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.
Has Tunnel to Towers Foundation faced any controversies?
Executive Summary
The Tunnel to Towers Foundation has been the subject of documented controversy centered on its financial ties to Rudy Giuliani, with subpoenas and reporting alleging the charity sponsored Giuliani’s livestreams and radio programming and that Giuliani’s company received roughly $16,300 per month from the foundation, prompting creditor scrutiny in his bankruptcy case [1] [2]. At the same time, longstanding charity ratings and statements about the foundation’s transparency complicate a single‑narrative verdict: watchdogs have historically given Tunnel to Towers high marks for program spending even as recent reporting and legal filings have focused attention on specific expenditures and potential reputational risk [3] [4].
1. What supporters and critics are saying — the core claims that sparked scrutiny
Reporting and legal filings converge on a central claim: that the Tunnel to Towers Foundation paid for advertising or sponsorship of media tied to former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and that those payments flowed to Giuliani’s company, Giuliani Communications, at about $16,346 per month, raising questions about whether donor funds intended for 9/11 families and veterans were used appropriately [1] [2]. Critics and bankruptcy creditors allege these payments merit subpoenaed documents to determine the nature and authorization of contracts, and whether the foundation’s decision‑making or disclosure practices were sufficient. Supporters counter that the foundation’s mission and programmatic spending remain focused on first responders and veterans, while the foundation’s own statements describe the media sponsorship as part of advertising and outreach activities rather than program diversion [2] [3].
2. Documentary record and legal actions — subpoenas, filings, and reporting timelines
Documentary evidence in public reporting includes subpoenas in Giuliani’s bankruptcy case seeking communications and contracts between Tunnel to Towers and Giuliani’s media ventures, and news coverage beginning in mid‑2024 that first detailed the payments and sponsorships; the New York Times published reporting in June 2024 that the foundation sponsored Giuliani’s livestream and that filings show monthly payments to his company, triggering creditor scrutiny [2] [5]. Bloomberg Law and other outlets reiterated and expanded these details in June 2024, noting that subpoenas sought potentially revealing contracts and payment records [1] [5]. These filings represent contemporaneous documentary avenues for investigators and creditors to assess whether the foundation’s expenditures complied with its stated charitable purpose and disclosure obligations.
3. Reputation and financial ratings — praise, watchdogs, and conflicting signals
Despite the controversy over media sponsorships, independent charity evaluators have historically given Tunnel to Towers favorable ratings for program efficiency and transparency, with auditors and Charity Navigator citing high percentages of funds directed to program services and consistent 4‑star assessments noted in public profiles [3] [4]. Forum users and donor discussions highlighted the charity’s low overhead and high program allocation in 2025 commentary, which supporters cite as evidence that the organization remains effective in delivering benefits to veterans and families of first responders [3]. These positive financial signals complicate the narrative that the foundation broadly misused funds, but they do not eliminate the need to scrutinize discrete transactions or sponsorship decisions alleged in legal filings.
4. Foundation policies and its response — whistleblower rules and public statements
The foundation’s published Whistleblower Policy and public statements about sponsorships demonstrate an organizational framework intended to address misconduct and transparency concerns, and the foundation confirmed that it sponsored Giuliani’s media activities as part of its advertising plan while not disclosing totals initially, according to reporting in 2024 [6] [2]. The existence of whistleblower and governance policies can signal institutional readiness to investigate potential problems, yet critics argue that policy alone does not substitute for proactive disclosure of major sponsorships involving politically prominent figures. The foundation’s statements framing the payments as advertising illustrate a common nonprofit defense — that promotional activity can be legitimate outreach — but the legal subpoenas and creditor inquiries show that third parties sought documentary evidence to evaluate whether the foundation’s actions crossed legal or ethical lines [1] [2].
5. The broader picture — what matters for donors, regulators, and the public
For donors and regulators, the contested facts narrow to whether payments to Giuliani’s firm were contracted, documented, and disclosed in a manner consistent with nonprofit governance and donor expectations; subpoenas and bankruptcy proceedings provide a process to obtain those records and clarify intent [1] [2]. The foundation’s historically strong ratings complicate calls for sweeping condemnation, but they also underscore that reputational risk can arise from a small number of high‑profile decisions. Absent final legal findings or full document disclosures, the public record as of mid‑2025 contains verified reporting of payments and subpoenas alongside longstanding positive evaluator assessments, leaving important questions about oversight, disclosure, and appropriate use of charitable funds to be answered by document review and regulatory inquiry [5] [4].