With less than six weeks until the 2026 midterm elections, President Donald Trump’s primary super PAC—MAGA Inc.—is spending hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising to support dozens of Trump-backed candidates for Congress in the nation’s most competitive races. With the president’s approval rating more than 20 points underwater and the MAGA brand suffering, MAGA Inc. has effectively set up a collection of spinoff super PACs, including No Going Back PAC and Safety and Affordability PAC, that it is directly funding. Given the scale of their expenditures, MAGA Inc. and its subsidiaries have become one of the most dominant outside Republican spenders on the midterm battlefield having reserved $160 million in ad spending according to AdImpact. Their recent Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings, as of September 20, 2026, show nearly $80 million of that has already been spent.
In September, No Going Back PAC aired an ad in New Hampshire accusing Chris Pappas of voting to “line the pockets of health insurers with billions of tax dollars.” This is just one ad among a wider $10.6 million effort in the New Hampshire Senate race. Apart from being a misleading attack on Pappas’ support for extending enhanced ACA subsidies and another attack on his vote against the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, these ads are partially funded by big health insurance and benefit companies. FEC filings show UnitedHealthcare gave MAGA Inc. $5,000,000, and HealthEquity gave $1,000,000. Other donors from the health care industry include Extremity Care LLC and Advanced Medical Technology Association.
While federal law prevents individuals holding federal office from coordinating with political organizations that receive unlimited contributions, Trump has made his association with MAGA Inc. inextricably clear, describing the organization’s funding and spending as “my money that I control.”
Given MAGA Inc.’s outsized effort to tilt the scales in favor of Republican candidates and against Democratic candidates, it’s important to scrutinize both the group’s financial backers and the benefits these donors have reaped under the Trump administration. The donors to MAGA Inc. represent a diverse array of stakeholders whose interests are often misaligned with those of the American people, including:
- Twenty crypto companies and executives who contributed $88.2 million
- Four artificial intelligence (AI) and data center donors who contributed $37 million
- Six fossil fuel companies and executives who contributed $29.75 million
- Two health insurance and benefits companies who contributed $6 million
- Forty-seven nursing home companies and executives who contributed nearly $10 million
This list also includes dozens of billionaires, and at least five donors who have connections to Jeffrey Epstein.
Many of these contributors have won big under the Trump administration:
- Twenty donors who received government appointments or nominations themselves—or whose relatives, business associates, or allies received them—contributed $87.75 million
- Fifty-seven donors who benefited from regulatory rollbacks contributed nearly $81.97 million
- Seven donors who saw enforcement actions dropped or reversed contributed $78.6 million
- Six donors, including the private prison company GEO Group, who have received federal contracts worth more than $11 billion during the Trump administration contributed $41.7 million
- Eight donors who received favorable approvals or decisions contributed $15 million
- Two donors connected to presidential pardons contributed $4.5 million
- Three donors who received political support, such as endorsements, contributed $3.1 million
President Trump first ran for office promising to drain the swamp—a catchall phrase that meant rooting out corruption, conflicts of interests, and other insider dealing—but large wealthy and corporate donors to his super PAC appear to be benefiting from the official actions he is taking as president—even as the costs borne by everyday Americans increase. Democrats are fighting to take on this broken system, get big money out of politics, and lower costs for the American people. As Americans’ screens are flooded with misleading and fearmongering advertisements in the weeks ahead, they should ask themselves who is funding those ads and how are they benefiting.