Anonymous Donor Gives $130 Million to Pay Troops During Shutdown — Pentagon Confirms Funds Linked to Trump Ally Timothy Mellon

In a surprising and unprecedented move amid a deepening federal government shutdown, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) confirmed on Friday that it has accepted a $130 million donation from an anonymous benefactor to help ensure active-duty service members are paid.

A staggering gift and a rare break from tradition

The shutdown has left large swaths of government employees without pay for weeks, including more than 1.3 million service members who typically rely on timely appropriations for salaries. Amid that backdrop, the DoD’s confirmation that it has accepted this private gift marks a dramatic deviation from how military pay is traditionally funded namely, through explicit congressional appropriations.

According to the Pentagon, the donation was accepted under its “general gift acceptance authority” and was made on the condition that the funds be used “to offset the cost of service members’ salaries and benefits.”

Yet, despite the headline-figure, analysts note the scale of the gift is modest relative to the military’s payroll. The DoD estimates its bi-weekly payroll runs about $7.5 billion, meaning $130 million covers less than a day’s worth of pay for the uniformed force.

Who is behind the donation?

While the donor had remained anonymous, two separate media outlets report that the benefactor is Timothy Mellon, a reclusive billionaire heir and major donor to the Donald Trump-aligned political network.

Mellon is described as a scion of the Mellon banking dynasty, with reported philanthropic activity and political contributions numbering in the hundreds of millions of dollars in recent years. President Trump, when asked about the donation, referred cryptically to a “friend … a great American citizen … a patriot” who didn’t want his name made public.

Why this matters and the legal questions it raises

The move has triggered immediate questions around legality, precedent, and the broader implications of private money paying for public obligations. Key issues include:

Appropriations & the law: Under the Antideficiency Act, federal agencies cannot spend money in advance of congressional appropriation or accept voluntary services or payments that effectively circumvent the funding process.

Transparency and influence: Accepting such a large private gift into the military payroll realm raises questions about donor intent, oversight, and potential influence when public institutions rely on private contributions.

Precedent and public finance: The gift sets a novel precedent a private individual stepping into the role typically filled only by congressional action. Critics argue this blurs the line between public responsibility and private benefaction.

Perspectives and reactions

On one hand, supporters note the urgency: in a shutdown scenario where troops face the possibility of missing pay, this donation is practical and patriotic. President Trump praised the donor: “That’s what I call a patriot.”

On the other hand, lawmakers and budget-watchers voiced caution. For example, Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.) said:

“The question of whether our own troops are in danger of being physically bought and paid for by foreign powers is raised by the use of anonymous donations to finance our military.”

Budget analyst Todd Harrison noted that while the gift is large in absolute terms, it covers only a fraction of the needs, and that the DoD’s reliance on redirecting research & development funds and now this private gift signal dysfunction in how payroll is secured during a shutdown.

What happens now?

Here are the immediate and downstream implications:

• The Pentagon must determine how to integrate the gift in compliance with federal gift-acceptance rules, conduct any required ethics reviews (especially given donor size and potential national security implications), and report how the funds are spent.
• Congress may revisit funding for the military, possibly accelerating efforts to pass appropriation bills or emergency legislation to ensure service members are paid without reliance on private donations. The shutdown stalemate has become more acute.
• There may be calls for enhanced oversight or tighter regulations on large private gifts to agencies with national security responsibility, to avoid precedent where private individuals fill emergency funding gaps for public institutions.
• Politically, the link to Trump-ally Timothy Mellon may deepen scrutiny of the intersection between private campaign funding, public policy, and national defense.

Military pay in the shutdown: the human side

Amid all the legalese and politics, the heart of this story remains the more than 1.3 million active-duty service members whose livelihoods depend on timely checks. According to DoD figures, about $6.5 billion was required to pay the force for the first half of October alone.

For many service members and their families, the shutdown means uncertainty about when paychecks will arrive. The donation offers relief albeit partial. For example, with approximately 1.3 million service members, a $130 million gift equates to about $100 each in average value not enough to resolve the broader funding shortfall.

Bigger picture what this signals

This event is significant for several reasons:

1. Private money in public defense: Defense budgets are usually the domain of congressional appropriations, not private philanthropy. This donation opens a new, murky chapter in how national defense obligations might be financed in crisis.

2. Shutdown politics: The reliance on this gift underscores the costs of a prolonged budget impasse. When leadership cannot deliver funding through normal channels, private actors may step in, but that glides into uncomfortable terrain.

3. Donor influence and transparency: When large private donations enter national-security space, questions about motive, leverage, and accountability become more urgent.

4. Precedent for other agencies: If the DoD accepts private funds for salaries, might other agencies follow creating a patchwork funding system where government functions depend partially on philanthropy?

5. Public confidence and fairness: Service members expect their pay to come from the government they serve, not as gifts from private individuals. Reliance on donated funds could undermine perceived fairness or raise ethical issues.