The Mildons’ two money files: $17.6 million linked to Congo and Habba’s $50 million contract

The editorial

The two files have more in common than a surname. In the reporting described, both financial trails reach into Trump’s inner circle. This commentary asks why mechanisms of public accountability appear to lag behind the president’s personal displeasure.

When was the contract signed?

The chronology reported by The New York Times on 20 October and Reuters on 31 October is as follows. Herrera Velutini’s daughter, Isabela Herrera, established Concord Partners in Florida in October 2025. The company’s business activities remain unclear in the accounts described. Habba signed a contract as general counsel a few days after its registration: $10 million a year for four years, plus bonuses. The total attributed to Reuters exceeds $50 million.

According to the same chronology, Habba was then acting US attorney for New Jersey. On 1 December 2025, a federal appeals court ruled her appointment unlawful. She resigned on 8 December and became a senior adviser to Attorney General Pam Bondi that same day. When she began working at Concord on 1 January 2026, she remained on the Justice Department’s staff. Fifteen days later, on 15 January, Trump granted Herrera Velutini a full and unconditional pardon.

Herrera Velutini had been accused of financing Puerto Rico governor Wanda Vázquez’s election campaign in exchange for removing a regulator examining his bank. According to the reports cited here, the case involving bribery and fraud allegations became an agreement in August 2025 in which he admitted a single misdemeanour campaign-finance violation. A month later, his daughter pledged $2.5 million for the White House ballroom. She had previously donated a total of $3.5 million to the MAGA Inc. super PAC.

The reports say the Campaign Legal Center filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission in February. It alleged that the donations might have been a means of routing the father’s money through his daughter. This is an allegation, not a proven finding.

What is Trump objecting to?

The account raises a public-ethics question: what rules and oversight govern a Justice Department lawyer receiving an annual $10 million fee from a company belonging to the family of a defendant awaiting a pardon?

Habba’s reported response is unequivocal. She says she disclosed the outside job to the Justice Department and received approval, and that she had no involvement in the pardon. She describes suggestions to the contrary as false and defamatory. According to the reported statements, the White House initially also said that Habba had no involvement in the pardon.

A second New York Times report followed on 29 October. It said Trump became angry when he learned the size of the contract and told advisers and associates that Habba should donate some of the money to his presidential library or another organisation connected to him. He reportedly told at least one ally that the Herrera family should not pay the remaining contract amount, and the family learned of that view. He was also reported to have called Habba personally. Whether he raised a donation during that conversation remains unclear.

According to Reuters’ 31 October report, journalists asked Trump about the matter at Mar-a-Lago. He described the arrangement as disgusting, scandalous and unacceptable. He added that he had told Habba he did not want her to receive the payment and called the situation horrible.

The point to examine is which questions those remarks leave unanswered. The reported statements do not explain what institutional rules applied to the adviser’s paid relationship with a family seeking a pardon. The reports say the pardon remains in force. They describe no request for a formal Justice Department investigation and say the department did not answer Reuters’ question.

This commentary’s assessment is that the objection described in the reports focuses on the size and destination of the fee. The proposed remedy reportedly involves directing some of it to Trump’s library. That risks adding another stop to the financial flows surrounding a pardon instead of subjecting those relationships to scrutiny.

Where does the Congo file stand?

In early October, the same couple was at the centre of reports about another flow of money. According to The New York Times, Habba told Trump in the Oval Office that part of the $17.6 million her husband sent to Texas defence company TX-AT in May 2025 had been earmarked for the Kennedy Center, but had not reached it. She blamed Richard Grenell. Grenell denied the allegation.

The same account says Trump instructed White House counsel Will Scharf to investigate. Citing a New York Times report dated 17 October, it says the money came from an account linked to the government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Mildon is reported to have confirmed that he advised President Tshisekedi and held a Congolese diplomatic passport.

The reporting cited here does not establish a publicly announced outcome of that review as of 1 November. The underlying contract, the identity of the sending account’s owner and what TX-AT sold in return for the $17.6 million remain open questions.

Why does it matter?

Two financial trails are described around one couple. One involves $17.6 million going from an account said to be linked to the Congolese government to an American defence company. The other is a contract exceeding $50 million between a pardoned Venezuelan banker’s family company and a Justice Department adviser. The total contract value does not mean that the entire amount has been paid.

The complete documentary record for either file is not available in the material on which this commentary draws. The most visible response in the accounts described is Trump’s personal anger. Public scrutiny cannot reasonably stop there.

The reports recounted do not establish an indictment against Habba or a sanctions decision against Mildon; Herrera Velutini’s pardon is described as remaining in force. These statements are not the result of an independent search of judicial records conducted for this publication. But accountability is not solely the responsibility of prosecutors.

If the Justice Department approved its adviser’s outside work, it should disclose the approval. The White House should explain the status of Scharf’s review. And when Trump calls a contract unacceptable, he should make clear that a donation to his own library is not the answer.

Reading this story in Türkiye as a punishment imposed on a Turkish businessman’s wife would be misleading. The developments described do not show a penalty decision. The issue is the still-unexplained Washington money traffic around the Mildon family, described as the third generation of a family business originating in Gallipoli.

These questions remain open for Concord Partners, Habba Mildon’s office, the US Justice Department and the White House counsel’s office. Any response received from the relevant parties will be added to this page.