Progressive 'Squad' Raises Record $2.35 Million While Rejecting Police Union Donations Ahead of Midterm Elections
Fundraising committee backing Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley and Rashida Tlaib excludes the nation's largest police organization, raising questions about the group's political priorities as public safety remains a major national issue.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Four of Congress's most prominent progressive Democrats have raised more than $2.35 million through a joint fundraising operation during the 2025–2026 election cycle, while maintaining a policy that explicitly excludes contributions from the nation's largest police organization.
The Squad Victory Fund, authorized by Democratic Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, reported $2,351,388.02 in contributions, according to federal campaign finance disclosures.
The total represents the committee's largest fundraising haul since its establishment in 2020.
However, the organization's financial success has drawn renewed attention to its donor restrictions, particularly its refusal to accept contributions from the Fraternal Order of Police, one of the country's most influential law enforcement organizations.
The committee also excludes certain contributions associated with corporations, registered federal lobbyists and fossil fuel interests.
The disclosure does not explain why the Fraternal Order of Police is specifically excluded.
The revelation comes just two days before the November 3 midterm elections, as candidates across the country debate crime, public safety, policing and the federal government's role in supporting law enforcement.
Police Organization Singled Out in Fundraising Restrictions
The Fraternal Order of Police represents hundreds of thousands of law enforcement officers across the United States and regularly participates in national political debates involving public safety, criminal justice and police working conditions.
Its political action committee supports candidates based on its organizational priorities.
The Squad Victory Fund's restrictions prevent the organization from accepting contributions from the FOP, placing the police group alongside several other categories of donors that the committee has chosen to exclude.
Unlike the federal restrictions that generally prohibit direct corporate treasury contributions to candidate committees, the fund's specific exclusion of the police organization reflects an additional fundraising policy.
The distinction has attracted attention because the four lawmakers have previously advocated significant changes to policing and criminal justice policies.
Ocasio-Cortez, Omar, Pressley and Tlaib have supported various proposals addressing police accountability, criminal justice reform and the allocation of public resources toward community services.
Their positions have frequently differed from those of Republican lawmakers and law enforcement organizations that emphasize police staffing, criminal enforcement and expanded resources for officers.
The fundraising restriction does not establish that the four lawmakers oppose individual police officers or reject all law enforcement funding. Nevertheless, the decision to exclude a major police organization creates a legitimate question about the relationship between the lawmakers' political priorities and the concerns of law enforcement professionals.
Record Fundraising Highlights Progressive Political Network
The Squad Victory Fund operates as a joint fundraising committee, allowing donors to contribute through a single organization that distributes money among participating campaigns and affiliated political action committees.
The arrangement includes eight participants: the four lawmakers' campaign committees and four associated PACs. Under the committee's standard allocation formula, each participant receives 12.5% of eligible contributions unless donors specify a different distribution. The structure allows the lawmakers to coordinate fundraising while maintaining their individual political organizations.
The committee's latest reported figures show the scale of that operation.
The figures demonstrate the fundraising capacity of an established progressive network that relies heavily on individual political contributors.
Supporters of the lawmakers have presented their fundraising model as an alternative to campaigns that rely more extensively on corporate-linked political action committees and lobbying interests. The committee's restrictions are consistent with that broader message, although the specific treatment of the police organization remains unexplained in its public disclosure.
Public Safety Remains a Dividing Line in American Politics
The fundraising policy comes amid continuing disagreements over how federal and local governments should address violent crime, policing and public safety.
Republicans have frequently emphasized stronger criminal enforcement, support for police departments and policies designed to deter repeat offenders.
President Donald Trump and Republican congressional candidates have also made law enforcement and public safety prominent elements of their political messaging.
Progressive Democrats, including members of the Squad, have generally emphasized a different approach involving police accountability, community investment, social services and reforms to the criminal justice system. These competing approaches have produced debates over police funding, the effectiveness of alternative public safety programs and the relationship between enforcement and crime prevention.
The Squad's fundraising restrictions add another dimension to that disagreement. Critics of the policy may question why a political organization would explicitly exclude contributions from a national association representing police officers while seeking influence over federal legislation affecting public safety.
Supporters may argue that politicians are entitled to refuse contributions from organizations whose policy priorities conflict with their own. Both arguments concern a broader issue in American campaign finance: whether political contributions create meaningful obligations between elected officials and the organizations that support them.
Why the Fraternal Order of Police Matters
The Fraternal Order of Police is not simply a fundraising organization. It advocates for law enforcement officers on issues including workplace protections, collective bargaining, public safety legislation and criminal justice policy.
Its political activities include candidate endorsements and financial support through affiliated political committees. The organization has endorsed candidates from both major parties, although its national presidential endorsements have favored Republicans in recent election cycles.
The Squad Victory Fund's decision to exclude the FOP therefore involves a recognizable national institution with a direct interest in policies debated by Congress. It is important, however, to distinguish between refusing an organization's political contributions and refusing to engage with the law enforcement community.
The committee's published restrictions establish the former, not necessarily the latter.
No evidence in the reviewed disclosures establishes that the four lawmakers have collectively adopted a policy of refusing meetings or cooperation with police representatives.
Corporate Money, Lobbyists and Fossil Fuel Interests Also Excluded
The Squad Victory Fund's restrictions extend beyond law enforcement. Its fundraising policy also rejects specified contributions associated with corporate political interests, registered federal lobbyists and the fossil fuel industry.
These restrictions reflect longstanding progressive concerns about the influence of concentrated wealth and organized interests in federal politics. The four lawmakers have repeatedly advocated campaign finance reforms and argued that large political donors can exert disproportionate influence over policymaking.
Republicans and other critics of progressive fundraising strategies have questioned whether restrictions on certain donor categories meaningfully reduce political influence when candidates can still benefit from extensive fundraising networks, political organizations and independent advocacy groups. The broader debate is not limited to one party.
Both Republican and Democratic campaigns rely on combinations of individual donations, political action committees and outside political spending. Federal election rules establish contribution limits and disclosure requirements, but campaigns retain considerable discretion over which permissible contributions they choose to accept.
A Fundraising Strategy Established Years Before the 2026 Election
Although the latest fundraising total is a record for the Squad Victory Fund, its donor restrictions are not a newly announced response to the 2026 midterm elections. The committee was established in July 2020, and its restrictions on specified political donors, including the Fraternal Order of Police, date back to its earlier operations.
That history matters because the current disclosure should not be interpreted as evidence that the lawmakers recently changed their position on police contributions. Instead, the November 1 reporting has brought renewed attention to a longstanding policy at a time when the group's fundraising has reached a new high.
The committee raised approximately $1.51 million during the 2020 election cycle, compared with more than $2.35 million reported for the current cycle. Its continued operation demonstrates how joint fundraising arrangements can provide financial support across several congressional campaigns and affiliated organizations.
Midterm Elections Put Campaign Funding Under Scrutiny
With Election Day approaching, campaign finance disclosures offer voters another way to examine the political organizations supporting candidates. The Squad Victory Fund's latest filings reveal both its fundraising strength and its decisions about which political contributors it will accept.
For voters concerned about public safety, the exclusion of the Fraternal Order of Police may prompt questions about the lawmakers' relationship with law enforcement organizations.
For voters concerned about corporate influence, the restrictions on business-related political
contributions and lobbying interests may be equally significant.
Those questions cannot be resolved by fundraising disclosures alone. A complete assessment would also require examining the lawmakers' legislative records, public statements and interactions with law enforcement officials.
The committee's record fundraising total nevertheless underscores the continued organizational strength of progressive Democrats as the country prepares to vote.
The Larger Political Question
The Squad Victory Fund's $2.35 million fundraising total illustrates the financial reach of four prominent progressive lawmakers. Its exclusion of the nation's largest police organization also highlights the political choices embedded in campaign fundraising rules.
At a time when crime prevention, police accountability and public safety remain subjects of national debate, those choices invite scrutiny from voters with differing priorities. The central issue is not whether a political committee has the right to establish its own donor standards. It does.
The question is what those standards reveal about the organizations and interests that elected officials choose to associate with their political campaigns.
As Americans head to the polls on November 3, the Squad's fundraising record provides another example of how political financing, public policy and competing visions of government intersect in the 2026 midterm elections.
