President Donald Trump’s flagship super PAC once again increased its war chest by more than $400 million in August, despite pressure from Republican candidates to commit more money to the president with six weeks until the 2026 midterm elections.
After modest spending, MAGA Inc. ended August with about $415.8 million in cash, more than $12 million more than the $403.5 million it began the month with, according to a Federal Election Commission filing posted late Sunday.
The super PAC reported raising more than double the amount it spent in August, raising about $23.7 million while spending $11.4 million.
Among those who refilled the coffers were crypto billionaires Cameron Winklevoss and Tyler Winklevoss, who donated a combined $10 million. NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman donated $2 million. Philip Sarofim, CEO of venture capital firm Trousdale Ventures, donated $1 million.
So just days before President Trump announced on September 4 that he planned to deploy $400 million to $500 million from MAGA to support Republicans in November, MAGA’s cash pile continued to grow.
But more than two weeks later, MAGA Inc. itself has disclosed only a fraction of that amount. FEC reporting requirements generally require disclosure within 48 hours of independent political campaign expenditures of $10,000.
So far in September, super PACs have reported spending about $15 million in the Texas Senate race. But the larger Trump-related advertising campaigns are instead being booked through two super PACs formed on September 1, No Going Back PAC Inc. and Safety & Afforability PAC Inc.
The groups have set aside at least $126 million in ad spending, including about $98.5 million from “No Going Back” and about $27 million from “Safety & Affordability,” according to AdImpact data and federal filings. No Going Back PAC also shares a treasurer, address, and phone number with MAGA Inc.
The spending follows months of public pressure from Republicans who have questioned why President Trump’s vast political spending remains largely sidelined.
“We need the president’s help,” Sen. John Kennedy (R-Louisiana) said on Fox News in late August. Kennedy said he hoped Trump would spend “$100 million or $200 million” in Texas, where Republican candidate Ken Paxton was heavily criticized by Democrat James Talarico.
Meanwhile, Senate Minority Leader John Thune (R.S.D.) made a similar plea on September 1, saying that the resources of Mr. Trump and his allies “need to be brought to bear in Texas.”
“We in the Flats have to win there,” Thune said on Fox News.
Republicans are trying to maintain a majority in the House and Senate, but Democrats are trying to take it away.
The calls for Mr. Trump to release his campaign funds come after MAGA spent much of the summer amassing funds without making any major investments in preparation for the general election. In early September, MAGA officials reportedly told Republican vendors to prepare for the spending, but did not give them a comprehensive plan.
Three days later, Trump told reporters in the Oval Office that he intended to “spend whatever amount is necessary to help us.”
President Trump said, “This is money from MAGA. This is money that I control.” MAGA’s funds are not Trump’s personal funds. The president also said on the same day that he expects the money to remain in the PAC’s account into 2028 and that there is no need to spend it.
The next day, MAGA Inc. launched a $10 million advertising campaign in Texas supporting Paxton and against Talarico. Another $5 million in race spending was reported over the weekend. President Trump also said he plans to conserve some political capital for 2028.
Money is flowing in as Republican candidates face significant fundraising shortfalls.
Since the start of July, Democratic Senate candidates have held about $75 million in seven hot battleground states, about twice the $38 million held by their Republican opponents, according to a CNBC analysis of FEC filings. Trump’s hundreds of millions of dollars seem dwarfed by that total.
Delays in spending come at a cost.
CNBC reported Friday that TV inventory is already close to saturation in some battleground states by mid-September, while super PACs can pay significantly more than candidates for equivalent airtime. The late booking also means costs for pro-Trump groups are higher than they would have been if the ads had been booked earlier.
Still, there’s an argument to be made for waiting until voters pay more attention.
“The weight of the evidence is that spending before September is likely to be ineffective,” Vanderbilt University political scientist John Sides told CNBC last week. “While we can’t say exactly how close to Election Day is really the best time, it makes more sense to start advertising now rather than spending money all summer long.”
