New York Times Publishes ActBlue Confidential Legal Memos Showing Potential Federal Crimes
New York Times publishes investigative report on internal Covington & Burling legal memos warning ActBlue executives may have misled Congress on foreign donation screening.
Objective Facts
The New York Times published findings Thursday based on internal legal memos, emails, resignation letters, Slack messages, and interviews with current and former ActBlue employees. In early 2025, Covington & Burling attorneys warned that CEO Regina Wallace-Jones had given a potentially misleading response to congressional Republican investigators in a 2023 letter, finding that screening procedures described were not consistently conducted. One memo raised the specter of a criminal investigation if prosecutors believed ActBlue tried to conceal facts about foreign donation prevention. The memos caused a meltdown at ActBlue, with a series of top officials resigning in quick succession. ActBlue has since criticized its former legal advisers, accusing them of providing deficient counsel, while Covington responded it had "complete confidence" in the legal advice delivered.
Left-Leaning Perspective
ActBlue's chief defense is that Wallace-Jones' statements were "accurate in the context in which they were written," that Covington approved the letter, and that the organization subsequently "took steps to beef up its vetting of foreign donations" in a June 2025 letter to Congress. The platform emphasizes that potential problematic contributions "constitute less than 1% of the total contributions on the ActBlue platform," with many coming from "the six million American citizens who live abroad—such as US military personnel." Wallace-Jones attacked Covington directly, saying she had "terminated" the firm's relationship after "more than a year of navigating tardiness, unpreparedness, and counsel that bordered on malpractice." The June 2025 letter to Congress suggested Republicans engaged in a "partisan effort" rather than "an exercise of legitimate legislative oversight." ActBlue stated the Times "unfortunately disregarded extensive evidence we made available to them" though it "did not contest any of the specific quotes from the memos." ActBlue's board chair Kimberly Peeler-Allen downplayed the memos, telling the Times that "less than 1 percent" of contributions showed signs of foreign origin. The defensive framing emphasizes the organization has taken corrective action and faces investigations from a Trump administration they characterize as partisan.
Right-Leaning Perspective
Right-wing outlets stress that "ActBlue knew this was a powder keg. They were warned. The memos raised the possibility that foreign money may have gotten through and that staff knew the safeguards were not as strong as they needed to be." The GOP Oversight Committee vowed "what we've been investigating. ActBlue's own lawyers warned it may have misled Congress about safeguards against foreign donations" and committed to "continue getting answers." Conservative commentators criticize what they view as a "softball" treatment by the Times, suggesting "the New York Times is clearly nervous, which is why this whole article is written with that softball, protective vibe." Rep. Elise Stefanik described the investigation as "one of the biggest bombshell campaign finance corruption stories in American politics" and noted that "until recently, the media refused to cover it." Some right-wing outlets allege "for years, there have been allegations that ActBlue has been funneling foreign donations and enabling smurfing," and that "those allegations are true, but difficult to prove because financial crimes always are," requiring sustained legal pressure to prosecute. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche indicated the DOJ investigation is "a priority of this administration and this DOJ," noting "a lot of people have been worried about it for a very long time."
Deep Dive
ActBlue has been under investigation for several years by the Department of Justice and House Republicans over allegations it maintained a lax vetting process for foreign donations, with the GOP seeking to determine whether foreigners used the platform to circumvent campaign finance laws. The core issue stems from a 2023 letter Wallace-Jones sent to Republican investigators claiming ActBlue conducted "multilayered" screenings that "root out" foreign donations, but internal lawyers later found these screenings were not consistently conducted. The memos triggered personal warnings to Wallace-Jones about potential legal liability during a tense video conference. No specific illegal donations were identified, and the scope of issues remains unclear. Both sides agree on factual details: that donors using PayPal or Venmo were not required to verify passports despite Wallace-Jones' letter claiming they would be. The disagreement centers on interpretation—whether these gaps constitute deliberate fraud or evolving compliance efforts. ActBlue's defense that less than 1% of donations showed foreign indicators has force, yet the fact that screening procedures differed from stated procedures creates legal exposure. Wallace-Jones' claim that Covington approved the 2023 letter complicates the narrative, since Covington then warned the letter created legal risk. Investigations ordered by President Donald Trump's Justice Department and led by Republican-controlled House committees continue to examine ActBlue's handling of donations. Democrats are nervous that additional upheaval at ActBlue could destabilize the party's critical fundraising apparatus ahead of the midterm elections. The unresolved questions include whether prosecutors will determine the discrepancies between stated and actual practices constitute knowing misrepresentation to Congress, what role prior Covington approval plays legally, and whether the corrections implemented in mid-2025 are deemed adequate remediation or inadequate damage control.