Who runs Defending Democracy Together and what projects and funding streams do they publicly disclose?

1. Who runs Defending Democracy Together: named leaders and institutional structure

DDT’s public leadership historically includes well‑known center‑right figures: William “Bill” Kristol and Mona Charen are named among the group’s leadership in multiple profiles, and the organization operates as part of a cluster of entities—DDT (the 501(c)), Defending Democracy Together Institute/Republic Affairs (the 501(c) affiliate), and a 527 Action Fund—each with distinct legal roles and public officers reported to regulators ^{[1] [3] [5]}.

2. Projects and brands: what the organization publicly runs or sponsors

The group publicly hosts and incubates projects including Republicans for the Rule of Law, Lyceum Labs (a fiscally sponsored project focused on political leadership), and a “Pillars of the Community” project supporting local election officials; it also operates a public communications presence (including publishing through Republic Affairs/Bulwark) and runs political spending through an affiliated action fund and outside‑spending operations ^{[1] [6] [7] [5] [2]}.

3. Publicly disclosed funding streams: grants, pledges and regulator filings

DDT’s funding picture in public records is mixed: OpenSecrets reports contributions and spending totals—listing $5.5 million in contributions in the 2024 cycle, roughly $2 million in outside spending for 2024, and $200,000 in lobbying for 2024—while the FEC and DDT’s own sites show campaign‑related filings for its Action Fund and committee activity ^{[8] [9] [10]}. At the same time, the institute arm and fiscally sponsored projects have documented foundation grants: the Hewlett Foundation awarded a grant to support Lyceum Labs via the Defending Democracy Together Institute (reported by Hewlett and project pages) ^{[6] [7]}.

4. Intermediaries and disclosed donor pathways

Public reporting shows use of intermediaries: a Hewlett grant flowed through a donor vehicle in at least one instance, and earlier reporting records grants from Democracy Fund Voice (a 501(c) linked to Pierre Omidyar) to the advocacy arm; InfluenceWatch and other profiles note that some donations moved through DonorsTrust or similar donor‑advised channels—practices that make direct donor names harder to see on public 990s and political filings ^{[5] [1] [3]}.

5. What remains opaque and critiques of transparency

Investigative trackers and transparency watchdogs emphasize the opacity: OpenSecrets flagged that DDT “isn’t disclosing its sources of funding” in earlier coverage, and InfluenceWatch noted the group received significant 501(c) grants and used fiscal sponsorships—mechanisms that combine disclosed grants with dark‑money style flows—leading to recurring criticism about donor visibility ^{[4] [1] [3]}.

6. Competing narratives and implicit agendas

DDT publicly frames itself as defending institutions and centrist Republicans who uphold the rule of law, while watchdogs emphasize its right‑leaning origins and the political effect of underwriting Republican figures who oppose Trump; foundation support for specific projects (e.g., Hewlett for Lyceum Labs) suggests cross‑ideological interest in strengthening pro‑democracy infrastructure even as the group’s advocacy arm engages in explicitly partisan outside spending ^{[2] [6] [5]}.

7. Bottom line: what can be said with certainty from public records

Public records and organizational sites make clear the organizational architecture (501(c), 501(c)/Republic Affairs, 527 Action Fund), name a core leadership cohort including Bill Kristol and Mona Charen, list projects such as Republicans for the Rule of Law, Lyceum Labs, and election‑defense initiatives, and document grant support from foundations like Hewlett and campaign‑cycle contributions and expenditures reported to OpenSecrets and the FEC—while also leaving gaps where donor identities and certain funding flows are not fully transparent in the public filings ^{[1] [3] [6] [8] [9] [7]}.