Corporate chiefs gave Trump’s inaugural committee $250 million. Benefits abound.

Donald Trump’s inaugural committee raised almost $250 million, much of it from donors who are seeking—and in many cases have already received—valuable favors from the administration of the famously transactional president.

The Wall Street Journal, which reviewed the committee’s filing ahead of a Sunday deadline, reported that the funding haul far exceeded what the committee needed for the January 20 event, leaving millions of dollars (it’s not clear exactly how much) in a fund Trump can use for other purposes. His aides have said the surplus will help fund Trump’s planned library and charities aligned with the president.

Donations to the inauguration by tech giants like Amazon, Alphabet, and Meta—apparently eager to display fealty to Trump—have previously drawn criticism, but the new filing reveals that a far larger group of companies and rich Americans also kicked in.

The largest reported donor, at $5 million, was Pilgrim’s Pride, a poultry company that is owned by the massive Brazilian meat conglomerate, JBS. The firm has faced substantial criticism for its business practices. Mother Jones recently reported on the plight of Haitian refugees working at a JBS beef processing facility in Greeley, Colorado, which a union has faulted for a dangerously fast factory line. Those workers now face deportation.

JBS has faced various legal problems in the US. A company arm agreed in 2020 to pay more than $250 million to resolve Justice Department allegations that it violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The White House announced in February that it was suspending enforcement of that law.

Meat-processors like JBS’s Pilgrim’s Pride, the Journal noted, also benefit from a rule announced by Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins that extends a waiver allowing pork and poultry facilities to maintain higher production-line speeds.

Foreign companies like JBS are not allowed to donate directly to the inaugural committee. But their US subsidiaries can, giving foreign interests a means to potentially buy influence with Trump.

Mother Jones reported in February that Syngenta, a large agribusiness company owned by a Beijing firm that describes itself as a Chinese “state-owned enterprise,” donated $250,000 to Trump’s inaugural fund. In 2020, Trump barred investment in companies including Syngenta’s parent company, ChemChina, citing a Defense Department finding that they support China’s military and intelligence efforts. The Pentagon issued an updated version of that list on January 7, including ChemChina among firms it labels as “Chinese Military Companies Operating in the United States.”

The inaugural committee also received large donations from the cryptocurrency industry, including $5 million from Ripple; $2 million from Robinhood; and $1 million each from Coinbase and its founder, according to the Journal.

The Securities and Exchange Commission in February dropped a lawsuit against Coinbase, and earlier this month Attorney General Pam Bondi said the Justice Department would disband a unit dedicated to investigating fraud in the crypto industry.

The Journal also reported that the inaugural fund received millions of dollars in donations from wealthy Trump backers who Trump subsequently nominated for ambassador jobs and other top posts. Trump announced the nomination of Warren Stephens as ambassador to the United Kingdom on Dec. 2. And “the filings show Stephens’ $4 million donation was received on the same day,” the report notes. Jared Isaacman, a billionaire who Trump picked to run NASA, gave $2 million to the committee. Isaacman is also big investor in Elon Musk’s SpaceX.

There is no proof that any actions that the Trump administration has taken benefiting donors was a direct result of an inaugural gift. But government watchdogs say just the possibility is a problem.

“Even the appearance of such conflicts of interest can diminish public trust in government due to the perception that the corporations may receive special treatment regarding government contracts or regulations,” said Kedric Payne, senior director for ethics at the Campaign Legal Center.

Correction, April 20: An earlier version of the post’s headline misstated the amount of money raised. It’s “million,” not “billion.”