The New York Times has identified reclusive billionaire Timothy Mellon as the secret donor who gave President Donald Trump $130 million intended to pay troops during the government shutdown—a contribution that legal experts say could violate federal law.
Mellon, a long-time Trump supporter whose contributions have shaped the president’s political efforts for years, donated $50 million last year to Trump’s super PAC, just one day after the president was found guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records. The year before, Mellon split another $50 million between Trump and then-presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who later was tapped by Trump to lead the Department of Health and Human Services.
But the donation may not be legally straightforward. If the federal government were to use Mellon’s $130 million to pay service members, it could violate the Antideficiency Act, a law that bars federal agencies from spending money beyond what Congress appropriates.
The math of the situation also raises questions. “It remains unclear how far the donation would go toward covering the salaries of the more than 1.3 million troops who make up the active-duty military,” Times reporter Tyler Pager noted.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Trump administration’s 2025 budget requests roughly $600 billion for total military compensation. A $130 million donation would amount to about $100 per service member—far short of covering meaningful salaries.
Trump had refused to identify the donor, only describing them as a “patriot” and a “substantial man.” The Times confirmed Mellon’s involvement after speaking with two insiders on the condition of anonymity. Trump first announced the donation on Thursday but has not publicly confirmed the donor’s identity since.
The revelation casts doubt on the legality and symbolism of private money being used to cover federal responsibilities, especially during a shutdown. While Mellon’s contribution may appear patriotic, it highlights the limits of billionaire interventions in government funding—and the potential conflicts with federal law.
