A year after his election victory, President Donald Trump’s transition team has finally exposed a list of 46 individuals and entities that contributed more than US$14 million to bankroll the operations behind his return to the White House.
The tally includes billionaires and backers who later received key positions.
The revelation, published by the New York Times, has ignited fresh concern about influence, access and accountability at the very heart of American government.
The donor roll-call, appearing more than a year after Trump secured a second term, lists a mix of mega-wealthy financiers, corporate executives and political heavyweights — including several who subsequently found roles in his administration. Among them: well-known campaign stalwarts and newcomers, all united by a willingness to finance a “dark-money” transition.
But while the figures are now public, broader transparency remains elusive. By refusing to accept government funds for the transition — a break with long-standing convention — Trump’s team sidestepped the requirement to cap donations, reveal donor identities promptly, or file standard disclosure forms.
A Break from Tradition — and From Scrutiny
The law that governs presidential transitions sets strict limits when a team opts for public money: a maximum of US$5,000 per donor, full disclosure, and a clearly defined ethics and compliance framework. Trump’s transition chose the opposite route: turning to private fundraising unbound by those constraints. That decision now sits at the heart of political, ethical and security concerns.
The upshot is a memory-hole for the shady side of influence: powerful contributions channelled into the most sensitive corridors of power, with few legal guardrails, minimal transparency and effectively no cooling-off period for financiers turned officials. As one watchdog put it, this is “influence before the ink is dry.”
It is a shift that strikes at the core of what many Americans expect when power changes hands quietly, methodically — without gifts, debts or indebtedness. Instead, this transition appears designed to flip that expectation on its head.
Pay-for-Access Politics — Under the Radar
Scrutiny is already sharpening on the identities and backgrounds of many of the 46 donors. Some are veterans of a previous campaign; others are previously little-known individuals whose financial profiles have vaulted them into the corridors of influence. That such benefactors appear to have gained access — and even positions — underscores just how risky unfettered “transition fundraising” can be.
Ethics experts warn that this model lays the groundwork for “pay-for-access politics,” where donations are not just gestures of support, but the currency of future influence.
Moreover, because the transition avoided the official funding mechanism, foreign contributions, shell-company donations or other opaque financial vehicles remain legally possible, raising further red flags about potential conflicts of interest and foreign interference.
The Stakes Are High — and Modernising Oversight Is Harder Than Ever
In the broader context, Trump’s approach may be a harbinger of lasting change in American political norms — one that places fewer barricades between personal wealth, political power and governance.
At stake is not merely who donated what, but the very structure of how U.S. governments are launched. Transition teams handle sensitive agency vetting, staffing decisions, and the first weeks of power consolidation. Their work sets the tone for everything from national security appointments to regulatory priorities. That those preparations may now be financed by undisclosed individuals — with no clear accounting — raises troubling questions.
Adding to the concern: there is no formal filing yet showing how the US$14 million was spent, who was paid, or whether donations came with expected returns. The lack of transparency could make it nearly impossible — even retrospectively — to trace possible quid-pro-quo arrangements or influence peddling.
Pressure Builds for Reform — But Will It Succeed?
In the wake of disclosure, a chorus of voices on Capitol Hill, in watchdog groups and across civil society is calling for reform. Proposals include requiring mandatory donor disclosure regardless of funding source, capping contributions to transition coffers, and extending the “cooling off” period for anyone who contributed before accepting a role in government.
For now, however, those calls remain political noise rather than law. Given congressional gridlock and partisan polarization, meaningful reform looks unlikely before the next election cycle — by which time the donor list may already have faded from public memory.
Until then, the United States finds itself in unfamiliar territory: relying on “dark-money” transition funding to underwrite one of the most secretive, powerful and consequential processes in its democratic system.
A Democratic Challenge for the Digital Age
If nothing else, the new disclosure should serve as a warning. Democracy — especially in times of intense political turbulence — depends not just on elections, but on transparent governance. The transition between administrations is among the most critical phases: policies are drafted, senior posts are assigned, and the tone for the coming years is set. If that process is funded in darkness, the open-government principle risks fading further.
For the hundreds of millions watching from outside the gilded corridors of power, the message may already be clear: money still talks, and this time, perhaps more loudly than ever.
The Trump Family’s Rent-Seeker Regime: Serbia’s “Lex Specialis” and the Empire of Convenience
