Much of Trump’s promised midterm election spending has yet to surface, new filing shows

President Donald Trump's flagship super PAC grew its $400 million-plus war chest again in August, even as Republican candidates press him to put more of it to work with six weeks to go before the 2026 midterm election.

MAGA Inc. ended August with about $415.8 million in cash after modest spending, more than $12 million above the $403.5 million it held at the beginning of the month, according to a Federal Election Commission filing posted late Sunday.

The super PAC took in more than twice as much as it spent in August, reporting raising about $23.7 million while spending $11.4 million.

Among those replenishing its coffers were cryptocurrency billionaires Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, who contributed $10 million combined; NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman, who gave $2 million; and venture capital firm Trousdale Ventures CEO Phillip Sarofim, who gave $1 million.

That left MAGA Inc.'s cash pile still growing just days before Trump said on Sept. 4 he planned to deploy $400 million to $500 million from MAGA Inc. to help Republicans in November.

Yet, more than two weeks later, MAGA Inc. itself has publicly disclosed only a fraction of that amount in spending. The FEC's reporting requirements generally require disclosure within 48 hours when independent expenditures reach $10,000 for a political race.

So far in September, the super PAC has reported about $15 million in spending in the Texas Senate race. However, a much larger Trump-linked advertising blitz is instead being booked through two super PACs created Sept. 1: No Going Back PAC Inc. and Safety & Affordability PAC Inc.

The groups have reserved at least $126 million in advertising — about $98.5 million from No Going Back and $27 million from Safety & Affordability, according to AdImpact data and federal filings. No Going Back PAC also shares a treasurer, address and phone number with MAGA Inc.

The spending follows months of public pressure from Republicans who questioned why Trump's massive political war chest remained largely on the sidelines.

"We need help from the president," Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., said on Fox News in late August. Kennedy said he hoped Trump would spend "$100 or $200 million in Texas," where Republican nominee Ken Paxton had been dramatically outraised by Democrat James Talarico.

Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., made a similar public appeal Sept. 1, saying Trump and his allies' resources "need to be brought to bear on Texas."

Republicans are trying to retain control of the House and Senate, while Democrats are trying to take it.

The calls for Trump to unleash his campaign cash came after MAGA Inc. spent much of the summer accumulating money instead of making major general-election investments. At the beginning of September, MAGA Inc. officials had reportedly told Republican vendors to prepare for spending but had not given them a comprehensive plan.

Three days later, Trump told reporters in the Oval Office that he planned to "spend whatever amount of money necessary to try to help us."

"This is money from MAGA Inc. This is money that I control," Trump said. MAGA Inc.'s money is not Trump's personal money. The president the same day also said he expects money to remain in the PAC's account for 2028, and there is no requirement that it be spent down.

The next day, MAGA Inc. launched a $10 million advertising push in Texas supporting Paxton and opposing Talarico. Another $5 million in spending in the race was reported over the weekend. Trump has also said he expects to preserve some political money for 2028.

The money is arriving as Republican candidates face sizable fundraising gaps.

Entering July, Democratic Senate candidates held about $75 million across seven closely watched battlegrounds, roughly twice the $38 million held by their Republican opponents, according to a CNBC analysis of FEC filings. Trump's hundreds of millions dwarfs those totals.

The late spending also comes with tradeoffs.

Television inventory was already nearing saturation in some battlegrounds by mid-September, CNBC reported Friday, while super PACs can pay substantially more than candidates for comparable airtime. The later reservations are also costing Trump-aligned groups more than they would have if the ads had been booked earlier.

Still, there is an argument for waiting until voters are paying closer attention.

"The weight of the evidence is that spending earlier than September is most likely ineffective," Vanderbilt University political scientist John Sides told CNBC last week. "We can't say exactly how close to Election Day is the truly optimal time, but it makes more sense to start advertising now than spend money all summer."