Revealed: How unknown donors with South Asian and Middle Eastern backgrounds are spending millions funding the rise of the far-Left… as they plot to dominate midterm elections
A group of wealthy donors who have rarely funded political causes before are giving millions of dollars to progressive candidates and organisations ahead of the 2026 US midterms. The donations are helping support primary campaigns and groups described in the article as “anti-Aipac” and could influence which candidates compete in key races.
Federal Election Commission filings show the 12 largest donors to American Priorities gave it about $5.7 million during the 2025–26 election cycle; four had not funded the group between 2014 and 2024. Its two biggest donors, tech executives Mohammad Waqas and Omer Hasan, contributed $2.1 million combined, while Saikat Chakrabarti has given $13.4 million to progressive campaigns and political action committees. The article also cites forecasts favouring Democrats in the midterms, including a 93 per cent chance of winning the House in Nate Silver’s model, and close races involving candidates Abdul El-Sayed, Randy Villegas and Brian Poindexter.
- New donors are putting millions into progressive US campaigns.
- American Priorities’ top 12 donors gave about $5.7 million.
- Forecasts point to competitive midterm races and possible Democratic gains.
New here? Start with this
A group of wealthy donors with South Asian and Middle Eastern backgrounds is funding progressive political candidates and organisations ahead of the 2026 US midterms at levels that represent a significant change from their past engagement. These individuals have not traditionally been major funders of American politics but are now investing millions in progressive campaigns and related groups.
Saikat Chakrabarti has given $13.4 million to progressive campaigns and groups, while tech executives Mohammad Waqas and Omer Hasan have contributed $2.1 million combined to organisations including American Priorities. Federal election records show that several of these major donors had given nothing to American Priorities during the decade before 2025.
Midterm elections determine control of Congress and are expected to be closely contested. The donations matter because they shape which candidates succeed in primary elections. Since these donors support candidates opposed to AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby, their spending could significantly shift Democratic Party positions on Middle Eastern policy.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
When a cohesive group of wealthy donors newly engaged in electoral politics funnels substantial resources into Democratic primaries around shared ideological positions, this can distort primary contests by privileging well-funded candidacies over grassroots engagement and broader party membership preferences. Primary elections function to reflect party members' choices; when they become shaped by coordinated outside money from previously uninvolved donors, it risks elevating candidates whose appeal lies with wealthy patrons rather than typical voters and undermines the representativeness of democratic selection processes.
The case against
All Americans retain equal rights to participate in electoral politics through legal donations, and the timing of someone's entry into political giving does not diminish those rights. Scrutinising donors' ethnic or religious backgrounds when discussing their political participation invokes problematic stereotyping and questions the legitimacy of certain citizens' political voice. Concerns about wealth concentration in elections are valid, but principled objection requires consistent application across all donor groups and ideologies; singling out particular donors based on their identity and background rather than universal campaign finance reform appears selective rather than principled.