Recent legal actions against Trump family charities have revealed a troubling pattern where funds meant for vulnerable groups, including children with cancer, were allegedly diverted for personal and political gain, resulting in court-ordered penalties and restrictions.
The Core Legal Case: Misuse of Charitable Funds
The central case involved the Donald J. Trump Foundation. In November 2019, a New York Supreme Court judge ordered then-President Donald Trump to pay $2 million in restitution after he admitted to violating fiduciary duties . The New York Attorney General’s lawsuit alleged the foundation functioned as an extension of Trump’s business and political interests rather than a true charity .
Key admissions in the case included Trump directing the foundation to:
· Purchase a Tim Tebow football helmet for himself
· Buy a portrait of himself
· Settle legal disputes involving his for-profit businesses
The judge found that Trump allowed his 2016 presidential campaign to “infect the foundation like a parasite taking over its host” . This referred specifically to a nationally televised Iowa fundraiser for veterans, which the court determined was used to promote Trump’s campaign and draw attention away from a competing Fox News debate .
The Children’s Cancer Charity Allegations
Separate from the main Trump Foundation case, serious questions emerged about the Eric Trump Foundation and its dealings with St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, a renowned pediatric cancer center.
A 2017 Forbes investigation found that while the Eric Trump Foundation publicly told donors that “all donations solely benefit St. Jude,” it had actually diverted substantial funds to other causes . For example, in 2014, the foundation raised $1.8 million at a golf event but sent only $1.2 million to St. Jude .
From 2011 to 2015, the foundation donated over $6 million to St. Jude but also gave over $500,000 to approximately 40 other charities—many with no pediatric cancer programs but with ties to Trump family interests . These included donations to:
· An animal shelter (a cause championed by Eric’s wife, Lara)
· The Staten Island Zoo (for arctic foxes)
· A Ukrainian charity for at-risk Jewish children
· A cleft-palate charity favored by Donald Trump Jr.
Nonprofit legal experts noted that “if you are raising money for X, and you give it to Y, that is fraud, even if Y is a charity” . The New York Attorney General’s office confirmed it was “looking into” these allegations .
Settlement Terms: Bans and Restrictions
Contrary to some viral social media claims, the Trump family was not completely banned from all charity work. The settlement established specific, stringent restrictions .
For Donald Trump: He is not barred from serving on charity boards but must adhere to strict conditions if he wishes to join or form a New York charity. These include:
· Mandatory supervision by a certified, independent accountant or lawyer
· Submission of annual reports to the Attorney General for five years
· Personal liability for any future violations
For Trump’s adult children (Donald Jr., Ivanka, and Eric): They were required to undergo mandatory training on the legal duties of charity officers and directors, which they have completed .
The Trump Foundation itself was permanently dissolved under court supervision . The $2 million in damages was distributed equally among eight charities unconnected to Trump, including the Children’s Aid Society, United Negro College Fund, and U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum .
A Pattern of Charitable Abuse
The Trump Foundation case revealed systemic issues beyond the children’s cancer charity allegations. According to court findings, the foundation repeatedly engaged in “self-dealing”—using charitable assets for personal benefit. This included a $25,000 political donation to Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi’s re-election campaign, which violated laws prohibiting foundations from political activity .
The Washington Post’s initial 2016 investigation, which sparked the official probe, found the foundation often served as “little more than a chequebook” for Trump’s interests .
Regulatory Context and Ongoing Concerns
This case occurred amid broader crackdowns on charity fraud. In 2016, the FTC and all 50 states shut down Cancer Fund of America and related sham charities that had bilked donors of $187 million, banning their operators from charity work.
For the Trump Foundation, legal experts argue the case highlights serious deficiencies in charity enforcement. Despite the admissions of wrongdoing, the Internal Revenue Service has not publicly pursued excise taxes typically levied for self-dealing and political activity violations . The New York Attorney General has referred matters to federal authorities for possible criminal investigation .
Conclusion: Charity as a Personal Tool
The Trump family charity cases demonstrate how charitable organizations can be manipulated for personal and political advantage. While the settlements imposed financial penalties and oversight requirements, they stopped short of the lifetime bans initially sought by prosecutors.
The diversion of funds intended for seriously ill children represents perhaps the most disturbing aspect of these violations, undermining public trust in charitable institutions meant to support society’s most vulnerable members. As one legal scholar noted, the resolution was more “a small and largely symbolic win” than a comprehensive accountability measure .