Donald Trump is demanding an investigation into ActBlue, the Democratic fundraising platform that has helped fuel progressive campaigns through small-dollar donations.

ActBlue raised concerns for various reasons:

  • Foreign Contributions: Reports indicate that, over a 30-day period in 2024, ActBlue processed 237 donations from foreign IP addresses using prepaid cards, raising concerns about foreign nationals influencing U.S. elections . 
  • Straw Donor Schemes: Allegations suggest that large contributions were potentially broken down into smaller amounts and attributed to individuals without their consent, violating federal election laws . 
  • Lax Verification Practices: Until 2024, ActBlue did not require any Card Verification Value (CVV) codes for credit card donations. That’s a pretty standard security measure to buy socks online, so yeah, should probably be part of political donations. Additionally, internal documents reportedly instructed staff to “look for reasons to accept contributions,” even when suspicious . 

So clearly, there’s a legal rationale for scrutiny of ActBlue—any major pipeline of political money deserves oversight.

But this is not about fairness. It’s not about protecting democracy. It’s not even about transparency.

It’s about power.

And power only pretends to care about justice when its throne is threatened.

ActBlue is being cast as a villain not because it broke the rules more egregiously than others—but because it has succeeded. It has disrupted the traditional flow of money, giving rise to left-wing candidates outside of party control. It’s a threat not because of what it does, but because of who it benefits.

Looking in the Mirror

Meanwhile, WinRed—Trump’s own campaign fundraising machine—has a track record riddled with allegations of deceit.

  • Deceptive Recurring Donation Practices: WinRed has been accused of misleading donors into making recurring contributions through pre-checked boxes on donation forms. These practices allegedly led to donors, particularly the elderly, unknowingly committing to repeated donations. In some cases, individuals reported being charged multiple times without clear consent. This prompted investigations by attorneys general in four states—Minnesota, New York, Connecticut, and Maryland—into potential violations of consumer protection laws .
  • Failure to Disclose Operating Expenses: Despite processing over $2.8 billion in contributions since its inception in 2019, WinRed reported less than $2,700 in operating expenses during that period. This discrepancy raised concerns about transparency and compliance with federal campaign finance laws. The Campaign Legal Center filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), alleging that WinRed’s lack of disclosure obscures the true cost of its operations and prevents public accountability .
  • Legal Challenges to State Investigations: In response to state-level investigations, WinRed argued that federal campaign finance laws preempt state consumer protection laws, seeking to block these probes. However, a federal appeals court ruled that state attorneys general could proceed with their investigations, stating that federal law does not shield WinRed from state-level enforcement actions regarding deceptive practices .

    These are not conspiracy theories; they’re documented cases, even the subject of investigations and lawsuits. Yet Trump has not called for transparency there. No executive order. No moral panic.

    Because WinRed serves the king.

    This is the problem with selective justice. When one platform is targeted while its mirror image is protected, the law becomes a cudgel of convenience—a sword drawn not in defense of the public, but in service to a ruler.

    We must stop pretending that political corruption only exists when it’s across the aisle. If the standard is ethical fundraising, both ActBlue and WinRed should be under scrutiny. But if the standard is loyalty, then we are not a nation of laws—we are a court of royal favor.

    Trump’s war on ActBlue is not a campaign for clean elections. It’s a strategic assault meant to weaken his enemies while shielding his allies. That’s not justice. That’s monarchy.

    And monarchy, as history has shown us, prefers not only obedience—but silence.

    Let us refuse both.