Former leaders of a now-defunct Minneapolis charity are facing a lawsuit, accused of misappropriating $6.5 million to indulge in extravagant personal expenses.

The civil lawsuit, filed by Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, targets Trahern Pollard and Jaclyn McGuigan, who once led the organization We Push For Peace.

Pollard established We Push For Peace following the George Floyd protests, securing millions in contracts aimed at community outreach and violence prevention initiatives.

However, the lawsuit claims Pollard, often seen as the nonprofit’s spokesperson, diverted $6 million from these contracts for personal luxuries, including vacations in Las Vegas, high-end vehicles, and shopping sprees at Harley Davidson.

Additionally, Pollard is accused of using the funds to cover child support and tax obligations, and to support his private ventures, including a liquor store and a used car dealership.

The lawsuit also said that Pollard mislabeled $35,000 in payments he had sent to friends as ‘Chicago payroll.’ 

The other defendant in the case, McGuigan, is accused of transferring $1,000 from the charity into a personal account every week, as well as stealing thousands more from government grants and labeling the transfers as ‘administrative’ expenses. 

McGuigan acted as the nonprofit’s treasurer since at least 2023, and prosecutors say she laundered most of the funds through her accounts, though Pollard spent most of the money. 

Trahern Pollard, founder of nonprofit We Push For Peace, is being sued by the Minnesota Attorney General for allegedly stealing $6.5 million from the organization. Pollard is pictured posing in front of the Capitol Building

Prosecutors allege that Pollard used the stolen funds to fund a lavish lifestyle and luxury purchases. Pollard (left) is pictured with a friend

Pollard is accused of funding lavish trips to Las Vegas using the charity’s money. The Las Vegas strip is pictured (stock image)

Prosecutors further alleged that the misuse of the charity’s funds went on for more than five years. 

‘Instead of helping the community, they helped themselves to millions of dollars that should have gone into the community,’ Attorney General Ellison said in a statement. 

The investigation into Pollard began in 2022, when the office of the Minnesota attorney general announced that it was looking into the north Minneapolis Merwin Liquors store. 

The liquor store was infamous for being the site of violence and drug deals, and Pollard purchased it with the aim of bettering the neighborhood. 

The move received media attention and bolstered the reputation of his nonprofit and his image as a community leader. 

But the lawsuit alleges that Pollard used funds from We Push For Peace to pay his employees at the store, despite the entities being separate.

Pollard and McGuigan caused the charity to fall apart after the founder created a distinct, for-profit business called Change Makers to take over the contracts that had been issued to the nonprofit, according to the lawsuit.

One of those contracts was with Whole Foods, which cut ties with Pollard last year. 

Pollard is accused of using the charity’s funds to subsidize his private businesses, including this liquor store in Minneapolis

Pollard is also accused of using the charity money to pay for child support and taxes, as well as sending payments to friends

The disgraced charity leader allegedly moved the contracts and other revenue from the charity to his for-profit business after We Push For Peace elected a new board and attempted to block funds from the founder.

He allegedly deposited checks made out to We Push For Peace into accounts for his for-profit business, Change Makers, to the tune of at least $930,794. 

Those actions allegedly hollowed out the charity, so when the City of Minneapolis reached out for help during a major federal immigration enforcement mission, Operation Metro Surge, the nonprofit did not have the capacity to provide support. 

The lawsuit accused Pollard and McGuigan of keeping inaccurate financial records and taking out improper loans. 

Attorney General Ellison’s office estimated that between 2020 and 2025, We Push For Peace had more than $25 million in revenue. 

Ellison’s office said that in 2022 and 2023, the nonprofit had $6.8 million and $6.4 million in revenue. 

According to the nonprofit’s IRS filings for those years, however, We Push For Peace only reported $697,165 of revenue in 2022 and $103,207 of revenue in 2023.

The Daily Mail has reached out to Pollard and McGuigan for comment.  

Experts on nuclear armaments are voicing significant concerns about the Trump administration’s urgent requirement to ensure any forthcoming agreement includes a prohibition on Iran’s potential use of plutonium from its facilities for developing nuclear weapons.

While the administration and advocates of non-proliferation have predominantly focused on Iran’s uranium-based nuclear sites, there remains a risk that Tehran might exploit this oversight to clandestinely pursue a plutonium-based route to nuclear armament.

Jason Brodsky, who serves as the policy director at United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI), shared with Fox News Digital, “I strongly believe that any new agreement with Iran must address the threat of plutonium being used to build nuclear weapons. Notably, Israel targeted the Arak heavy water reactor twice last year—in June 2025 and March 2026. Intelligence reports indicated that Iran persistently tried to rebuild the facility post-bombing, so any accord with Iran should definitely encompass the plutonium pathway.”

An image features a list of Iran’s nuclear sites, including the heavy water reactor at Arak and the Natanz enrichment facility. (FDD/Fox News)

Henry Sokolski, the executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center and a former deputy for nonproliferation policy at the Department of Defense (1989–1993), has noted that Iran could potentially utilize plutonium from spent fuel at its Bushehr nuclear reactor to develop nuclear weapons.

Writing last month on the website of Real Clear Defense, he noted “Washington should make sure that Iran doesn’t remove Bushehr’s spent fuel and strip out the plutonium. This can and should be done without bombing the plant.”

Sokolski wrote the “Pentagon should watch to make sure Iran does not remove any of the spent fuel at Bushehr. It could do this with space surveillance assets or, as it did in 2012, with drones. Second, any ‘peace’ deal President Trump cuts with Tehran should include a requirement that there be near-real-time monitoring of the Bushehr reactor and spent fuel pond, much as the IAEA had in place with Iran’s fuel enrichment activities.”

A satellite image the Heavy water plant of Arak, Iran is displayed. According to reports, the existence of this plant came to light in December 2002. Heavy water moderates nuclear fission chain reaction and can produce plutonium for use in a nuclear bomb.  (DigitalGlobe via Getty Images)

In another article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists in April, Sokolski argued that Iran has enough plutonium for more than 200 nuclear bombs. He said, “The last time IAEA inspectors visited Bushehr was August 27, 2025. Even when agency inspectors had routine access to the plant, they only visited every 90 days —  more than enough time to divert the spent fuel and possibly fashion it into nuclear weapons.”

He added that “President Obama did not insist on such surveillance even though the IAEA asked Iran to permit it. Tehran said no.”

Recent IAEA reports have not addressed the plutonium path to a bomb with any specificity.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian visits nuclear facilities in Tehran, Iran on Nov. 1, 2025.  (Iranian Presidency / Handout/Anadolu via Getty Images)

A State Department spokesperson told Fox News Digital that, “Iran’s nuclear program poses a threat to the United States and the entire world.”

The spokesperson continued, “Iran today stands in breach of its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty obligations by failing to provide full cooperation with the IAEA. Iran’s leadership must engage in serious diplomatic negotiations with the United States to resolve the nuclear issue once and for all.”

David Albright, a physicist and president of the Institute for Science and International Security, told Fox News Digital that he is “Highly skeptical that Iran would use plutonium from Bushehr’s spent fuel to make nuclear weapons.”

Bushehr nuclear plant in Iran, on April 29, 2024. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

The former weapons inspector, Albright, argued that, “One, Iran would need a design it has not developed. There is nothing in the Nuclear Archive on a plutonium-based nuclear weapon. Two, a diversion from Bushehr would be detected and undoubtedly lead Russia to suspend enriched uranium supplies, leading to a shutdown of a multibillion-dollar investment that supplies the area with electricity. Third, almost all the plutonium in the spent fuel is reactor-grade, and it is feasible that none is weapon-grade.”

Albright added that “Reactor-grade plutonium can be used to make a nuclear weapon, but it is tricky to do so if a significant explosive yield is wanted.” He added that Trump’s former National Security Adviser John Bolton “has been raising this issue for decades, and it is a remote possibility. It was rejected first in the Bush administration.”

Concerns persist about Iran’s devious behavior and its aim to build a nuclear weapon at all costs. As a result, there are calls to outlaw Iran’s plutonium reprocessing and impose rigorous surveillance on Iran’s plutonium infrastructure in a future deal with the U.S.

Andrea Stricker, the deputy director of The Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) Nonproliferation and Biodefense Program, told Fox News Digital. “The United States must insist on a permanent and verified ban on plutonium reprocessing in Iran under any deal.”

An IDF infographic shows Iran’s Arak heavy water plant, described as a key infrastructure for plutonium production. (IDF)

Stricker noted that Moscow had realized the danger too. “To Russia’s rare credit, it insisted Iran let inspectors back in to safeguard the Bushehr reactor after the June 2025 strikes. Those inspections resumed last August. Plutonium produced at the reactor is not of desirable quality for nuclear weapons, and Iran has not focused on the plutonium route to nuclear weapons since the early 2000s, so it could be difficult for Tehran to work with. They would also need to illicitly acquire and outfit a plutonium reprocessing plant as well as sophisticated equipment to handle and chemically convert the fuel. All of this creates significant obstacles to its use as fuel for nuclear weapons.”

She continued that “The IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) could mitigate any proliferation risk at Bushehr by increasing the frequency of inspections to monthly. Russia could also remove the spent fuel that has accumulated at the site.”