Congress

Trump keeps driving online fundraising — for both parties

Published

5 months ago

February 11, 2026

Donald Trump still raises far more money online than any other GOP figure.

Democrats get major fundraising boosts when they clash with him.

And the Democratic money machine continues to churn — a sign of hope for a party seeking to regroup from brutal losses the year prior.

Those are among the key patterns that appeared in a Blue Light News analysis of online fundraising across 2025, as both parties began to gear up for highly competitive midterms.

The sweeping Blue Light News analysis of data from ActBlue and WinRed — the primary fundraising platforms for each party — revealed how Trump, who is constitutionally barred from seeking reelection, is still at the center of the GOP’s digital and financial universe. And while Democrats continue to debate how much they should focus on opposing Trump in their broader campaign messaging, the data shows just how strongly the GOP president motivates liberal donors.

Major surges in online Democratic fundraising were fueled by members of the party standing up to — or being attacked by — the president. Democratic candidates’ biggest fundraising days on ActBlue were all driven by conflict with Trump, with those days accounting for millions of dollars raised from tens of thousands of donors giving online for the first time this cycle.

Among Republicans, Trump’s own joint fundraising committee, Trump National Committee, continued to raise the most money out of anyone on WinRed in 2025, bringing more over the course of the year than the next two biggest GOP groups combined. Trump’s political operation accounted for more than 1 in 5 total dollars raised federally through WinRed last year.

ActBlue and WinRed report all donations made to federal campaigns and committees through their platforms, providing a detailed picture of small-dollar giving. The platforms are so dominant that they include the vast majority, though not all, of online donations for both parties.

The data provides insight not only into who raised the most but the specific moments that drove donors to give.

Leading the way was Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), who saw a massive surge in donations when he broke records with a 25-hour quasi-filibuster speech protesting the Trump administration’s policies.

Booker’s campaign committee received nearly 92,000 donations totaling $2.5 million on ActBlue on April 2, the day after his speech finished. It was the highest single-day total for any federal committee on the platform in 2025. For roughly a third of those donors, it was their first donation of the year on ActBlue.

The New Jersey senator was not the only Democrat to get a donation boost off of standing up to Trump. California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s joint fundraising committee saw a massive surge in donations in early June after he sued the Trump administration to block the deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles and Trump suggested arresting the governor. The group, Campaign for Democracy, recorded more than 47,000 donations on June 11, for a total of $1.3 million.

That was the start of a three-day surge that accounted for nearly one-third of all online donations to the Newsom joint fundraising committee in 2025.

Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) saw nearly 43,000 donations for a total of nearly $1.3 million to his campaign committee Nov. 25 after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered the Pentagon to investigate whether a video that featured Kelly and others advising troops not to follow illegal orders was itself unlawful. Roughly 1 in 5 donations on the platform that day went to Kelly’s campaign.

Kelly then remained the top fundraiser nearly every day for three weeks after that, bringing in donations from about 278,000 unique donors in November and December. That surge set Kelly apart from other Democratic figures last year for both its intensity and duration. The Blue Light News analysis found that more than three-quarters of donors in that time period had not given to Kelly previously in the year. For 1 in 5 of his donors, it was the first time they’d given to any Democrat through ActBlue in the entire year.

Kelly’s strong preexisting brand helped him leverage the attack from Trump into a fundraising bonanza, said Mike Nellis, a democratic digital strategist and founder of the firm Authentic.

“You can raise a ton of money by just opposing Trump,” Nellis said. “But if you want to elevate yourself into that stratosphere of becoming a household name that people believe in, with Democratic donors who are going to give you $5, $10, $25, over and over and over, you’ve got to go a little bit deeper.”

Democrats’ dream of flipping the Senate also fueled massive contributions. A handful of Senate candidates — Roy Cooper in North Carolina, Sherrod Brown in Ohio, Janet Mills in Maine and both James Talarico and Jasmine Crockett in Texas — were the top Democratic online fundraisers when they launched their respective campaigns.

Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.), the only incumbent Democratic senator seeking reelection in a state Trump won in 2024, brought in $32.5 million through ActBlue in 2025, more than any other candidate on the platform. Democrats running in competitive Senate races this year were consistently among the top overall fundraisers on ActBlue, as was the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee itself.

The online fundraising landscape for Democrats looking to take back the House was more muddled, with the top fundraising numbers coming more often from progressive stars than candidates in competitive races.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), long a fundraising powerhouse, raised $22.8 million on ActBlue in 2025, the most of any House Democrat, followed by House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who raised just shy of $11 million through his campaign and joint fundraising committee, then Rep. Eugene Vindman (D-Va.) and Eileen Laubacher, one of the Democrats seeking to challenge Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) in a heavily Republican district.

Those House candidates reflect a few of the different ways that virality can help online fundraising. More than 400,000 donors gave to Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign more than once in 2025, reflecting her strength with returning donors. Laubacher’s numbers reflect how running in a district represented by a high-profile Republican can attract Democratic donors — even as she still has to get through a primary to face Boebert.

But vulnerable Democratic House incumbents and candidates running in some of the most competitive battlegrounds were not represented among those with the best online fundraising numbers — a challenge for party strategists as they fight for the resources to flip the House.

“The things that work to raise money from small donors are the opposite of the things that work to beat MAGA,” said Liam Kerr, co-founder of the centrist Democratic group WelcomePAC.

At the same time, Kerr said that there was enough variety in the candidates who put up strong online fundraising numbers to suggest that more moderate candidates can make inroads.

Donors give, Kerr said, because they want to “feel like they’re part of something.” If candidates in key races can start to capture the attention of donors across the country, then, he said, “the base of the raged donor class would start to shift to what they thought could beat Trump.”

Methodology: Donations and monetary totals are based on ActBlue and WinRed receipts, not reports from campaigns. Donations that were later refunded are still included in the totals.

Congress

House panel subpoenas Leon Black, escalating tactics in Epstein investigation

Published

41 minutes ago

June 26, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The Oversight Committee slapped Leon Black with two subpoenas in the middle of his transcribed interview about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein — after Black refused to answer questions about potential non-disclosure agreements he had with women tied to the late, convicted sex offender.

Oversight Committee Chair James Comer announced the issuance of the subpoenas — for the NDAs and for Black to reappear for a formal deposition July 16 — after the first hour of Black’s interview had concluded with the billionaire investor insisting he would not discuss the terms of those agreements.

Black had initially agreed to appear voluntarily, but under the terms of a deposition, his testimony will be videotaped and under oath.

“We believe that information is vital to our investigation,” Comer, a Kentucky Republican, told reporters Friday. “We want to know, was Jeffrey Epstein involved in the NDAs? … Was he involved in awarding [of] funds to the women for the NDAs? What was the reason for the NDAs?”

Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), the top Democrat on the panel, seconded Comer’s decision to force a deposition to compel information that he also described as central to the panel’s ongoing Epstein probe — a rare moment of bipartisanship in an investigation that has been plagued by partisan bickering.

“There’s no question that as soon as this interview started, that the witness was not going to answer critical questions,” he told reporters.

After Black had already departed from the closed-door interview, his lawyer, Susan Estrich, said that Epstein “had no involvement with any NDAs, whether they exist or not,” and said her client has never abused a woman.

“They made a premeditated political decision to serve him with subpoenas after less than an hour of questioning, and before they even asked a single question about his legitimate payments to Epstein,” she said, referring to members of the Oversight panel. “This was nothing more than a planned political stunt.”

Estrich represented the late Fox News chairman Roger Ailes when he was facing sexual misconduct accusations. Black has also battled his own allegations of sexual assault, though he has denied the accusations — along with having had knowledge of Epstein’s wrongdoing over the course of their relationship.

Several Democrats who attended the interview were aghast at Black’s lack of cooperation. Rep. Melanie Stansbury of New Mexico told reporters that more than one of Epstein’s accusers had previously accused Black of committing sexual misconduct against them, too.

“Before Mr. Black left the interview, he admitted that he lived close to Epstein,” Stansbury said. “He often dined at his house. He went over for breakfast, for happy hours, attended impromptu dinners with world leaders, with academics, with scientists.”

Rep. Suhas Subramanyam (D-Va.) alleged that Black “gush[ed] poetically about how smart and how great Jeffrey Epstein was” and accused him of walking out on the committee.

The bipartisan desire to get more information from Black comes as the committee’s Epstein investigation is set to hit the one-year mark in July, after Oversight Committee Democrats — frustrated with the Justice Department’s refusal to release the so-called Epstein files — forced a bipartisan vote to facilitate the publication of relevant materials.

That vote jumpstarted a congressional probe that has led to interviews with more than a dozen witnesses, including ex-Attorney General Pam Bondi, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, Bill and Hillary Clinton and Bill Gates.

Comer has also asked acting Attorney General Todd Blanche to speak with his panel in the coming weeks, after Bondi accused him of being at the tip of the spear in overseeing the eventual release of the Epstein files in compliance with a law Congress passed in December.

Members will have more to ask Blanche following the Justice Department’s admission on Thursday that the DOJ had been violating the law Congress passed last November requiring the public release of the vast majority of government records relating to Epstein.

A federal judge gave Blanche one week to release certain names and other information that DOJ initially redacted from the millions of pages of the Epstein files — or provide a more detailed explanation for withholding them.

Critics believe the department has been seeking to protect powerful people implicated in Epstein’s crimes — including potentially President Donald Trump, who has not been charged with wrongdoing and has denied misconduct.

Congress

Online safety coalition urges House to reject KIDS Act compromise

Published

2 hours ago

June 26, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

A coalition of children’s safety advocates is urging House leaders to reject a bipartisan compromise on online safety, arguing it weakens protections for minors and lets tech companies avoid accountability.

In a letter first shared with Blue Light News, the groups urged Speaker Mike Johnson, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, House Energy and Commerce Chair Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.) and ranking member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) to oppose the bipartisan package — known as the KIDS Act — ahead of a potential House vote as soon as next week.

Led by Design It For Us, ParentsTogether, the National Center on Sexual Exploitation and the Young People’s Alliance and signed by 90 other organizations, the coalition said the deal struck by Energy and Commerce lawmakers fails to address its chief concern: the omission of a “duty of care” provision that would require tech companies to mitigate harms they know their products cause to young users.

“The Committee rejected our concerns and opted to negotiate a version that let Big Tech off the hook and rush this legislation to the House floor,” they wrote.

The warning comes after the groups previously raised similar concerns when the committee approved a version of the KIDS Act along party lines in March.

The Senate’s version of the Kids Online Safety Act — an expected component of Sen. Marsha Blackburn’s ongoing negotiations over online safety regulations — includes the “duty of care” language. Some House members have raised concerns that it could incentivize social media platforms to overzealously censor content to avoid litigation.

“It pains us that, given how hard we have fought for a strong federal solution to online child protection and for a strong bill to move to the House floor, the KIDS Act is the bill the House is championing,” they wrote, urging lawmakers to oppose the bill.

Parents RISE, a coalition of parents who have experienced child loss or mental health difficulties due to tech platforms, sent a second letter to the same parties laying out similar qualms. “We did not create Social Media Victims Remembrance Day so that our children’s names could be used as cover for a bill that protects the very companies that harmed them,” they wrote.

Tech industry group NetChoice has come out against the KIDS Act over censorship concerns.

Spokespeople for Johnson, Jeffries, Guthrie and Pallone did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Congress

Leon Black tells House Oversight he had no knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes

Published

3 hours ago

June 26, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Leon Black told the House Oversight Committee on Friday that he had no knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes during the years he paid the convicted sex offender tens of millions of dollars, according to a copy of the billionaire investor’s prepared remarks.

“I don’t understand why people — including members of this committee — would accept baseless speculation about me without regard to the facts and spin such ugly and vicious narratives that are demonstrably false,” Black said in his opening statement, obtained by Blue Light News.

Lawmakers, however, filed into Black’s scheduled transcribed interview Friday morning already suspicious of their witness. House Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) told reporters he believed Black’s testimony had “the potential to be the most groundbreaking” of anything the panel has heard so far in its long-running Epstein investigation.

Comer also said the committee had reason to believe that Black had signed nondisclosure agreements with some of Epstein’s victims.

Black, a co-founder of Apollo Global Management, did acknowledge in his prepared remarks that he was aware of Epstein’s 2008 sex crime conviction at the time of their association but that “Epstein told me that it was an isolated incident resulting from a fake ID.”

“Five years after his conviction, I gave Epstein a second chance, as did many others,” he continued. “I wish I had not.”

Black also told lawmakers that he knew Epstein for 18 years before he began paying him in 2013 for tax and estate planning. At that time, Black said, he saw Epstein surrounded by some of the world’s most powerful people — among them former President Bill Clinton, tech mogul and philanthropist Bill Gates and then-White House counsel Kathy Ruemmler.

And he appeared to suggest that he saw Epstein as legitimate, in part, because of those who chose to associate with him: “Epstein appeared to me and to many others to have redeemed himself: [H]e served on several prestigious boards, hobnobbed with leading people in academia, the arts, business executives, and numerous world leaders.”

Clinton and Gates have already spoken with Oversight investors about their ties to Epstein; Ruemmler has agreed to sit for an interview with the panel in July.

Black said he ultimately fired Epstein in 2018 “after growing tired of his relentless pursuit of more and more money from me for professional services, his mistruths and misrepresentations … and his failure to repay most of a $30 million demand loan that I had made to him.”

He also acknowledged the allegations of sexual misconduct that have been levied against him in litigation, which he called “demonstrably baseless” and “entirely fabricated.”

In one recent case, the judge found that the law firm that had been representing Black’s accusers and the plaintiff in the case were “engaged in serious, sanctionable misconduct in this case.” However, the lawsuit — brought by a woman who claimed to have been raped by Black when she was 16 — was allowed to proceed.

“There are numerous allegations of real abuse by women — by survivors — against Mr. Black,” Rep. Robert Garcia of California, the top Democrat on the Oversight panel, told reporters Friday morning.