President Donald Trump has acknowledged that he is seeking substantial financial compensation from the Justice Department, potentially up to $230 million, for past investigations into his conduct. He stated that any funds received would be donated to charity or used for White House renovations.
Trump made these comments on Tuesday, October 21, 2025, in response to a New York Times report that detailed his administrative claims filed in 2023 and 2024. The claims seek damages for investigations related to Russian interference in the 2016 election and the handling of classified documents after his first term.
When asked about the specific $230 million figure, Trump said, “It could be,” and added, “I don’t know what the numbers are. I don’t even talk to them about it.” He emphasized that he was “damaged very greatly” by the investigations but is not personally driving the legal process.
Trump noted that he would ultimately decide on any payout, describing it as “awfully strange to make a decision where I’m paying myself.” However, he committed to donating any money to charity or using it for White House restoration, saying, “any money that I would get I would give to charity,” and possibly “to the White House while we restore the White House.”
The approval for such claims would need to come from the deputy attorney general or associate attorney general, both of whom have previously served on Trump’s personal criminal defense team or represented co-defendants, raising questions about impartiality.
This move is part of a broader pattern where Trump has publicly pressured the Justice Department to align with his interests, including targeting political opponents. The administrative claims process is a formal way to seek compensation from the government, but it is highly unusual for a sitting president to file such claims against his own department.
The Justice Department has declined to comment on the status of the claims, with a spokesperson stating, “all officials at the Department of Justice follow the guidance of career ethics officials.” The White House referred inquiries to the DOJ, highlighting the delicate nature of the situation.
Legal analysts suggest that this case could set important precedents regarding presidential powers and the separation of powers. The outcome may influence how future administrations handle similar disputes and affect public confidence in the justice system’s independence.