Presidential inaugurations have always been an opportunity for wealthy special interests to curry favor with the incoming administration with generous inaugural donations. But the nation has never seen influence peddling like we just witnessed at Trump’s second inauguration.
Shattering all records, the Trump Vance Inaugural Committee, Inc. raised and spent over $200 million in special interest money celebrating the 2024 election victory. (The all-time previous record was $107 million for Trump’s first inauguration in 2017. By contrast, Biden’s 2021 inauguration raised and spent nearly $62 million.)
Nearly all this financing comes from companies and wealthy business leaders who have business pending before the incoming administration. Rarely are small donations received from citizens simply excited about a new president.
The public won’t get a full picture of Trump’s inaugural donors until the spring, when the one-and-only disclosure report is filed 90 days after the inauguration. But the ones we know about so far are painting an ugly picture of corporations, government contractors, billionaires, and millionaires seeking to endear themselves to Trump and his administration.
All the self-reporting donors — including Big Tech firms like Google, Microsoft, Meta, Amazon, and OpenAI — pledged $1 million or more. The cryptocurrency firm Ripple pledged $5 million. In fact, the cryptocurrency industry even hosted its own inaugural ball.
And of course, Wall Street is cozying up with major donations from Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, and billionaire hedge fund manager Ken Griffin.
“EVERYBODY WANTS TO BE MY FRIEND!!!” Trump marvels on his Truth Social account.
Some of these new friends previously expressed opposition toward Trump, who has a history of seeking revenge against his adversaries and even said he might seek retribution in his second administration. “When this election is over … I would have every right to go after them,” Trump said of his political opponents over the summer.
In addition to being former Trump critics, Mark Zuckerberg of Meta, Jeff Bezos of Amazon, and Sam Altman of OpenAI have their sights on major government contracts from the new administration. Each has now donated $1 million to Trump’s Inauguration. Zuckerberg and Bezos even partied with Trump at Mar-a-Lago and at the inauguration in DC.
What else does all this money buy? Access. Access itself does not necessarily mean success at buying official favors. But the sheer volume of today’s inaugural donations suggests that wealthy special interests believe it is worth the investment.
Presidential inaugurations have not always been such a soiree for the wealthy. Nixon in 1973 spent less than $4 million on his inauguration. Carter in 1977 spent $3.5 million. Thomas Jefferson in 1801 simply walked to the Capitol to be sworn in and then walked home.
The very ripeness for scandal this time around calls for reasonable restrictions on the sources and amounts of inaugural donations. Corporations, and certainly government contractors, should be banned from donating.
Contributions should be limited to avoid even the appearance of buying favors. The disclosure requirement should be vastly expanded to include disclosing expenditures as well as donations. And rules should be established on how surplus funds are dispensed.
Presidential inaugurations should be celebrations for the nation as a whole, not influence-peddling opportunities for the very wealthy.
You’re reading the words of a formerly undocumented immigrant.
When I fled El Salvador four decades ago, I was 12 years old and alone. I was escaping the country’s civil war, where U.S.-backed death squads had made murders and rape our daily reality.
I reunited with my sisters, my only surviving family, in Wichita, Kansas. Once there, I helped open churches, started businesses, and raised three daughters. There were times I wasn’t sure we’d make it to the end of the month, but I was grateful for the sense of peace and security we were able to create here.
That’s why I’m so alarmed that the new Republican-led Congress has chosen to open with a bill, H.R. 29, that strikes fear in the hearts of immigrant families all across the country. This bill would strip judges of discretion and require immigrants to be detained and subject to deportation if they’re accused — not even convicted — of even minor offenses like shoplifting.
This major assault on due process won’t keep anyone safer. It would terrorize all immigrants in this country, who studies show are much less likely to commit crimes of any kind than native-born Americans.
So who benefits from H.R. 29? Private prison corporations like CoreCivic and GEO Group, who made a fortune during the last Trump administration by running private prisons for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
CoreCivic and GEO kept immigrants and asylum seekers in inhumane and toxic conditions with poor hygiene and exposed women and children to sexual predators. Under this new law, cynical executives will siphon off more public dollars, and wealthy investors will reap more rewards, from abusing and demonizing people seeking refuge from violence or poverty.
When Trump won, private prison stocks soared. Why? Because investors anticipated making a fortune detaining immigrants. More than 90 percent of migrants detained by ICE end up in for-profit facilities.
GEO Group, which maxed out its campaign contributions to Trump, told its investors they could make almost $400 million per year supporting “future needs for ICE and the federal government” in a second Trump term. Their stock price nearly doubled in November.
Whether those detained are guilty or not, CoreCivic and GEO get paid. That’s what H.R. 29 is for: advancing corporate greed, not protecting Americans.
We all have a stake in stopping private prison corporations from becoming more powerful, regardless of our language, race, gender, or community. In addition to jailing immigrants, for-profit prison companies also look for ways to put citizens in prison more often — and for longer — so they can make more money.
Whenever we allow fundamental rights to be taken away, we erode our shared humanity and diminish all of our rights and freedoms.
The people behind H.R. 29 want us to be afraid of each other so we won’t stand together. They want to be able to barge into our homes, schools, and churches to take our neighbors and loved ones away. They want workers to be too scared to stand up to their bosses’ abuse. All so their donors in the private prison industry can make more money.
Democrats will need to find their way in this new Congress. Falling in line behind nativist fear-mongers who take millions in campaign contributions from the private-prison industry is not the right way to do it.
Americans demand better. We want true leadership with an affirmative vision for the future of this country and dignity for all people, including immigrants.
H.R. 29 targets whole communities because of the language we speak and the color of our skin. Instead, our elected leaders, regardless of party, must work to address people’s needs through building an economy that works for all of us, not just the wealthy few.
Sulma Arias is executive director of People’s Action, the nation’s largest network of grassroots power-building groups, with more than a million members in 30 states. This op-ed was adapted from OurFuture.org and distributed for syndication by OtherWords.org.
CHAMPAIGN - Parkland College announced the names of students whose academic performance landed them a spot on the Fall 2025 Dean's List. One of the highest honors a student can receive for their academic performance, the Dean's List is awarded to Parkland College students who earn a minimum grade point average of 3.5 on a 4.0 grade scale for the semester in 100-level courses or higher.
Below is a list of students in our area who earned academic honors last fall. The complete current list can be found on the Parkland College website.
