Mickey Rourke Denounces GoFundMe as a ‘Scam,’ Vows to Return donations
Actor Mickey Rourke is fiercely pushing back against a fraudulent GoFundMe campaign launched in his name, calling it a “scam” and a “vicious cruel lie.” The fundraiser, initially intended to help cover Rourke’s reported eviction and moving costs, quickly amassed over $100,000 in donations before being paused and ultimately removed. Rourke is now demanding the return of the funds and promising “severe repercussions” for those responsible [1].
The Rise and Fall of the fundraiser
The GoFundMe campaign gained traction after reports surfaced in late December 2025 that Rourke was facing eviction due to approximately $60,000 in unpaid rent . Within days, the campaign had raised over $100,000, prompting gratitude from Rourke’s manager, Kimberly Hines, who assured donors that a resolution was being sought .
However, Rourke swiftly rejected the donations, expressing his embarrassment and stating he had no knowledge of, nor desire for, the crowdfunding effort. In a video statement, the 73-year-old actor, known for roles in films like “Barfly” and “Angel Heart,” and his Oscar-nominated performance in “The Wrestler,” emphatically declared, “I wouldn’t know what a GoFund foundation is in a million years.” He reiterated that he would “never ask strangers or fans for a nickel.”
Conflicting Accounts and Manager Involvement
The situation became further complicated by conflicting accounts regarding the fundraiser’s origins. While Rourke claimed he was unaware of the campaign, his manager, Kimberly Hines, told The Hollywood Reporter that the idea was discussed with both rourke’s and her own assistants prior to launch, and both teams had given their approval. Hines stated her intention wasn’t to “grift” Rourke, but rather to help him secure work, noting that the publicity surrounding the fundraiser had already generated four new movie offers.
Hines also revealed she had been personally covering Rourke’s moving expenses,initially from his Beverly Grove home to a hotel,and afterward to an apartment in Koreatown. Her assistant was listed as the creator of the GoFundMe,with Hines designated as the beneficiary.
Rourke’s Demand for Refunds and Legal Action
Despite the initial pause, Rourke took to Instagram on Thursday, January 15th, 2026, to express his continued frustration. he revealed that over $90,000 remained outstanding and vowed to ensure donors received their money back, stating his attorney was working to facilitate the refunds . He also expressed gratitude to friends like UFC boss Dana White and fighter Bill “Superfoot” Wallace for their support during the ordeal .
The incident highlights the growing concern surrounding celebrity-related fundraising campaigns and the potential for misuse. Following the removal of the initial GoFundMe,a search for “Mickey Rourke” on the platform revealed over a dozen othre campaigns capitalizing on his situation,demonstrating the vulnerability of public figures to such schemes.
The Broader Implications of Celebrity Fundraising
This incident with Mickey Rourke isn’t isolated. The ease with which fraudulent campaigns can be created and disseminated online raises important questions about the obligation of crowdfunding platforms and the need for greater verification measures. While GoFundMe and similar sites often have policies in place to prevent fraud,thay are not always effective,and individuals must exercise caution when donating to campaigns,especially those involving public figures.
The case also underscores the complexities of managing a celebrity’s public image and finances.While well-intentioned efforts from managers or associates can sometimes backfire, as appears to be the case here, the primary concern remains protecting both the celebrity and their supporters from exploitation.
Looking Ahead
As of january 22, 2026, the situation remains fluid. Rourke’s commitment to refunding the donations is a positive step, but the process is likely to be complex and time-consuming. The incident serves as a cautionary tale about the risks associated with online fundraising and the importance of due diligence. It also raises questions about the ethical considerations surrounding crowdfunding campaigns initiated on behalf of celebrities, even with good intentions.The outcome of Rourke’s promised “severe repercussions” for the individual responsible for the fraudulent campaign remains to be seen.
