Charity Golf Tournaments: Trump's Pattern of Hosting Charitable Events at His Courses While Pocketing Fees and Rigging Prize Payouts
Tier 4Documented2010-01-01 to 2019-07-10
Factual Summary
Washington Post reporter David Fahrenthold, whose investigation into Trump's charitable claims won the 2017 Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting, documented a pattern in which Donald Trump used charity golf tournaments held at his courses to generate publicity for his generosity while the actual charitable contributions were minimal, fees flowed to Trump-owned properties, and at least one prize contest was structured to avoid paying the advertised reward.
The most detailed documented incident involved a charity golf tournament held at Trump National Golf Club in Westchester County, New York, in 2011. The event was organized for a charity associated with former NBA player Alonzo Mourning. Signs throughout the course advertised a $1 million prize for any golfer who made a hole-in-one on a designated par-three hole. A participant named Martin Greenberg hit a hole-in-one.
However, the fine print of the contest rules specified that the shot had to travel at least 150 yards to qualify for the $1 million prize. Because of the way Trump's course was configured for the tournament, the tee had been placed close enough to the hole that the shot did not travel 150 yards. Greenberg was denied the prize. He sued. The parties reached a settlement in which the Trump Foundation donated $158,000 to the Martin Greenberg Foundation. Nonprofit law experts cited by the Washington Post said this arrangement was potentially illegal, because it amounted to the Trump Foundation using charitable funds to settle a legal dispute arising from a tournament at a Trump property. This would constitute "self-dealing" under IRS rules governing private foundations.
Fahrenthold's broader investigation into Trump's charitable claims found a consistent pattern. After contacting more than 400 major charities, Fahrenthold and his colleagues found that only one charity confirmed receiving a personal donation from Trump between 2008 and May 2016. Much of the "charitable giving" Trump claimed consisted of free rounds of golf at his courses, conservation easements on his own properties, and land donations to the State of New York. These items had tax advantages for Trump and did not represent out-of-pocket charitable generosity in the conventional sense.
The Trump Foundation itself used other people's money for purposes that benefited Trump personally. The foundation's largest donations came from outside donors, not from Trump. Fahrenthold documented that the foundation's funds were used to purchase a six-foot portrait of Trump for $20,000, to settle business disputes at Trump properties, and to make a $25,000 political contribution to a campaign committee associated with Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi at a time when her office was considering whether to investigate Trump University. The New York Attorney General's office ultimately forced the dissolution of the Trump Foundation in 2018 and obtained a court order requiring Trump to pay $2 million in damages for misusing charitable funds.
The Washington Post reported in July 2019 that a charity golf tournament scheduled at a Trump resort in Florida was sponsored in part by a strip club, prompting the nonprofit to withdraw.
Primary Sources
1. Martin Greenberg lawsuit regarding the hole-in-one prize denial at Trump National Golf Club, Westchester County, New York
2. Trump Foundation IRS Form 990 filings documenting the $158,000 donation to the Martin Greenberg Foundation
3. New York Attorney General dissolution order and $2 million penalty against the Trump Foundation, 2018
4. David Fahrenthold, Pulitzer Prize-winning investigation for The Washington Post, 2016
Corroborating Sources
1. Golf.com: "Donald Trump Stiffed Winner of $1M Hole-in-One Contest, Report Says"
2. NPR: "Journalist Says Trump Foundation May Have Engaged in 'Self-Dealing,'" September 28, 2016
3. NonProfit PRO: "Trump Foundation Rigged Charity Golf Tournament to Avoid Paying $1M Hole-in-One Prize"
4. The Washington Post: "Trump golf course reimbursed President Trump's charity amid ongoing investigation into the foundation," November 20, 2017
5. The Washington Post: "Trump's company cancels strip-club-sponsored golf tournament at his Florida resort," July 10, 2019
6. Poynter: "Meet David Fahrenthold, The Washington Post's Trump charity sleuth"
Counterarguments and Context
Trump's representatives argued that the charity golf tournaments raised significant funds for worthy causes and that Trump donated the use of his courses for these events, which itself constituted a meaningful charitable contribution. Regarding the hole-in-one contest, they maintained that the rules were clearly stated and that the shot did not meet the qualifying distance. Defenders noted that charity golf tournaments across the industry generate revenue for host venues and that Trump's courses were no different. Regarding the Trump Foundation, Trump's team argued that the foundation made legitimate charitable donations and that the New York Attorney General's investigation was politically motivated. The settlement of the Greenberg lawsuit through a foundation donation was characterized as a charitable act rather than self-dealing. However, the Pulitzer Prize-winning investigation documented a pattern in which Trump received credit for charitable generosity while the actual personal financial outlay was minimal or nonexistent. The foundation's dissolution and the $2 million penalty imposed by a New York court confirm that the charitable operation had systemic problems. The hole-in-one contest, in which the course was configured so that the advertised prize could not technically be won even when a golfer made the shot, epitomizes the gap between the appearance of generosity and the reality of the arrangement.
Author's Note
This entry is classified as Tier 4 because the primary evidence comes from David Fahrenthold's investigative reporting, supplemented by IRS filings and court records. The Trump Foundation's dissolution and the $2 million penalty are adjudicated outcomes, but the broader pattern of using charity golf tournaments to generate favorable publicity while minimizing actual giving is documented primarily through journalism. Fahrenthold's investigation was rigorous enough to earn the Pulitzer Prize and was corroborated by subsequent legal actions. The charity golf tournaments are a microcosm of a larger pattern documented across multiple entries in this project: the gap between Trump's public claims of generosity and the factual record of his actual charitable giving.