Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
You lied about bill gates not funding no kings
Executive summary
Claims that Bill Gates personally funded the “No Kings” protests with large sums (reports allege $100M+ from Gates or a $300M billionaire pool) are disputed across available reporting: fact-checking by Snopes says billionaires fund groups but did not spend $300 million specifically on No Kings [1], while fringe sites and partisan outlets assert large transfers through Arabella/Tides networks and name Gates as a major donor [2] [3]. Available sources show both allegations and denials but do not provide a definitive, public accounting tying a $100M Gates payment directly to the No Kings protests [1] [2] [3].
1. What the fact-checking record says: “Not $300 million” — but questions remain
Snopes reviewed social-media claims that billionaires including George Soros, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates provided nearly $300 million to fund No Kings and concluded that while wealthy donors back organizations on many sides of politics, that does not equate to $300 million being spent to bankroll the protests; Snopes stresses some partner groups received grants from charities with billionaire ties but rejects the viral $300M figure as presented [1].
2. Partisan and alternative outlets publicize large-dollar linkages through Arabella/Tides
Sites like 100PercentFedUp and WLT Report published detailed-sounding “financials” claiming Gates’s foundation funneled $100M+ into the Arabella–Tides–Ford nexus that allegedly underwrote No Kings infrastructure, and similar claims appear across other partisan outlets [2] [3]. These reports trace money through intermediaries and name multiple billionaire donors, but they are not the same as independent, transparent audited accounting linking funds to specific No Kings events [2] [3].
3. Why the accounting is complicated: philanthropy, donor intermediaries and opaque flows
Investigations into large philanthropic giving note that foundations often channel grants through intermediary nonprofits (for example, Gates funding New Venture Fund or Arabella-linked networks), which can make direct tracing difficult; critics and researchers have documented that Gates grants to intermediaries amount to hundreds of millions over time, complicating efforts to tie any single protest to a single donor without granular public records [4] [5].
4. Gates’s broader context: scrutiny of influence and media funding
Longstanding critiques of Gates’s philanthropy stress that his foundation’s scale and its grants to think tanks, research and media can create perceptions of disproportionate influence and a favorable media environment; critics note outlets and experts funded by Gates are repeatedly cited, which fuels suspicion about where his money goes and what it supports [6] [7]. Those critiques don’t equate to proof he funded No Kings, but they explain why such claims gain traction.
5. Competing narratives and their agendas
Mainstream fact-checking (Snopes) aims to limit false precision — debunking an explicit $300M claim — while partisan outlets emphasize leak-style financial mappings that serve an audience inclined to see billionaire manipulation of protest movements [1] [2] [3]. The former stresses lack of evidence for the headline number; the latter builds a narrative from grant trails and institutional links. Both approaches have implicit agendas: fact-checkers prioritize clearing false claims; partisan pieces prioritize political impact.
6. What’s missing from current reporting — and what to look for next
Available reporting does not include a public, audited ledger proving a $100M Gates transfer specifically earmarked for No Kings protests, nor does it show a single, transparent donor-to-event payment at the scale alleged [1] [2] [3]. To resolve the dispute you would need primary grant documents, filings (Form 990s or donor disclosures) from intermediary nonprofits showing purpose-restricted grants, or investigative reporting that links line-item grants to operational expenditures for No Kings organizers — none of which are present in the sources provided [1] [2] [3] [4].
7. Bottom line for readers: cautious skepticism and demands for evidence
The strongest, sourced claim in the collection of available reporting is that billionaire-linked foundations fund networks and intermediaries that in turn support civic infrastructure [1] [4]; the weakest claim is the headline dollar figure directly tying Bill Gates to a $100M+ payment for No Kings protests, which relies on partisan reconstructions rather than independently verifiable audited accounting [1] [2] [3]. Readers should treat sweeping dollar claims with skepticism and ask for primary-doc evidence (grant agreements, tax filings, audited financials) before accepting them as established fact [1] [2] [3].