ActBlue, the Democratic Party's fundraising backbone, may have given Congress a misleading account of how it screens out illegal foreign donations, and its own attorneys knew it, according to internal legal memos now surfacing through a New York Times investigation published Thursday.
The memos, drafted by ActBlue's outside law firm Covington & Burling, warned that CEO Regina Wallace-Jones' 2023 letter to congressional investigators described safeguards that were not consistently followed. One memo went further, raising the prospect of a criminal investigation if prosecutors concluded ActBlue had tried to conceal the truth about foreign contributions flowing through its platform.
For a nonprofit that functions as the central clearinghouse for Democratic campaign cash, the implications are serious. Federal election law bars foreign nationals from donating to American political campaigns. When Wallace-Jones told Congress in 2023 that ActBlue had a "multi-layered vetting framework" to catch illegal foreign money, she was speaking under the kind of scrutiny where accuracy is not optional, it is a legal obligation.
Wallace-Jones wrote to Congress in 2023 in response to concerns about ActBlue's ability to vet donors overseas. She told lawmakers the platform processed contributions with foreign mailing addresses only when the donor supplied a U.S. passport number. She also said ActBlue would contact donors to request passport information and return any money when the donor could not be reached.
That account painted a picture of tight controls. But Fox News Digital reported that the New York Times reviewed internal memos, resignation letters, and other communications showing those procedures were not fully accurate, and not consistently happening.
Covington & Burling's attorneys flagged the gap between what Wallace-Jones told Congress and what was actually occurring inside the organization. The Washington Examiner reported that donors using third-party payment platforms such as Apple Pay, PayPal, and Venmo were not required by ActBlue to provide documentation showing they were legally permitted to donate to U.S. political committees.
That is not a minor technical oversight. It is a hole in the vetting system large enough to let foreign money walk through.
The internal memos from Covington & Burling did not mince words. One memo, as reported by the Washington Free Beacon, stated plainly:
"It can be alleged that ActBlue accepted and/or facilitated the acceptance of foreign-national contributions into American elections."
The same memo warned that because ActBlue's staff knew the system was not as robust as necessary, any violations could be characterized as "knowing and willful", a legal standard that increases the penalties the Federal Election Commission might seek and gives the Justice Department jurisdiction for a potential criminal investigation.
Another passage addressed the November 2023 letter to Congress directly:
"An aggressive prosecutor may view the November 2023 letter not just as a false statement but as an effort to conceal the foreign contributions."
That language, "effort to conceal", is the kind of framing that separates a sloppy mistake from potential obstruction. It came not from Republican investigators or conservative critics, but from the law firm ActBlue had hired to protect it.
The pattern of officials making claims to Congress that later prove questionable has become a recurring theme in Washington. Democrats have been eager to push criminal referrals over alleged false congressional testimony when the target is a Republican. Whether they apply the same standard to their own fundraising apparatus remains to be seen.
A spokesperson for Covington & Burling told Fox News Digital: "We have complete confidence in the legal advice our lawyers provided to ActBlue." That statement is carefully worded. It expresses confidence in the advice given, not in ActBlue's compliance with it.
The New York Times reported that Covington's relationship with ActBlue was ultimately severed. The Times also reviewed resignation letters and interviewed ActBlue employees on the basis of anonymity, suggesting internal turmoil that went beyond a routine legal disagreement.
When your own law firm warns you that your statements to Congress may be viewed as concealment, and then the firm walks away, the situation has moved well past "misunderstanding."
ActBlue was already the target of several congressional probes led by Republican House committees before the Times report landed. Newsmax reported that several former ActBlue officials invoked their Fifth Amendment rights during closed-door testimony before those committees, a legal right, but one that rarely inspires public confidence.
The New York Times reported that three investigations by GOP-led House committees remain ongoing. Trump called on the Justice Department last year to investigate ActBlue over concerns the platform was allowing straw donations and foreign contributions barred by federal election law. Early in his term, he directed the DOJ to return a report within 180 days on the status of its findings.
That report, the Times noted, has never been made public.
House Republican committee chairmen Bryan Steil, James Comer, and Jim Jordan responded to the Times findings directly. The New York Post reported their joint statement:
"The New York Times' bombshell report raises serious questions about whether ActBlue's CEO intentionally misled Congress."
GOP investigators also said ActBlue relaxed its fraud-prevention policies twice during the 2024 campaign cycle and did not require CVV entry for card transactions until January 2024. Internal documents reportedly indicated some overseas prepaid-card transactions were flagged.
The question of what officials tell Congress under oath, and what happens when those statements prove false, has generated intense debate in recent months. Democrats have called for special counsel investigations over testimony disputes involving Republican officials. The standard they set should apply here, too.
In May, ActBlue issued a press release addressing the scrutiny. The organization called it a "myth" that its platform allows foreign nationals to illegally contribute donations and described its new measures:
"While ActBlue has always had strong measures in place that have successfully prevented illegal foreign donations, beginning in 2025 we have gone even further. We now require that Americans living abroad be physically present in the United States to make a contribution on our platform, despite campaign finance laws allowing citizens to contribute to campaigns while living abroad."
Read that carefully. ActBlue says it has "always had strong measures." Its own attorneys said those measures were not robust enough and that staff knew it. ActBlue says it went "even further" in 2025. But the congressional letter in question was sent in November 2023, and the vetting gaps existed during the 2024 election cycle, the most expensive in American history.
The timing matters. If ActBlue's safeguards were inadequate during the very cycle when billions of dollars flowed through its platform, the 2025 reforms do not retroactively fix the problem. They confirm one existed.
ActBlue did not respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment in time for publication.
Federal prosecutors have shown increasing willingness to pursue evidence from congressional proceedings when they suspect misconduct tied to major political controversies. Whether that appetite extends to the Democratic Party's fundraising machine is a test of institutional evenhandedness.
Several questions hang over this story. The DOJ report Trump requested within 180 days has not surfaced publicly. The specific findings of the three ongoing House investigations have not been disclosed. And the full scope of foreign money that may have entered Democratic coffers through ActBlue's platform remains unknown.
The Breitbart report on the Times findings noted that Covington & Burling concluded Wallace-Jones' 2023 letter described screening steps that were not always followed in practice, and that one memo raised the possibility of a criminal investigation if prosecutors believed facts had been concealed.
Congressional testimony carries weight precisely because it carries consequences. When officials volunteer to testify before House committees, they do so knowing that false statements can trigger real legal exposure. Wallace-Jones did not volunteer; she responded to an investigation. The bar for accuracy was no lower.
ActBlue processed donations for virtually every major Democratic candidate and cause in the country. If its vetting system had holes, and its own lawyers said it did, then the integrity of an entire fundraising ecosystem is in question. The people who deserve answers are not partisan operatives. They are American voters and donors who trusted that the system was lawful.
When your own attorneys warn you in writing that prosecutors could view your letter to Congress as concealment, the word "myth" stops being a defense. It starts sounding like a habit.
