By: Dr.s Jill Glasspool Malone and Robert W. Malone
How political donors, Super PACs, nonprofits, and government book purchases can help turn political influence into private publishing income, and why Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s $4 million Skyhorse deal deserves closer scrutiny.
Investigative Commentary | October 2026
Imagine receiving a $4 million advance for two books that have not yet been published, with the understanding that you will not write, edit, or promote them while holding public office for many years to come. Now imagine that the publisher paying you those millions is owned by a close political associate who also operates political organizations that support you by and your political career by raising money from wealthy donors and corporations.
For most authors, this arrangement would be almost unimaginable. However, for prominent political figures, multimillion-dollar book contracts are not particularly unusual. What is far less clear is how those enormous advances are financed, who ultimately supports the publisher’s investment, and whether the books themselves are sometimes little more than a convenient vehicle for transferring money.
The mechanism involves advance book purchases by political campaigns, Super PACs, nonprofit organizations, and other politically connected institutions. These organizations can purchase thousands of copies of an influential person’s book before publication, creating a substantial pool of guaranteed revenue for the publisher. Publishers can then factor these advance purchases into their financial projections, providing the financial backing for unusually large advances to politicians, former officeholders, NGO leaders, and other politically influential individuals. Money originating from political donors and affiliated organizations can thus flow through the publishing industry and emerge as personal income for the author, under the perfectly respectable designation of a book advance. It is a form of legalized money laundering.
Political donors contribute to campaigns and organizations. Those organizations purchase books. Publishers receive the revenue. Politicians receive advances and, depending on the contractual arrangements, royalties. The transactions may be legal, and direct royalties from a candidate’s own campaign purchases are restricted, but the larger financial relationships can remain remarkably difficult to trace.
This is not proof that every large book advance is financed through such political arrangements. It is a mechanism through which political money can potentially support private publishing income without passing directly from donor to politician. Whether that happens in any particular case requires examining the contracts, purchases, and financial records. Which, of course, aren’t publicly available. Transparency is not required by law, and historically has not been a priority with these deals.
And the difference between political publishing and ordinary publishing is staggering.
In conventional publishing, an advance is money paid to an author against royalties the publisher hopes the book will eventually earn. Many authors receive only a few thousand dollars. Many receive no advance whatsoever. Based on personal experience with Skyhorse Publishing, advances around $5,000-$10,000 are normal for a well-established author with guaranteed book sales, and numerous authors receive nothing upfront.
Increasingly, authors also encounter publishing arrangements in which they must contribute money toward production, marketing, or distribution themselves. These are generally hybrid or author-funded publishing arrangements rather than conventional trade-publishing contracts, but they illustrate how difficult it has become for ordinary writers to secure meaningful financial support during book development.
Against that backdrop, a $2 million advance for a single book represents an extraordinary commitment. Skyhorse Publishing, a relatively small independent publisher, is known for offering little or no advance to many of its authors, with most advances commonly falling below $10,000. Two advances of $2 million each, totaling $4 million, represent a dramatic departure from its customary publishing practices and deserve an explanation grounded in commercial economics, particularly when the recipient is a powerful federal official.
What happens when a publisher pays millions for a political book whose ordinary consumer demand is uncertain? What happens when politically aligned organizations can generate large guaranteed orders? And how can the public distinguish a legitimate commercial publishing contract from one in which the author’s political influence is part of the financial calculation?
The answer is that, in most cases, it cannot.
Publishing agreements are private. Advance amounts are often confidential. Institutional purchases may be routed through wholesalers and distributors. Political committees disclose expenditures, but their reports do not always identify the individual titles purchased or the underlying publishing arrangements. Nonprofit and super PAC disclosures generally provide even less transaction-level detail.
Consequently, the public may know that a politician received millions of dollars from a publisher without knowing whether donors, political organizations, corporate interests, or guaranteed institutional purchases helped make those payments economically possible.
This is where the distinction between legal and ethical conduct becomes important. Criminal money laundering requires specific elements that ordinary publishing transactions do not necessarily satisfy. But a transaction can comply with the law and still present serious questions about conflicts of interest, disguised compensation, and the conversion of political influence into private financial gain.
Congress has confronted variations of this problem before. Former House Speaker Jim Wright faced an ethics investigation involving unusually generous book royalties and bulk purchases by organizations with political interests. Modern federal election rules restrict direct royalty benefits from a candidate’s own campaign purchases, but they do not provide complete transparency into the commercial arrangements supporting large political advances.
And there is a historical precedent that makes this subject even more revealing.
The federal government itself guarantees book purchases, subsidizing publication, and distributing millions of American books overseas. The United States Information Agency, State Department, and related programs developed an enormous international book-distribution system in which government purchases could support publishers before ordinary readers had demonstrated demand.
That history is where this investigation begins. It reveals how institutional purchasing can influence the economics of publishing, how politicians have sometimes retained financial interests in government-supported books, and why today’s multimillion-dollar political advances deserve far more scrutiny than they ordinarily receive.
The Government Was Buying Books Before the Public Bought Them
During the Cold War, the United States established an enormous international publishing and book-distribution operation through the United States Information Agency (USIA), the State Department, American embassies, and later USAID. These agencies financed, translated, purchased, and distributed American books throughout the world. When USIA was dissolved in 1999, its public-diplomacy functions were transferred primarily to the State Department. Government-funded overseas book purchasing did not end with USIA. It continued through embassies and other federal programs, although the full extent of current purchases remains difficult for the public to determine.
The stated objective was public diplomacy. American books were distributed through foreign libraries, universities, schools, and cultural centers. But the government was not simply buying books already on store shelves. USIA negotiated publishing rights, paid translation and production costs, and sometimes guaranteed purchases of substantial portions of a print run before publication. These advance purchases created a taxpayer-funded market for selected books, reducing the publisher’s financial risk before ordinary consumers had purchased a single copy.
A 1967 White House memorandum explicitly acknowledged the financial benefits publishers received from larger, government-supported print runs. Washington understood the economics. By then, millions of taxpayer-funded books were being distributed internationally, with government officials determining which titles received support.
There is another dimension to this practice that deserves scrutiny. Government-funded purchases can also increase an author’s visibility, promote political ideas overseas, and enhance the reputation and influence of politicians who may subsequently seek higher office. In effect, taxpayer money can provide publicity that would otherwise have to be purchased through private political or commercial channels.
Which politicians have benefited most, and whether government officials have favored one political faction over another, remain unanswered questions. In speaking to people working within the State Dept., our investigations suggest that, historically, Democrats have been overwhelmingly favored in this process. Without a comprehensive accounting of the titles selected, quantities purchased, and officials responsible for those decisions, the public cannot determine whether these programs have served legitimate diplomatic purposes alone or have also been used to advance particular political interests.
Government-funded overseas book purchasing did not end when USIA was dissolved in 1999. The State Department continued purchasing and distributing American books through embassies and public-diplomacy programs, including documented purchases of books by sitting President Barack Obama. The practice is not merely historical. The State Department’s FY2025 Congressional Budget Justification explicitly provides for purchasing books and other publications for domestic and overseas offices, while its Foreign Affairs Manual, updated April 10, 2025, continues to authorize public-diplomacy programs and the acquisition of materials for American Spaces abroad.
Yet the financial trail remains fragmented and difficult to audit. There is no publicly accessible accounting identifying titles purchased, the quantities ordered, the publishers paid, or the royalties received by politically connected authors.
A former State Department employee familiar with these programs has told us that, in their assessment, purchasing decisions have favored Democratic politicians and their political agenda. We have not independently verified that partisan pattern, but the absence of transparent, title-by-title records makes it difficult to test. Taxpayer-funded book purchases can both financially benefit politically connected authors and promote their reputations and ideas overseas. The American public deserves to know which politicians and political interests its government has been supporting, and at what cost.
Ironically, some of the clearest evidence of these financial arrangements comes from records more than half a century old. Under the Federal Records Act, historically significant government records are preserved and transferred to the National Archives, while the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) provides a mechanism for public access. Executive Order 13526 also generally requires the declassification of historically valuable classified records after 25 years, subject to exceptions.
These laws and archival processes have gradually opened government correspondence, contracts, and publishing records that were once difficult to obtain.
Consequently, it can be easier to trace certain government book purchases from the 1950s than to reconstruct comparable transactions today. One particularly revealing example involves a sitting U.S. senator who later became president: John F. Kennedy.
A sitting senator receives royalties from USIA
One of the most revealing examples involves John F. Kennedy.
In 1959, while Kennedy was serving in the United States Senate, Harper & Brothers corresponded with him about foreign-language editions of Profiles in Courage arranged through USIA.
A July 1959 letter documented the publication of 2,000 Telugu-language copies and explained that the government-supported arrangement included royalties divided between Harper and Kennedy.
Another letter documented USIA’s purchase of Arabic-language rights for $50. The sums were modest, but the financial mechanism was unmistakable:
Federal government purchases or subsidizes publishing rights → commercial publisher receives money → sitting politician retains a royalty interest.
By 1960, USIA had supported editions of Profiles in Courage in numerous languages. Congressional material from 1962 also identified books by Kennedy and senior administration figures among works selected for overseas use.
This is not evidence that Kennedy received an enormous financial windfall or that the program was designed to enrich him. It is evidence that government-supported book distribution could generate private publishing income for a sitting politician.
That distinction becomes much more consequential when the sums move from tens or hundreds of dollars to millions.
The practice continued into the Obama administration
In 2011, controversy erupted when federal procurement records showed that the State Department had spent more than $70,000 purchasing books by sitting President Barack Obama for distribution overseas.
Purchases included Dreams From My Father and The Audacity of Hope. American embassies in countries including Egypt, South Korea, and Indonesia acquired copies for public-diplomacy activities.
The State Department defended the purchases as routine educational and cultural outreach. But Obama retained royalty interests in the books.
The taxpayer was purchasing books written by the sitting president, and the president maintained a financial interest in the commercial products being purchased.
The amounts were relatively small compared with Obama’s overall book income, and the precise royalties attributable to those government purchases have not been established. Nevertheless, the transaction illustrates a conflict-of-interest question that deserves scrutiny regardless of political party.
The larger historical picture remains frustratingly incomplete. USIA’s archives identify enormous book-purchasing programs, but readily searchable, title-by-title records are difficult to reconstruct. We cannot yet determine whether books by Democratic politicians received more government purchasing support than those by Republicans.
The government kept extensive records of the books it distributed. Yet the public cannot obtain a comprehensive accounting of which politically connected authors benefited, how much was spent on their titles, and whether they retained royalty interests.
The same problem, in a different form, has grown even larger.
Super PACs and campaigns insert themselves into the modern political book business
Modern political organizations have another reason to purchase books: the author may be the politician they are supporting.
Purportedly, campaigns purchase books to distribute to supporters, reward donors, promote candidates, and raise additional money. PACs and politically aligned organizations purchase books in bulk. Nonprofits and advocacy organizations may use books as educational materials, promotional products, or fundraising premiums.
The potential for abuse is obvious.
In traditional publishing, authors typically receive only a small fraction of a book’s retail price. On a hardcover selling for $20, an author might receive just $2 per copy, depending on the royalty agreement. At those rates, a $4 million book advance would require sales of approximately 1.3 million to 2 million copies, representing $40 million in retail book sales, merely for the publisher to earn back the advance. The publisher does not receive that entire retail amount, since retailers and distributors take their share, but the scale of the transaction is enormous. Multimillion-dollar advances therefore represent substantial financial commitments, raising an obvious question when political campaigns, Super PACs, nonprofits, or government agencies are involved in purchasing books: How much of the publisher’s anticipated revenue comes from genuine consumer demand, and how much comes from politically connected institutional buyers?
Those anticipated purchases can become part of the publisher’s commercial calculation before the book is released.
Large institutional book purchases can be negotiated or guaranteed before the publishing agreement is finalized, with those advance orders incorporated into the contract’s financial calculations. The publisher already has commitments from political campaigns, Super PACs, nonprofits, the State Dept., or other institutional buyers that can help underwrite the author’s advance. The publisher becomes the intermediary through which money from politically connected organizations can support substantial personal payments to the author.
The money can then move through a series of otherwise ordinary transactions:
Political donors and institutional funders
PACs, nonprofits, advocacy organizations
Advance orders and bulk book purchases
Publisher revenue and reduced financial risk
Publisher then pays the politician or politically connected person an advance or royalties
Federal election rules recognize the most obvious conflict. A candidate’s own campaign can generally purchase copies of the candidate’s book for distribution, provided the candidate receives no royalties attributable to those purchases.
Super PACs, however, operate under a different and generally less restrictive framework. They can raise unlimited contributions and make independent expenditures, although they cannot coordinate those expenditures with candidates or their campaigns. Purchases of books by Super PACs and other politically aligned organizations raise additional questions about whether the transactions are genuine purchases, indirect contributions, or arrangements intended to benefit an individual personally.
The royalty restriction also leaves a significant financial question unanswered. Even when an author waives royalties on books purchased by a campaign, the publisher still receives revenue. If substantial bulk purchases were negotiated or guaranteed before the publishing agreement was finalized, those commitments could help justify an unusually large advance. The politician may therefore benefit from the publisher’s willingness to pay more without receiving royalties directly from the campaign-purchased copies. The potential for political money to support private publishing income is clear, while the underlying contracts and purchasing commitments generally remain undisclosed.
Congress has encountered this problem before.
Jim Wright and the Book-Purchase Scandal
In 1989, Democratic House Speaker Jim Wright, who had served in Congress since 1955 and become Speaker in 1987, resigned amid an ethics scandal involving his book, Reflections of a Public Man. Wright had negotiated an extraordinary 55% royalty arrangement, while politically interested organizations purchased large quantities of the book. The Teamsters PAC alone bought 2,000 copies, and other organizations purchased hundreds more, sometimes in connection with speaking engagements. The House Ethics Committee found reason to believe that book royalties were being used to circumvent restrictions on outside compensation. Wright resigned before the proceedings were completed.
The scandal helped prompt tighter congressional restrictions, including a prohibition on book advances for House members and senior staff. Yet bulk purchases by political organizations remain permissible under certain circumstances, and the underlying financial arrangements are often difficult to trace. The practice crosses party lines, with documented purchases involving books by Donald Trump Jr., Mike Pompeo, Ted Cruz, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and others.
The sums involved in high-profile political publishing make ordinary author advances look almost quaint.
Hillary Clinton’s 2014 memoir, Hard Choices, reportedly carried an advance of approximately $14 million, although Simon & Schuster never publicly confirmed the amount. Bill Clinton received a reported $10 million to $12 million advance for his 2004 memoir, My Life. Meanwhile, the Clinton Foundation has accumulated substantial financial resources, reporting approximately $305 million in net assets in its latest available nonprofit financial data. These are separate financial arrangements, and there is no established evidence that foundation funds financed the Clintons’ book advances. Nevertheless, the combination of multimillion-dollar publishing contracts and a large, donor-funded foundation illustrates the importance of transparency surrounding the financial relationships of politically influential families.
The practice also extends to politicians’ spouses, whose publishing contracts can bring substantial income into the same household without the officeholder receiving the payment directly. Michelle Obama was part of a reported $65 million joint publishing agreement with Barack Obama. This illustrates an important transparency question: when publishers pay substantial advances to politically connected spouses, what safeguards ensure that the payments reflect genuine commercial value rather than access, influence, or political relationships?
Congress recognized the potential for disguised compensation nearly four decades ago. The unanswered question is why political organizations should be purchasing their leaders’ books at all, particularly when those purchases can help support lucrative private publishing contracts.
And when the author holds public office, ordinary commercial confidentiality collides with the public’s legitimate interest in knowing whether political influence is being converted into private wealth.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the $4 Million Question
When we began this investigation, we did not intend to write about HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Our focus was on the longstanding practice of government agencies purchasing and distributing books written by politically influential Americans, and the potential for those purchases to benefit the authors financially. As discussed earlier, these taxpayer-funded purchases can also enhance a politician’s public profile and political influence, raising unanswered questions about which individuals and political interests the government has chosen to promote. But as we followed the money through publishers, political donors, Super PACs, and nonprofit organizations, we encountered a far more immediate and troubling financial arrangement involving Kennedy himself.
On September 23, 2026, The New York Times published an investigation by Christina Jewett and Sheryl Gay Stolberg examining HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s financial relationships with Skyhorse Publishing, its owner Tony Lyons, and organizations associated with the Make America Healthy Again movement.
The central revelation was that Kennedy had received $4 million in book advances, $2 million each for Unsettled Science and A Defense for Israel. These were not royalties earned from books already purchased by readers. They were advances against anticipated future sales, paid by a relatively small independent publisher whose owner is also a longtime Kennedy political ally.
Skyhorse is not Penguin Random House. Its business model has historically emphasized modest advances, frequently under $10,000, with many authors receiving nothing upfront. Against that background, two $2 million advances represent an extraordinary financial commitment.
Tony Lyons, Skyhorse, and the MAHA Money Network
Tony Lyons is far more than Kennedy’s publisher. He co-founded American Values 2024, the Super PAC supporting Kennedy’s presidential campaign, and became deeply involved in the network of MAHA political and advocacy organizations. Those organizations raise money from wealthy donors and corporate sponsors, including businesses with interests affected by federal health policy. Lyons therefore occupies an unusual position at the intersection of political fundraising, advocacy, publishing, and the personal finances of the sitting Secretary of Health and Human Services.
The financial relationships extend into Kennedy’s household. According to the New York Times, Skyhorse separately provided Cheryl Hines, Kennedy’s wife, with a reported $600,000 book advance. Add Kennedy’s $451,000 in earlier Skyhorse consulting compensation and his subsequent $4 million in book advances, and the reported payments and advances involving Kennedy and Hines total approximately $5.26 million. These are different categories of compensation, not all paid at the same time, but they demonstrate the scale of the financial relationships surrounding the Kennedy household.
It seems implausible that Skyhorse financed the $4 million entirely from its own resources, so who were the outside investors and political donors, such as Timothy Mellon or Elon Musk, involved? Did they guarantee book purchases, or were affiliated organizations involved? The underlying contracts and financing records are not public, and no documented donor-to-advance transfer has been established.
But the timing of these book advances is very odd.
Four Million Dollars for Books He Cannot Work On
Kennedy’s federal ethics agreement adds another complication. Before taking office, he disclosed the Skyhorse publishing agreements and promised that while serving in government he would not write, edit, market, or promote the covered books. His earlier disclosure stated that he had completed two manuscripts before entering government service, while a third remained unfinished. The restriction therefore does not establish that Kennedy was paid for two unwritten books. It does establish that he could receive substantial publishing payments while being prohibited from performing further work on those agreements during his tenure.
That raises questions about the actual contract terms. Were the $2 million payments fixed obligations negotiated before Kennedy entered office? Were they contingent on manuscript delivery, acceptance, publication, or other contractual milestones? Were any conditions subsequently waived, amended, or deferred until he left government service? An ethics agreement restricting work on a book is not the same as a contractual requirement that publication wait until the author leaves office. Without the original August 2024 agreement and subsequent amendments, the public cannot determine exactly what Skyhorse purchased for $4 million or what Kennedy remained obligated to deliver.
Kennedy’s annual financial disclosure was approved by HHS ethics officials on September 17, 2026, following an extension and four revisions to the filing. NPR reported that the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) had not yet completed its separate review. As of October 15, we could find no public confirmation that OGE had issued its final certification.
Meanwhile, on September 24, four Democratic senators, Elizabeth Warren, Ron Wyden, Richard Blumenthal, and Angela Alsobrooks, demanded answers concerning a separate change to Kennedy’s ethics arrangements involving contingency-fee interests associated with the law firm Wisner Baum. The senators questioned whether Kennedy had adequately disclosed what happened to those financial interests and whether his revised ethics arrangements satisfied federal conflict-of-interest requirements. HHS maintained that Kennedy had complied with his ethics obligations and no longer retained the financial interest in question. Although this dispute is separate from the Skyhorse advances, it raises additional questions about the completeness and transparency of Kennedy’s financial disclosures. The central issue remains whether federal ethics officials have fully examined the underlying Skyhorse contracts, the timing of the $4 million payments, and any outside financial arrangements supporting those advances.
Twenty-Two Days
Now consider the timing. The chronology is not complicated, and it is central to understanding why the publishing agreement deserves scrutiny.
July 13–15, 2024: Following the assassination attempt against Donald Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania, Trump and Kennedy spoke by telephone and subsequently met in Milwaukee. Their discussions included Kennedy’s political future, a possible role in a second Trump administration, and the prospect of Kennedy leaving the presidential race and endorsing Trump.
August 1, 2024: Kennedy’s federal financial disclosure identifies the beginning of a three-book publishing agreement with Skyhorse. Two books carried anticipated advances of between $1 million and $2 million each. The public disclosure establishes the agreement’s reported commencement date, although it does not reveal when negotiations began or when the precise payment terms were finalized.
August 23, 2024: Kennedy suspended his independent presidential campaign and endorsed Donald Trump. The publishing agreement had begun 22 days earlier, after discussions between Kennedy and Trump about a potential political alliance were already underway.
February 2025: Kennedy became Secretary of Health and Human Services, subject to an ethics agreement restricting his work on the Skyhorse books.
2025–2026: Kennedy’s subsequent financial disclosure reported that he received $2 million for each of the two principal books, totaling $4 million. Both payments reached the upper end of the range disclosed before he entered government service.
The sequence is remarkable.
July 13–15, 2024: Kennedy and Trump discussed Kennedy’s political future, including a possible role in a Trump administration and Kennedy’s withdrawal from the presidential race.
August 1, 2024: Seventeen days after their July 15 meeting, Kennedy’s multimillion-dollar publishing agreement with Skyhorse commenced.
August 23, 2024: Just 22 days after the Skyhorse agreement began, Kennedy suspended his presidential campaign and endorsed Donald Trump.
2025–2026: Kennedy joined the Trump administration as HHS Secretary and received the full $4 million in book advances from a publisher owned by one of his closest political allies.
Was the publishing arrangement connected to Kennedy’s decision to leave the race and endorse Trump? Was it, in whole or in part, a political payoff? Or was this all merely coincidence? And the $4 million advance had nothing to do with Kennedy dropping out of the race?
Those questions arise directly from the timing, but the chronology alone cannot answer them. There is no publicly established evidence that Trump or his representatives arranged the advances, that Kennedy agreed to endorse Trump in exchange for the publishing contract, or that Mellon, Musk, de Becker, or another donor financed the payments. The original disclosure states that advances as high as $2 million per book were contemplated before Kennedy entered office, but he didn’t formally enter office until the winter of 2025. These payments do not, by themselves, establish that the contract was renegotiated upward. But it is hard not to speculate.
What remains unknown is precisely when those amounts became binding, who participated in the negotiations, whether any outside financing or guaranteed purchases were involved, and whether the agreement was modified after Kennedy began discussing his political future with Trump. Those are questions that the original contract, amendments, payment records, and contemporaneous correspondence could help answer.
What Happened to the MAHA Promises?
These financial questions arrive at a difficult moment for the movement Kennedy helped build. On October 8, 2026, former Kennedy campaign adviser Tiffany Cianci released the MAHA Movement Scorecard, examining 42 commitments involving food, farming, pesticides, toxic chemicals, regulatory capture, and related health policies. The scorecard’s authors classified 37 commitments as broken and five as partially fulfilled, with none fully met. Those are the scorecard authors’ assessments of the administration’s record, not independent findings that Kennedy personally controlled every disputed decision.
In an October 14 essay, Elizabeth Kucinich, who helped organize Kennedy’s independent presidential campaign, argued that the administration had abandoned important MAHA priorities involving pesticides, environmental protections, agricultural policy, and corporate influence. She also acknowledged reforms Kennedy had pursued within HHS, while distinguishing those accomplishments from policies adopted elsewhere in the administration. Her criticism illustrates a growing dispute among former allies over what Kennedy’s decision to join the Trump administration has actually delivered. Kucinich actively believes that it is Sec. Kennedy who has become the victim of the Trump administration; she writes in her Substack:
Note to the Kennedy/MAHA-aligned reader: This Administration has stabbed RFK Jr. in the back, and we all know it. It has benefited from his credibility and the constituency he brought while advancing policies that undermine his mission. Supporting him means naming that betrayal and demanding a change of course.
To be fair, Kennedy has achieved some victories within HHS. On October 5, NIH opened a clinic dedicated to evaluating and studying patients reporting vaccine-related injuries, an initiative HHS and MAHA Action have prominently celebrated. For patients who have struggled to obtain recognition and medical evaluation, this represents a meaningful development.
But a single NIH clinic, however welcome, is a modest step relative to the scale of the national vaccine-safety and injury-compensation systems, and it remains to be seen how many patients it will serve or what research it will produce. HHS has also announced improvements to adverse-event reporting, although some measures remain proposals rather than completed reforms. The distinction matters: announcing an initiative is not the same as demonstrating that it has delivered results, and one specialized clinic cannot substitute for the broader reforms MAHA promised.
Kennedy built his political reputation on challenging corporate influence, regulatory capture, conflicts of interest, and the financial relationships between powerful industries and public officials. Those concerns were central to his campaign and the movement that followed him into government. They are also the standards by which his own financial arrangements should be examined.
If conflicts of interest matter when pharmaceutical companies, agricultural corporations, and nonprofit organizations are involved, they matter when the Secretary of Health and Human Services receives millions from a publisher closely connected to his political movement. The scorecard does not prove Kennedy abandoned his principles or changed policies because of private payments, but it makes accountability for the promises and financial relationships of MAHA’s leadership especially important.
The American Public Deserves Answers.
The problem extends far beyond Kennedy. For decades, government agencies have purchased and guaranteed book distribution, campaigns and PACs have used political funds to buy books by prominent political figures, and nonprofits have helped create institutional markets for authors associated with their causes. Publishers can incorporate anticipated demand into the advances they offer. The resulting payments appear as legitimate publishing income, while the underlying purchasing commitments, financing arrangements, and potential conflicts often remain beyond meaningful public scrutiny.
There is also the question of government agencies using taxpayer money to tip the political scales. When the State Department, American embassies, or other federal agencies purchase and distribute large quantities of books by politically influential figures, they can do more than generate royalties. They can promote selected politicians, elevate their public profiles, and spread their political ideas at taxpayer expense. Whether such purchases have systematically favored one political party, individual, or ideological agenda remains unknown. Without transparent, title-by-title purchasing records, the public cannot determine whether these programs have served legitimate diplomatic purposes or have also provided taxpayer-funded political promotion.
Kennedy’s case brings these concerns together in one extraordinary sequence: a $4 million publishing agreement commencing 22 days before he left the presidential race and endorsed Trump, a publisher deeply involved in his political network, substantial additional financial relationships involving his household, payments received while serving as HHS Secretary, and an ethics agreement restricting his work on the books. None of those facts alone establishes an illegal payoff. Together, they provide ample reason to demand an accounting of how the agreement was negotiated and financed.
And above all, was the August 1 publishing agreement an independent commercial transaction, or did it have any connection to Kennedy’s decision 22 days later to abandon his campaign and endorse Donald Trump?
The documents may establish entirely legitimate explanations. They may also reveal financial relationships that deserve further investigation. At present, the public does not have enough information to distinguish between those possibilities. That is why the contracts, payment schedules, financing records, and relevant ethics correspondence matter.
The American people should not have to wait fifty years for archival records to reveal the financial arrangements surrounding their public officials. They deserve answers now.
Support Independent Journalism.
Become a Paid Subscriber.
Investigations like this take time, research, and a willingness to ask uncomfortable questions, regardless of which political party or public figure is involved. Following the money means digging through government archives, financial disclosures, congressional records, and reporting that powerful institutions would often prefer the public never examine too closely.
Malone News is committed to independent journalism that follows the evidence, challenges official narratives, and holds those in power accountable. That includes people and organizations we may otherwise support. No politician, political party, corporation, or government agency should be above scrutiny.
If you are reading for free, please consider becoming a paid subscriber. Your support makes this work possible and helps keep our reporting independent of political donors, corporate sponsors, and institutional influence. Paid subscribers also receive exclusive content, including the complete audio version of this investigation.
If you believe the American people deserve answers, transparency, and journalism willing to follow the money wherever it leads, please support this work by upgrading to a paid subscription today.
References
Government Book Purchases, USIA, and Public Diplomacy
U.S. Department of State. Foreign Relations of the United States, 1955–1957, Volume IX, Foreign Economic Policy. Documents concerning United States Information Agency book translation, publishing, and overseas distribution programs. Office of the Historian.
U.S. Department of State. Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958–1960, Volume III, Microfiche Supplement. Documents concerning USIA overseas book programs, advance purchasing arrangements, and foreign-language publishing. Office of the Historian.
U.S. Department of State. Foreign Relations of the United States, 1917–1972, Public Diplomacy, Volume VI. Historical documents concerning USIA book selection, translation, publication, and overseas distribution, including annual book recommendations and publishing statistics.
U.S. Department of State. Foreign Relations of the United States, 1917–1972, Public Diplomacy, Volume VII. Documents concerning federal coordination of overseas book programs, including the 1966 interagency book-policy initiative and the 1967 White House memorandum discussing government-supported publishing economics.
U.S. Information Agency. Books Published Abroad: Book Translation Program, July 1, 1950–June 30, 1956. Historical catalog of foreign-language editions supported by USIA.
U.S. Congress. Congressional Record, 84th Congress, 1955. Discussions of USIA book translation, foreign publishing subsidies, and advance commitments to purchase portions of foreign editions.
National Archives and Records Administration. Record Group 306, Records of the United States Information Agency. Historical collections including book translation handbooks, foreign-language title lists, publishing records, and book-program correspondence.
Harper & Brothers. Correspondence with Senator John F. Kennedy concerning USIA-supported Arabic and Telugu editions of Profiles in Courage, July 1 and July 30, 1959. John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum, Personal Office Files.
U.S. Department of State. Daily Press Briefing, October 27, 2011. Department responses concerning embassy purchases of President Barack Obama’s books for overseas public-diplomacy programs.
The Christian Science Monitor. “State Department Spends $70,000 on Obama’s Books and Stirs a Controversy.” October 27, 2011.
U.S. Department of State. FY 2025 Congressional Budget Justification, Appendix 1: Department of State Diplomatic Engagement. 2024. Section concerning the Library Service Center and procurement of books, periodicals, newspapers, and databases for domestic and overseas offices.
U.S. Department of State. Foreign Affairs Manual, 10 FAM 380, “American Spaces.” Updated April 10, 2025. Provisions concerning overseas public-diplomacy facilities, information resources, and program support.
Campaign Finance, Super PACs, and Congressional Ethics
Federal Election Commission. Advisory Opinion 2001-08, Specter. Use of campaign funds to purchase copies of a candidate’s book. 2001.
Federal Election Commission. Advisory Opinion 2011-02, Brown. Campaign purchases of Senator Scott Brown’s autobiography and treatment of associated royalties. February 17, 2011.
Federal Election Commission. Advisory Opinion 2014-06, Ryan, Ryan for Congress, and Prosperity Action. Campaign and leadership PAC purchases and distribution of a candidate’s book. July 2014.
Federal Election Commission. Advisory Opinion 2014-10, Farr. Use of campaign funds to purchase a candidate’s book without generating personal royalties. August 14, 2014.
U.S. House Committee on Ethics. House Ethics Manual. “Restrictions on Outside Employment Applicable to Members and Senior Staff” and “Proper Use of Campaign Funds and Resources.” Provisions governing publishing advances, royalties, book purchases, and personal use of campaign funds.
Kenworthy, Tom. “Firm Bought Wright Books in Lieu of Fee, Official Says.” The Washington Post, June 15, 1988.
The Washington Post. “Teamsters Bought 2,000 Copies of Wright Book, Records Show.” June 17, 1988.
Everson, Zach. “Bernie Sanders Has Hauled in $2.5 Million in Book Payments Since 2011.” Forbes, September 27, 2023.
Everson, Zach. “Elizabeth Warren Has Raked in $4.6 Million in Book Payments While a Senator.” Forbes, September 8, 2023.
Everson, Zach. “Mike Pompeo’s PAC Spent $42,000 on Books the Day His Memoir Was Published. It Became a Bestseller.” Forbes, February 21, 2023.
Everson, Zach. “Ted Cruz’s Campaign Spent $50,000 on Books the Month After His Latest One Was Published.” Forbes, February 16, 2024.
Everson, Zach. Reporting on Tulsi Gabbard’s book sales, political committee purchases, and bestseller-list activity. Forbes, December 5, 2024.
The Washington Post. Reporting on Republican National Committee purchases of Donald Trump Jr.’s Triggered. November 21, 2019.
Political Publishing Advances and the Clintons
Rutten, Tim. Reporting on Hillary Clinton’s Living History, its approximately $8 million advance, early sales, and foreign-rights revenue. Los Angeles Times, June 18, 2003.
The Washington Post. “Hard Choices Is a Good Example of Why Publishers Don’t Disclose Advances.” June 26, 2014.
The Washington Post. Reporting on Bill Clinton’s publishing agreements and the economics of large political book advances. 2004.
Guinness World Records. “Largest Advance for a Non-Fiction Book.” Record concerning the reported $65 million joint publishing agreement for Barack and Michelle Obama, 2017.
Authors Guild. Everything You Need to Know About Book Advances. Guidance concerning publishing advances, royalty accounting, and earn-out provisions.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Skyhorse, and Financial Disclosures
Jewett, Christina, and Sheryl Gay Stolberg. “Kennedy Drew $4 Million in Book Advances From Publisher Who Also Monetized MAHA.” The New York Times, September 23, 2026. Also syndicated by The Philadelphia Inquirer.
Lupkin, Sydney. “RFK Jr.’s Ethics Filing Reveals Book Deals Worth Millions of Dollars.” NPR, September 24, 2026.
U.S. Office of Government Ethics. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Amended Ethics Agreement. 2025. Official ethics commitments concerning publishing contracts, outside income, consulting, and recusals.
U.S. Office of Government Ethics. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Public Financial Disclosure Report. Nomination and confirmation disclosure, 2024–2025. Includes the August 1, 2024 Skyhorse agreement and anticipated book advances.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Annual Public Financial Disclosure Report. Filed August 13, 2026; revised in September; HHS ethics certification dated September 17, 2026.
ProPublica. Trump Team Financial Disclosures: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Compilation of Kennedy’s financial interests, publishing agreements, consulting income, and ethics commitments.
The Guardian. “RFK Jr. Received $4m in Book Advances From MAHA Allies Over Past Year.” September 23, 2026.
The Wall Street Journal. Reporting on Kennedy’s disclosed travel and housing gifts from Gavin de Becker and their longstanding personal and political relationship. September 2026.
Politico. Reporting on Timothy Mellon, Gavin de Becker, and contributions to American Values 2024, the Super PAC supporting Kennedy’s presidential campaign. May 20, 2024.
FactCheck.org. “American Values 2024.” January 2024. Examination of the Kennedy-supporting Super PAC, its leadership, and financial support.
Skyhorse Publishing. About Skyhorse Publishing. Corporate history, publishing operations, and distribution arrangements.
Publishers Weekly. “Skyhorse Publishing: From Zero to $40 Million in 10 Years.” 2016. Historical reporting on the company’s revenue, publishing model, and advances.
Kennedy–Trump Negotiations and the August 2024 Timeline
McDuffie, Will, and Olivia Rubin. “Trump Discussed With RFK Jr. Potential Role in 2nd Trump Administration: Sources.” ABC News, July 24, 2024.
Scherer, Michael, Josh Dawsey, and Meryl Kornfield. “Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Moves Closer to Dropping Out and Endorsing Trump.” The Washington Post, August 21, 2024.
Reuters. Reporting on the leaked July 14, 2024 telephone conversation between Donald Trump and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. July 16, 2024.
The Washington Post. Coverage of Kennedy’s suspension of his independent presidential campaign and endorsement of Donald Trump. August 23, 2024.
U.S. Senate. Roll Call Vote on the Nomination of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as Secretary of Health and Human Services. February 13, 2025.
MAHA Scorecard, HHS Initiatives, and Congressional Ethics Questions
MAHA Movement Scorecard. The Trump Administration MAHA Scorecard. October 2026. Assessment of 42 policy commitments associated with the MAHA movement.
Kucinich, Elizabeth. “‘MAHA Scorecard’ Underscores Broken Election Promises.” The Kucinich Report, October 14, 2026.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. “HHS Launches Agency-Wide Actions to Strengthen Vaccine Injury Research, Reporting, and Patient Care.” October 8, 2026.
Reuters. “US Health Secretary Kennedy Launches New Push on Vaccine Injuries.” October 8, 2026.
U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren, Ron Wyden, Richard Blumenthal, and Angela Alsobrooks. Congressional inquiry concerning Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s ethics arrangements and contingency-fee interests associated with Wisner Baum. September 24, 2026.
Government Transparency and Historical Records
United States Congress. Federal Records Act. 44 U.S.C. Chapters 21, 29, 31, and 33. Statutory framework for federal records management, preservation, and transfer to the National Archives.
United States Congress. Freedom of Information Act. 5 U.S.C. § 552. Federal public-access provisions and exemptions.
Executive Order 13526. “Classified National Security Information.” December 29, 2009. Provisions governing classification and declassification of historically valuable federal records.
We're all feeling abandoned by the MAHA and MAGA machine. What once seemed like a powerful team devoted for change now sits in a windowless room full of gold, drones, AI servers, flock cameras, and glyphosate. I'm still going to vote, but man do I feel deflated!
Tending to libertarian ideology, I've always been in the political wilderness -- but I really feel like a political orphan these days. Corruption seems to be a primary card in this game.