President Donald Trump has called for a “major investigation” into rock legend Bruce Springsteen and other high-profile entertainers, accusing them of accepting illegal campaign payments from former Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris.

The claims, made in a late-night Truth Social post on Sunday, also target Beyoncé, Oprah Winfrey, and U2 frontman Bono, all of whom publicly supported Harris or the Democratic Party during the 2024 election cycle.

In his post, Trump alleged that Springsteen was paid by Harris for a campaign performance and endorsement, questioning the legality of such payments.

He wrote, “HOW MUCH DID KAMALA HARRIS PAY BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN FOR HIS POOR PERFORMANCE DURING HER CAMPAIGN FOR PRESIDENT?

WHY DID HE ACCEPT THAT MONEY IF HE IS SUCH A FAN OF HERS? ISN’T THAT A MAJOR AND ILLEGAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION?” Trump provided no evidence to substantiate these claims.

The president extended similar accusations to Beyoncé, Winfrey, and Bono, suggesting they also received payments under the guise of entertainment fees, which he claimed constituted illegal campaign contributions.

He described the alleged payments as a “very expensive and desperate effort to artificially build up [Harris’] sparse crowds” and labeled the actions of these entertainers as “CORRUPT & UNLAWFUL.”

Trump’s remarks follow Springsteen’s recent criticism of the president during his UK tour, where the musician delivered a scathing critique of Trump’s policies and leadership.

The president’s post concluded with a call for action, stating, “I am going to call for a major investigation into this matter. Candidates aren’t allowed to pay for ENDORSEMENTS, which is what Kamala did, under the guise of paying for entertainment.”

As of now, no official investigation has been announced, and representatives for Springsteen, Harris, Beyoncé, Winfrey, and Bono have not publicly responded to the allegations.

The claims have sparked debate over the intersection of celebrity endorsements and campaign finance laws, with some questioning the validity of Trump’s accusations and others awaiting further developments.

Meanwhile, Trump has intensified his dispute with ABC News, alleging that the network disseminates “fake news” concerning a luxury Boeing 747 aircraft that he is scheduled to receive from Qatar.

This controversy has elicited significant criticism from congressional leaders and national security experts, who are questioning the ramifications of the deal.

In a post on Truth Social, Trump specifically directed his ire towards Bob Iger, the CEO of Disney, which owns ABC News.

He stated, “Why does Chairman Bob Iger not take action regarding ABC Fake News,” making reference to a multimillion-dollar settlement ABC reached with him in 2024.

This settlement resulted from erroneous claims made by ABC anchor George Stephanopoulos, who falsely asserted that Trump had been convicted of sexual assault. ABC subsequently retracted the statement and issued an apology.

Trump’s current objection pertains to ABC’s coverage of the aircraft, which he maintains is not a personal gift.

He expressed, “Now I see they are at it again, and I again give these individuals fair warning.”

He underscored that Qatar, which he commended for committing over $1.4 trillion in investments in the United States, is donating the aircraft to the U.S. Air Force and the Department of Defense, rather than to him personally.

Trump asserted that his legal representatives have formally requested that ABC refrain from characterizing the jet as “free,” contending that the network is fully aware of the actual recipient of the donation.

The president’s rhetoric has prompted concerns among critics, who perceive his threats against ABC as part of a broader strategy to target media outlets.

In the course of his second term, Trump has consistently urged the Federal Communications Commission to investigate news networks he considers biased and has declined to interact with reporters from those organizations.

The Qatar jet deal itself has also garnered scrutiny. Congressional leaders and national security experts are raising questions regarding the strategic and ethical implications of accepting such a high-value asset from a foreign government, even when designated for official use.