A filing from last fall shows that Traci Park’s office solicited a $570,000 donation from Airbnb to the Salvadoran American Leadership and Educational Fund (SALEF), routing corporate money through her council office to an immigrant-serving nonprofit while publicly promoting the partnership as support for vulnerable communities.
Behested payments are legal. But this one raises serious questions, not just because of the size of the donation, but because of Park’s record on immigration and the corporate donor behind it.
Park has repeatedly opposed strengthening sanctuary protections, defended preserving cooperation pathways with federal immigration enforcement, and has never condemned ICE raids affecting Westside families. She voted against funding lawyers for immigrants facing deportation, is expanding surveillance infrastructure that civil liberties advocates warn can be accessed by ICE, sided with LAPD when force was used against protesters opposing deportations, remained silent when constituents were detained by federal agents, and has consistently prioritized policing and enforcement over services that actually protect immigrant communities. The pattern is not mixed. It is consistent.
That record makes her recent partnership messaging with SALEF look less like a shift in values and more like image management. The newly disclosed donation deepens that concern.
Airbnb is not a neutral donor. The company gave roughly $175,000 to Park’s 2022 campaign and has long been criticized for contributing to Los Angeles’ housing crisis by incentivizing the conversion of long-term housing into short-term rentals, reducing supply and driving displacement that disproportionately impacts immigrant renters and working-class families.
Those tensions became even more visible during the January wildfires that devastated Pacific Palisades and surrounding neighborhoods, a disaster Park has heavily centered in her political identity.
As displaced residents scrambled for housing, Airbnb faced accusations that prices on its platform surged during the emergency, fueling widespread fears of disaster profiteering. Others complained that its vouchers were useless.
The contradiction grew sharper when the Los Angeles City Attorney later filed litigation accusing Airbnb of price gouging during the wildfire emergency, alleging that listings exceeded legal rent limits and contributed to unlawful overcharges for displaced residents.
The timeline matters. Park’s office solicited the $570,000 donation after the price-gouging controversy had already emerged and after litigation against Airbnb was underway, meaning the company was simultaneously facing allegations of harming displaced residents while funding relief initiatives promoted through Park’s office.
At the same time, Park failed to confront price gouging on behalf of displaced Palisadian constituents and opposed stronger renter protections, including voting against support for AB 246, legislation intended to prevent rent gouging and stabilize housing in the wake of the fires.
The situation escalated further in July 2025, when the Los Angeles City Attorney filed a lawsuit against Airbnb alleging that thousands of listings exceeded legal rent caps during the wildfire emergency and seeking penalties and restitution for displaced tenants. Yet just three months later, on October 23, 2025, Park’s office solicited and executed the $570,000 donation from the same company while it remained an active defendant in litigation over the very displacement affecting her constituents.
There is no public evidence the lawsuit was influenced by this relationship. But the timeline underscores a stark contradiction: while the city pursued legal action against Airbnb for conduct that worsened housing instability, Park maintained financial ties to the company and later positioned it as a partner in community relief.
The contradiction is stark: a major campaign contributor accused of benefiting from housing scarcity during a moment of mass displacement is now funding community initiatives through Park’s office after she opposed protections for wildfire survivors.
The choice of SALEF as the recipient raises additional questions. While SALEF provides important services, it does not have a significant Westside presence and is not closely tied to tenant stabilization work in CD11 neighborhoods facing the most acute displacement pressures. At a recent town hall at Mar Vista Recreation Center, where Park promoted the installation of new surveillance cameras across the Westside, a longtime Oaxacan community leader warned about the risks surveillance poses for immigrant families and pointed out that SALEF lacks deep roots in the local immigrant community. Park abruptly dismissed those concerns and blamed him for not previously engaging with her office. The disconnect between elevating an outside organization and failing to protect trusted local institutions is further underscored by Park’s failure to preserve the Westside’s only FamilySource Center, a trusted institution that had served immigrant families in the area since 1983.
Financial disclosures from SALEF’s nonprofit filings add another layer of concern. The organization relies heavily on government grants and political partnerships for funding, reinforcing the reality that large, politically routed donations can shape program visibility and priorities. That dependence increases the risk that organizations become vehicles for political image management rather than independent community accountability — especially when donations are tied to elected officials seeking to reshape narratives around controversial policy records.
The appearance of SALEF in this partnership therefore looks less like geographic necessity and more like political opportunism, reinforcing concerns that deeply embedded community nonprofits can be displaced by organizations willing to provide symbolic legitimacy to any politician, no matter their track record.
This isn’t about whether SALEF does meaningful work. The issue is how that work is being used. A corporation widely criticized for fueling housing instability is routing hundreds of thousands of dollars through a politician with an anti-immigrant record to an immigrant nonprofit that is then showcased as proof of community support. That is not empowerment – it’s political laundering.
Airbnb’s platform has contributed to housing precarity for immigrant renters while wildfire survivors and Westside residents faced displacement and allegations of disaster-era price escalation. That corporate influence also sits alongside Park’s broader anti-tenant record, which includes repeated votes against eviction protections, rent caps, relocation assistance, anti-harassment measures, and disaster-related renter safeguards.
Now that same corporation is positioned as a partner in relief, with its funding flowing through Park’s office as immigrant outreach and tenant support messaging are used to soften the perception of housing and enforcement policies that increased vulnerability in the first place. Corporate money tied to displacement. An elected official whose record deepens immigrant insecurity. A nonprofit partnership used to reshape the narrative. For families navigating ICE raids, rising rents, and wildfire recovery, the question is simple: is anyone actually being protected, and who is being used to make that veneer of protection look real?
