Donald Trump Jr.'s venture capital firm, 1789 Capital, pushed back on Rep. Jamie Raskin's inquiry on Tuesday, rejecting his characterizations and saying it would not be dragged into what its lawyers called political gamesmanship. The firm said it welcomes legitimate congressional oversight, but it also refused to hand over the records Raskin requested.
The timing matters because the letter landed one day before the Republicans' first-of-its-kind midterm convention in Texas was set to begin, with Donald Trump Jr. scheduled to be in Dallas on Thursday and President Trump due to deliver a keynote address on Wednesday. Raskin's investigation, launched last month, centers on whether 1789 Capital bought stakes in companies shortly before they received federal funding or favorable policy decisions. He cited Polymarket, Juul, Anduril Industries and Vulcan, and asked for the firm's portfolio list, due diligence files and preserved communications with members of the Trump administration, including messages sent on encrypted apps.
In the response shared with CBS News, lawyers Alexander J. Merton and William A Burck dismissed Raskin's claims as an attempt to build a case after the fact, calling his approach a “spaghetti-against-the-wall approach” and his allegations “unsubstantiated and emotional aspersions.” They said 1789 Capital had no intention of being held hostage to political gamesmanship and pointed to one rare-earth investment in which the company said federal business had already been awarded dating to 2024 before 1789 Capital joined the financing round. Merton also said the firm was “one of many institutional investors” in that company.
The friction is that 1789 Capital says it welcomes oversight, yet it did not provide any of the materials Raskin asked for. That leaves the inquiry where it started: with accusations, a denial and no records in hand. Emily Stellakis said on Wednesday that her office would be glad to comment once 1789 Capital actually sends its response, a reminder that the dispute is still running on dueling letters rather than evidence. House Democrats have been sending similar demands in recent months, but Raskin cannot compel the firm to comply unless Democrats win enough seats to gain subpoena power in the midterms.
For now, the question is not whether Raskin has raised attention around 1789 Capital. It has. The question is whether that attention produces documents before the election or becomes another oversight fight that waits on the balance of power in November elections.
