complaints [8] [4] [1].
7. How the documented facts map to larger questions of influence and legality
Factually, the documented sequence is clear: an illegal foundation payment occurred, it was corrected and penalized by the IRS, prosecutors declined to file bribery charges for lack of evidence, and the donation became part of a pattern that led New York to shut down the Trump Foundation; what remains contested—and what the sources do not definitively resolve—is whether the payment was a deliberate quid pro quo, an innocent clerical error, or something in between, with credible actors (CREW, major news outlets, state prosecutors) offering differing emphases [2] [8] [5] [6].