US prosecutors investigate Democratic fundraising firm linked to Trump trial judge's daughter
Federal inquiry into Authentic Campaigns Inc. focuses on payments and communications involving Loren Merchan
AI-assisted coverage comparison, editor-supervised · How this was made
A Chicago federal investigation is examining a Democratic fundraising firm once co-owned by the daughter of Trump’s hush-money trial judge (Getty Images)
Photograph: The Independent (US) (embedded from source)
What this story says
- Federal prosecutors in Chicago have been investigating Authentic Campaigns Inc., a Democratic fundraising firm once co-owned by Loren Merchan, since August 2025.
- The investigation focuses on internal communications with clients including Kamala Harris, Joe Biden, and the Democratic National Committee, as well as a $468 payment from Harris’s campaign.
- No additional subpoenas have been issued to Loren Merchan or the firm’s founder, suggesting prosecutors are not actively pursuing criminal charges at this stage.
- Donald Trump and his allies have repeatedly accused Judge Juan Merchan of bias, claims the outlets below describe as unsubstantiated.
Who covered it
Percentages are shares of the 13 outlets carrying a published leaning rating. 3 of the 16 outlets we know ran this story carry no rating and are not counted in them. Coverage measured .
Trust
86/100
Craft
85/100
Hype
45/100
16 sources · methodology
Missing from the right
Only 1 of the 13 outlets with a published leaning rating that ran this story are rated right.
A reader who follows the right would not have seen this. We report the absence rather than explain it: outlets choose what to cover for many reasons, and we have no evidence about which one applies here.
The U.S. attorney’s office in Chicago has been investigating Authentic Campaigns Inc., a Democratic fundraising firm, since August 2025. The firm was once co-owned by Loren Merchan, the daughter of Judge Juan Merchan, who presided over former President Donald Trump’s hush-money trial in New York. The investigation, first reported by the New York Times, centres on whether the firm’s work involved improper conduct or potential violations of federal law.
A grand jury subpoena reviewed by the New York Times listed clients including former Vice President Kamala Harris, former President Joe Biden, New York Governor Kathy Hochul, House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, and the Democratic National Committee. Prosecutors initially sought a broad range of internal communications but later narrowed their request to focus on a $468 payment from Harris’s presidential campaign and emails exchanged between Loren Merchan and her father.
Loren Merchan served as a vice president at Authentic Campaigns until late 2024. The firm, represented by former Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, fought the subpoena before negotiations led to a narrower scope. The investigation’s current status is unclear; no additional subpoenas have been issued to Loren Merchan, the firm’s founder Michael Nellis, or other individuals, according to people familiar with the matter.
Trump and his allies have repeatedly targeted the Merchan family, accusing Judge Merchan of bias against Trump and claiming, without evidence, that his daughter financially benefited from the hush-money trial. Trump’s attacks began around his April 2023 arraignment and intensified after the judge issued a gag order in March 2024. During the trial, Trump violated the gag order, prompting the judge to expand it to cover family members and hold Trump in criminal contempt.
What the coverage left out
No right-rated outlet ran this story at all. None of the digests from left-rated outlets mentioned that prosecutors have not issued additional subpoenas to Loren Merchan or the firm’s founder, a detail included in the Independent’s full report. The centre-rated digest did not carry the $468 payment, the narrowed focus of the investigation, or Trump’s attacks on the Merchan family.
Coverage settled. We checked this 58 times and stopped on 21 Aug 2026, 02:15. The figures above are what it finished at.
How other outlets pictured it
Which photograph to run is each newsroom’s own choice. The leaning beside a name is that outlet’s published rating, not a claim that the pictures divide along it. Every picture is shown from the outlet’s own server and links to the article it ran in.
US prosecutors investigate Democratic fundraising firm linked to Trump trial judge's daughter
Joe.My.God. — embedded from source
How each side covered it
Our own reading of the reporting listed below, written from the outlets’ articles rather than quoted from them. The reasoning is set out on our methodology page.
Left
10 rated outlets
- The five left-rated reports led on the investigation’s focus on Authentic Campaigns Inc. and its ties to Loren Merchan. The Independent’s full report detailed the clients named in the grand jury subpoena and the narrowed scope of the probe, including the $468 payment from Harris’s campaign. It also quoted Trump’s unsubstantiated claims of bias against Judge Merchan, describing them as part of a broader pattern of attacks.
- Joe.My.God. reproduced the New York Times’ reporting verbatim, including the list of Democratic clients and the firm’s legal challenge to the subpoena. The digest from Raw Story framed the investigation as Trump directing prosecutors to target the judge’s daughter, using the phrase “sics prosecutors on” in its headline. Alternet’s digest described the probe as part of a “new wave of retribution” by Trump’s “politicized DOJ.” The Independent’s digest summarised Trump’s attacks on the Merchan family as “baseless.”
Centre
2 rated outlets
- The single centre-rated digest, from Political Wire, led with the New York Times’ reporting on the investigation’s duration and its focus on a Democratic fundraising firm linked to Judge Merchan’s daughter. It did not include details about the $468 payment, the narrowed scope of the subpoena, or Trump’s attacks on the Merchan family.
Right
1 rated outlet
We have not written our reading of the right coverage of this story. The right-rated outlets that ran it are listed below.
Questions about this coverage
- How did the left and right cover US prosecutors investigate Democratic fundraising firm linked to Trump…?
- Of the 13 outlets on this story carrying a published leaning rating, 77% are rated left, 15% are rated centre, 8% are rated right. Those percentages are shares of the rated outlets, not of every outlet that ran it, which was 16. The sections above set out what each side emphasised, in its own terms.
- Is US prosecutors investigate Democratic fundraising firm linked to Trump… left or right?
- The story itself is neither. What can be counted is who has covered it, and 77% of the 13 rated outlets on it are rated left — so far this is a story carried mostly by the left. Coverage of this one has settled, so that is unlikely to move much now.
- Is the coverage of US prosecutors investigate Democratic fundraising firm linked to Trump… biased?
- US prosecutors investigate Democratic fundraising firm linked to Trump trial judge's daughter is one event reported by 16 outlets, and this page does not rate the story as biased or unbiased. What it publishes is the spread: which outlets ran it, where named rating organisations place each of them on the spectrum, and what each side chose to lead with. A leaning rating describes an outlet's record over time, not this article, and the two should not be run together.
- Which side is not reporting US prosecutors investigate Democratic fundraising firm linked to Trump…?
- When we first saw this story, outlets rated right had barely covered it. Coverage accretes for hours after an event, so that is where to look rather than a verdict — the split above is the current count, and it is the one to read.
- Which outlets covered US prosecutors investigate Democratic fundraising firm linked to Trump…?
- 16 that we know of, every one of them listed further up this page with a link to its own report and to what we hold on the publisher. Nothing here is a summary of somebody else's summary: the outlets are named so the original reporting can be read.
- Who is being investigated in the Chicago probe?
- The U.S. attorney’s office in Chicago is investigating Authentic Campaigns Inc., a Democratic fundraising firm once co-owned by Loren Merchan, daughter of Judge Juan Merchan. The probe focuses on internal communications with clients and a $468 payment from Kamala Harris’s campaign. No charges have been filed.
- What clients were named in the grand jury subpoena?
- The grand jury subpoena listed clients including former Vice President Kamala Harris, former President Joe Biden, New York Governor Kathy Hochul, House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, and the Democratic National Committee. The New York Times reviewed the subpoena.
- Has Donald Trump commented on the investigation?
- Donald Trump and his allies have repeatedly accused Judge Juan Merchan of bias, claiming without evidence that his daughter financially benefited from the hush-money trial. Trump’s attacks began in April 2023 and intensified after the judge issued a gag order in March 2024.
- Are prosecutors pursuing criminal charges?
- The current status of the investigation is unclear. Prosecutors have not issued additional subpoenas to Loren Merchan, the firm’s founder Michael Nellis, or other individuals, suggesting they are not actively pursuing criminal charges at this time, according to the New York Times.
Read it at the source
16 outlets, grouped by the leaning a published rating gives them. Every headline links to the original; an underlined outlet name opens our profile of that publisher.
Left
10- Trump DOJ Shamelessly Goes After Judge’s Daughter (opens Talking Points Memo in a new tab)
Talking Points Memo — is Talking Points Memo biased? Our profile of this outletOpinion
- The Temptation And Corruption Of Andrew Boutros (opens Above the Law in a new tab)
Above the Law — is Above the Law biased? Our profile of this outlet
- “Prosecutors Examined Firm With Tie to Judge in Trump Hush-Money Trial” #ELB (opens electionlawblog.org in a new tab)
electionlawblog.org — is electionlawblog.org biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Among the First Things Attorney Matthew Skiba Did Was Target Democrats (opens emptywheel in a new tab)
emptywheel — is emptywheel biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Trump prosecutors investigate firm once owned by hush-money trial judge’s daughter (opens The Independent (US) in a new tab)
The Independent (US) — is The Independent (US) biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Trump prosecutors investigate firm once owned by hush-money trial judge’s daughter (opens The Independent in a new tab)
The Independent — is The Independent biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Trump Investigation: Democratic Firm Scrutinized (opens GV Wire in a new tab)
- Trump sics prosecutors on hush money trial judge's daughter: 'Outrageous abuse of power' (opens Raw Story in a new tab)
Centre
2- Who is Judge Juan Merchan? Trump's hush-money judge's daughter's firm under federal investigation (opens Hindustan Times in a new tab)
Hindustan Times — is Hindustan Times biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Chicago Prosecutors Probe Judge’s Daughter’s Firm (opens Political Wire in a new tab)
Political Wire — is Political Wire biased? Our profile of this outlet
Right
1Not rated
3- Who is Judge Juan Merchan? Trump's hush-money judge's daughter's firm under federal investigation - THE LOCAL REPORT ARTICLES (opens Thelocalreport.in in a new tab)
Thelocalreport.in — is Thelocalreport.in biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Federal Prosecutors Investigate Political Firm Owned by Daughter of Crooked Judge in Trump’s Hush Money Trial - Politics, Policy, Political Views (opens Politics, Policy, Political News in a new tab)
- Who is Judge Juan Merchan? Trump’s Hush-Money Judge’s Daughter’s Firm Under Fresh Scrutiny; Check His Age, Wife, Family, Career, Net Worth & Controversy (opens The Sunday Guardian Live in a new tab)
The Sunday Guardian Live — is The Sunday Guardian Live biased? Our profile of this outlet
How did this read?
About the coverage, not about the story. We do not ask whether you agree with what happened — we have no honest use for that answer.
