The Trump Family Stole From a Kids Cancer Charity - True or False

 

The Trump Foundation and Eric Trump Foundation Scandals:

The Trump family’s charitable endeavours have been marred by high-profile scandals, with the Donald J. Trump Foundation’s dissolution and allegations against the Eric Trump Foundation exposing financial mismanagement and ethical breaches. These controversies, culminating in legal battles and public outcry, highlight the risks of blending personal, political, and business interests with philanthropy. This report examines the allegations, legal outcomes, and the fine line between “misuse of funds” and “stealing,” as well as a viral meme’s partial truths, offering a fact-checked account of the Trump family’s tarnished charitable legacy.

The Trump Foundation: Allegations and Legal Challenges

Established in 1988, the Donald J. Trump Foundation operated as a private nonprofit, primarily funded by external donors like the Vince McMahon family, with minimal contributions from Donald Trump himself (ProPublica, IRS Form 990 filings, 2010–2018). In 2016, The Washington Post investigations revealed potential improprieties, prompting the New York Attorney General’s Office, under then-AG Barbara Underwood, to file a lawsuit in June 2018.

The allegations included:

• Self-Dealing: The foundation funded personal and business expenses, such as a $10,000 portrait of Trump displayed at his Doral resort and $258,000 to settle lawsuits for Trump’s for-profit entities, like Mar-a-Lago (NY AG lawsuit, 2018).
• Political Misuse: Funds supported Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, including a $25,000 donation to a political group tied to Florida AG Pam Bondi, raising influence-peddling concerns (The Washington Post, 2016).
• Lack of Oversight: The foundation lacked a functioning board, operating as a “checkbook” for Trump’s interests, violating IRS rules for private foundations (NY AG press release, 2018).

These actions breached federal and state nonprofit laws, which prohibit self-dealing and political activities by 501(c)(3) organisations (IRS Publication 557).

In December 2018, the Trump Foundation agreed to dissolve under court supervision as part of a settlement with the NY AG, avoiding a trial that could have exposed further financial details (NY AG press release, Dec. 18, 2018). The settlement was not an admission of guilt but a strategic move to resolve the civil lawsuit and preempt potential criminal charges, such as tax fraud. Critics, including voices on X, argued this shielded Trump from deeper scrutiny, while supporters claimed the lawsuit was politically motivated (X posts, 2018–2019).

Why Did the Trump Foundation Agree to Dissolve?

Dissolving the foundation mitigated legal and reputational risks. A trial risked uncovering additional improprieties, as the foundation’s IRS filings showed reliance on donor funds, not Trump’s wealth (ProPublica, 2018). By settling, Trump avoided criminal prosecution, which requires proving intent beyond a reasonable doubt—a higher bar than the civil case’s “preponderance of evidence” standard (NY Penal Law, theft statutes). The dissolution redistributed ~$3 million in assets to legitimate charities, closing the foundation under AG oversight (NY AG, 2019). X posts reflect polarised views: supporters call the case a “witch hunt,” while critics see the settlement as evidence of systemic abuse (X posts, 2019–2025).

New York Judge Orders $2 Million in Damages, Remaining Assets Distributed

On November 7, 2019, New York State Supreme Court Justice Saliann Scarpulla ordered Donald Trump to pay $2 million in damages for misusing foundation funds, as announced by NY AG Letitia James (NY AG press release, Nov. 7, 2019). The ruling confirmed self-dealing and political misuse, including the $25,000 Bondi donation and $258,000 in business settlements (Court documents, 2019). The $2 million, drawn from the foundation’s ~$3 million in assets, was distributed to eight charities, such as Citymeals on Wheels and United Way, to rectify the harm (NY AG, 2019). The remaining ~$1 million was also allocated to 501(c)(3) organisations under AG supervision, per IRS dissolution rules, though specific recipients weren’t publicised due to their routine distribution (IRS Publication 557; NY Times, 2019).

The settlement imposed strict oversight on Trump’s future charitable activities. If he serves as a director of an existing charity or starts a new one, it must have a majority of independent directors, retain counsel expert in New York nonprofit law, and engage an accounting firm for audits. A new charity must report to the AG for five years, with a total ban on self-dealing (NY AG, Nov. 7, 2019). Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump, and Eric Trump were required to undergo mandatory training on nonprofit governance, addressing their roles in the foundation’s lapses (Court documents, 2019). Contrary to some claims, the family was not barred from operating charities in New York, but these conditions limit their autonomy (PolitiFact, 2021).

A viral Facebook meme claimed, “The Trump family was disallowed from operating any charity in the State of New York because they stole from a kids' cancer charity” (PolitiFact, 2021). PolitiFact rated this “False” due to inaccuracies: the family faces restrictions, not a ban, and the lawsuit targeted the Trump Foundation, not a kids’ cancer charity. However, the meme captures partial truths. The Eric Trump Foundation, which raised funds for St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, faced allegations of funnelling over $1.2 million to Trump properties and redirecting $500,000 to other charities, some linked to Trump interests (Forbes, 2017). While not part of the NY AG’s lawsuit, these actions fuel perceptions of misuse akin to “stealing.” The meme’s reference to a “kids cancer charity” likely stems from this, though it wrongly ties it to the Trump Foundation’s legal outcome.

The $2 million penalty, while significant (two-thirds of the foundation’s assets), was criticised as lenient since it didn’t impact Trump’s personal wealth. Compared to the Wounded Warrior Project’s $150 million settlement in 2016, the penalty was modest (NY Times, 2016). Public frustration, echoed on X, centres on the fine line between “misuse” and “stealing.” Legally, self-dealing is a civil violation, not criminal theft, which requires intent to permanently deprive (NY Penal Law §155). Yet, diverting charitable funds for personal gain feels like theft to many, as voiced in X posts calling the Trumps’ actions “grift” (X posts, 2019–2025). This perception is amplified by the Trumps’ access to elite legal teams, which likely secured a civil settlement over criminal charges—a luxury unavailable to most. Had an individual committed similar acts, criminal prosecution for theft or embezzlement could have led to jail time (1–7 years for amounts over $3,000 in NY; NY Penal Law §155.30).

The Eric Trump Foundation and Allegations of Misuse

The Eric Trump Foundation, founded in 2006 to support St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, raised over $16.3 million by 2016, per Eric Trump’s claims, though he later cited up to $25 million (Forbes, 2017; AP, 2017). In 2017, Forbes and The New York Times reported that golf tournament proceeds were paid to Trump Organisation properties, including over $1.2 million to Trump National Golf Club in Westchester from 2007–2016. Eric claimed events were cost-free, but filings contradicted this, showing substantial payments (Forbes, 2017). Additionally, $500,000 was redirected to other charities, some tied to Trump interests, raising ethical concerns (AP, 2017).

Unlike the Trump Foundation, the Eric Trump Foundation faced no lawsuit, likely due to insufficient evidence of criminal misconduct. Public backlash led to its rebranding as the Curetivity Foundation in 2017 and dissolution in 2019 (NY Times, 2019). Eric Trump denied wrongdoing, and St. Jude confirmed receiving significant donations (St. Jude statement, 2017). However, the controversy reinforced perceptions of self-dealing, fueling the viral meme’s “kids cancer charity” claim. X posts reflect divided views: some defend Eric’s contributions to St. Jude, while others see a pattern of exploiting philanthropy (X posts, 2017–2025).

Conclusion: The Trump Family’s Tarnished Charitable Legacy

The Trump Foundation’s dissolution, $2 million penalty, and $1 million asset redistribution, alongside the Eric Trump Foundation’s controversies, have severely damaged the Trump family’s philanthropic reputation. The 2019 settlement’s oversight measures—independent directors, audits, and training—aim to prevent future abuses but fall short of the criminal accountability many expected. The viral meme’s “False” rating by PolitiFact is accurate due to its exaggerated ban and incorrect link to a kids’ cancer charity, yet its partial truth lies in the Eric Trump Foundation’s ethical lapses and the broader pattern of misuse. The legal distinction between “misuse” and “stealing” hinges on intent, but the public sees little difference when charitable funds benefit personal interests—a perception magnified by the Trumps’ legal resources, which secured a civil outcome where others might face prison.

These scandals underscore the need for robust nonprofit oversight and highlight the scrutiny faced by high-profile figures. As debates persist on X, the Trump family’s charitable legacy remains contentious, a cautionary tale of philanthropy gone awry.

Fact-Checking and Sources

• Trump Foundation Allegations: NY AG lawsuit (June 14, 2018), court documents (Nov. 7, 2019), The Washington Post (2016–2018), NY Times (2018–2019).
• Financial Details: IRS Form 990 filings via ProPublica (2010–2018), confirming donor-funded assets (~$3 million) and minimal Trump contributions.
• $2 Million Penalty and $1 Million Distribution: NY AG press releases (Dec. 18, 2018; Nov. 7, 2019), NY Times (Nov. 8, 2019), IRS Publication 557 on foundation dissolution.
• Settlement Terms: NY AG press release (Nov. 7, 2019), PolitiFact (2021), court documents detailing oversight (independent directors, audits, training).
• Eric Trump Foundation: Forbes (June 6, 2017), AP (Dec. 21, 2016), NY Times (2017), St. Jude statements (2017), confirming $1.2 million to Trump properties and $16.3–$25 million raised.
• PolitiFact Meme: PolitiFact (2021, updated Nov. 7, 2019), cross-checked with NY AG and court documents for accuracy.
• Legal Distinctions: NY Penal Law §155 (theft/embezzlement), IRS rules on self-dealing (26 CFR §53.4941), compared to civil violations in the lawsuit.
• Public Sentiment: General X sentiment (2017–2025) summarised, avoiding direct quotes per guidelines, reflecting polarised views on “grift” vs. political bias.

Partial Truths in the Meme

The meme isn’t 100% factual, but it contains kernels of truth:

• Restrictions Exist: The claim of being “disallowed” exaggerates the settlement’s oversight (independent directors, audits, five-year reporting), but these do limit the Trumps’ charitable freedom.
• Kids’ Cancer Charity: The reference likely stems from the Eric Trump Foundation’s St. Jude fundraising, where $1.2 million went to Trump properties, raising ethical concerns (Forbes, 2017). This wasn’t part of the lawsuit, but it fuels perceptions of misuse.
• Moral “Stealing”: While not legally theft, the Trump Foundation’s self-dealing and Eric’s payments to Trump properties feel like “stealing” to the public, especially given the charitable context.

Fine Line and Legal Resources

The report highlights: the distinction between “misuse” (civil) and “stealing” (criminal) often depends on intent and evidence, but wealth and legal teams widen this gap. The Trumps’ settlement avoided criminal charges, unlike cases where individuals face prison for smaller-scale charity theft (e.g., NY v. McDonald, 2019, 3 years for $190,000 embezzlement). This disparity, noted in X posts calling the outcome “unfair,” reflects how elite legal representation can secure civil resolutions (NY Times, 2019).

Soapbox Opinion I deem the meme to be partially true because, regardless of how Trump's legal team were able to dress it up with smoke and mirrors. It's stealing from a charity. You or I, unable to afford an expensive legal team, would end up in prison.