On July 3, 2025, six days before her Senate confirmation hearing, Kimberly Guilfoyle, former Fox News host and fiance to Donald Trump Jr., is alleged to have texted a Kentucky donor named Eric Deters and asked him to send $100,000 to her American Express account. This according to hundreds of messages and letters reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. She called him honey and attached the payment instructions with a prayer hands emoji. In a Signal message, she assured him a wire to Amex would not show up anywhere.
Read that last line twice.
What Deters Wanted
It’s reported that Deters, a former congressional and gubernatorial candidate, wanted the Trump administration’s help with a tax dispute and with a push to extradite a fugitive Ohio surgeon, and it’s being reported that he promised Guilfoyle as much as $1 million if she delivered results for him. She forwarded him notes she sent to Billy Long, the IRS Commissioner at the time. She promised to be his “Trump ride or die, forever and ever.” She begged him to stop putting things in writing.
In June 2025 he sent her a memo saying he had paid her $300,000 over the years without getting a single favor. In the end, he refused to pay the Amex bill and said it would cost him his marriage.
Picture a toll booth parked in front of the president’s door, with a United States ambassador collecting the fare. That is the allegation. If charges are brought and prosecutors prove it, federal bribery law under 18 U.S.C. § 201 carries up to 15 years in prison, a fine of up to three times the money demanded, and a permanent ban from holding federal office.1
This story is moving fast, and I’ll update this post as new facts come in.
Mitch Jackson, Esq.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 201(a)(2), federal bribery law covers anyone nominated or officially told they will be nominated. Section 201(b)(2) makes it a crime for that person to corruptly demand or seek anything of value in return for being influenced in an official act, with penalties of up to 15 years in prison. The crime is complete with the demand, even when no money changes hands.
In McDonnell v. United States (2016), the Supreme Court ruled that arranging meetings and access, standing alone, falls short of an official act. Her lawyer says the money was owed for past event appearances, and payment for past work does not count as a bribe. The donor says he owes her nothing.
The sharper question sits in her disclosures. Under 5 C.F.R. § 2634.606, nominees must update their outside earned income in a letter to the Senate before their first hearing. Knowingly leaving payments off exposes her to penalties under 5 U.S.C. § 13106 and 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Paperwork tells the truth about a public servant long after the denials fade.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3282, the five-year statute of limitations runs into 2030, past the end of this administration. A clock that outlasts the people in power is the quiet promise of accountability.
I wondered how this guy was chosen to be the mark by her, but obviously he had given her money before so then my next question is if this was all on signal, isn’t that supposed to be secure? I’m missing something here. I do see a Trump family pattern of shaking down people for money, however. Everyone is an extension of their checkbook in Trump land, including taxpayers. She learned from the best but the question I have next, is who decided to throw her under the bus?
Trump and associates are the biggest bunch of gangsters ever! How did people vote for this piece of 💩