Sen. Richard Blumenthal is not backing down. The Connecticut Democrat, who takes over as chairman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations when the new Congress is seated in January, has written to nearly 60 companies and individuals who donated to President Donald Trump's White House ballroom, demanding their records by January 4, 2027 -- and he says Nvidia, the AI chip giant that put $25 million into the project, will be "front and center" in the inquiry.
The warning in his letters is explicit: "Please also note that failure to voluntarily produce the requested records and information by January 4, 2027, will leave the Subcommittee with no choice but to consider alternative measures to obtain compliance." In plain terms, hand over the documents voluntarily, or face subpoenas once he holds the gavel.
Blumenthal's subcommittee inquiry -- which he describes as an investigation into waste, fraud and abuse around the ballroom and the President's other building projects across the capital -- seeks records, documents and communications about the donations themselves: who was asked to give, what was promised, and what, if anything, donors expected or received in return. In October, after reporting revealed the identities of previously undisclosed donors, he wrote to more than a dozen of them, telling Salesforce chief Marc Benioff that many donors "have apparently attempted to keep their contributions secret, and have deep financial, business, or other personal interests before the Trump Administration."
The reported scale of the giving is large. An internal fundraising spreadsheet reported in October logged about $333 million in donations and pledges from roughly 57 major donors, with at least $77 million of it from donors who asked to stay anonymous. Nvidia and Apple were each down for $25 million -- among the largest gifts on the list. Nvidia acknowledged its donation; its chief executive, Jensen Huang, was among the CEOs who received Blumenthal's November letters.
Why Nvidia sits at the front of the queue, on Blumenthal's case, is that few companies have more riding on decisions in Washington. Nvidia's ability to sell its advanced AI chips to China turns on export licences controlled by this administration, and the company is at the centre of the week's upheaval in Washington after Huang's resignation as chief executive. In an earlier round of congressional questioning led by Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Nvidia -- unlike Comcast, which stated plainly that it "made [its] donation with no expectations of receiving anything in return" -- did not deny possible quid pro quo arrangements when asked. That is the lawmakers' characterisation, and it is important to be exact about what is and is not established: no evidence has been produced that any donation bought any government action, and the reporters who revealed the donor list said themselves that they had seen no evidence of a quid pro quo. The White House calls the donors patriots who are funding a ballroom for the nation at no cost to taxpayers.
This week the fight escalated from letters to donors into a direct clash between the senator and the Justice Department. On Wednesday, Aaron Reitz, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Texas, wrote to Blumenthal ordering him to preserve every record tied to his investigations. "In recent weeks, you have threatened citizens for associating themselves with the President and other public officials," Reitz wrote. "I therefore write to formally give you notice of your obligation to preserve all documents, communications, and other electronically stored information relevant to your intent to deprive citizens of their core constitutional rights in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242." Those are the federal conspiracy-against-rights and deprivation-of-rights-under-colour-of-law statutes. Reitz warned of "significant legal consequences" if the records are not preserved, and asked Blumenthal to confirm by November 18 that he has kept them. Posting the letter publicly, Reitz added: "Congress is not a weapon to be wielded against the American people. I'm taking the first step to stop this abuse of power."
The Justice Department's second-ranking official backed him. "The First Amendment expressly prohibits Congress from infringing the speech and association rights of Americans," Acting Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter wrote. "DOJ will defend against threats to those rights, period." A department spokesperson said "the Department routinely requests that records be preserved when public officials take such extreme actions." The White House counsel's office has sent a parallel warning to House Democrats preparing their own probes, cautioning that process "designed merely to abuse or instill fear in the recipient may cross the line into blatant criminality." Two things should be kept straight: Reitz's letter is a preservation demand, not a charge -- Blumenthal has not been accused of a crime in any filing -- and the administration's argument is that the donor letters themselves pressure Americans for their political associations and philanthropy.
Blumenthal answered the same day, in a letter of his own. "I am aware of your letter, posted to X today, which purports to initiate an investigation into me for conducting a congressional inquiry," he wrote. "Your implied threat of an investigation is baseless." Then the line that gives this story its headline: "As incoming Chair of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, I will not be intimidated. I will work on behalf of the American people to vigorously pursue investigations into this Administration's misuse of taxpayer dollars and any corporate entity that has enabled its boundless corruption." Those are his characterisations of the administration, stated as his case. He then turned the demand around, directing Reitz to preserve "all records and correspondence, including all communications with the White House or senior officials at the Department of Justice, related to the decision to draft and post your letter," arguing that "the public deserves transparency about whether the White House and the corporations it cajoled extracted favors at the expense of American taxpayers." He set Reitz a deadline of November 12 to confirm.
For ordinary Americans, this is not only a Washington turf war. The ballroom is being built on public land -- the White House grounds belong to the people -- and the two sides tell opposite stories about whose money is at stake. The administration says private donations carry the whole cost and taxpayers pay nothing. Blumenthal has argued in his own letters that internal estimates have put the project's cost far higher and that taxpayers could be left responsible for more than half of it; that is his claim, resting on reporting he cites, and it is exactly the kind of question the records he is demanding would settle. The other stake is access: the donor list is dominated by companies and executives with contracts, mergers, licences and enforcement matters in front of the federal government, and whether a $25 million gift buys a hearing for the giver is a question that reaches every household that buys those companies' products and lives under those agencies' decisions.
What happens next is dated. Reitz wants Blumenthal's confirmation that records are preserved by November 18. The donors have until January 4, 2027 to produce their records voluntarily. And in January, when the new Congress is seated, Blumenthal takes the chairman's gavel -- and with it the subpoena power he has already told the donors, Nvidia first among them, that he is prepared to use.
📰 ProfiloPolitics Member News — choose your news, share it, earn credit:
https://white-curlew-963569.hostingersite.com
Never miss a story — Join our Telegram channel
Breaking U.S. political news, live as it happens — plus the stories the big outlets sit on.
Join ProfiloPolitics on Telegram