Who were the founding members and organizers of Indivisible and what roles did donors play?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Indivisible grew out of a 2016 Google Doc and was formalized by former congressional staffers, most prominently co‑founders Leah Greenberg and Ezra Levin; other early authors included Jeremy Haile and Angel Padilla [1] [2]. The movement operates three nonprofit entities, emphasizes grassroots small‑dollar giving while also accepting larger family‑foundation gifts, and has received notable funding from progressive philanthropies and wealthy donors according to reporting cited in InfluenceWatch and Indivisible’s own fundraising materials [3] [4].
1. Origins: a handbook turned national movement
Indivisible began as “Indivisible: A Practical Guide for Resisting the Trump Agenda,” a 23‑page document written by former congressional staffers and circulated online after the 2016 election; that guide is widely credited with catalyzing local chapters and the national organization [1] [2]. The guide’s authors and early organizers were congressional staff veterans — Ezra Levin, Jeremy Haile, Leah Greenberg and Angel Padilla are all named in contemporaneous accounts as the principal architects of the original playbook [1].
2. Founders and leadership: Levin and Greenberg as public faces
Leah Greenberg and Ezra Levin are identified repeatedly as Indivisible’s co‑founders and co‑executive directors; they remain the public leaders who run weekly conversations, trainings and represent the national team in media and at events [5] [6] [7]. Organizational pages and local chapter calendars advertise those regular briefings and training sessions led by Levin and Greenberg, underscoring their long‑term operational role [5] [8].
3. Organizational structure and local chapters
Indivisible is a distributed movement composed of thousands of local groups and a national infrastructure that includes multiple legal entities (Indivisible Project/501(c) and Indivisible Civics/501(c)) that support local organizing, training and civic education [9] [10]. The national organization runs a “Distributed Fundraising” program to let local groups collect donations via ActBlue pages without forming separate nonprofit structures, simplifying grassroots fundraising for chapters [11] [12].
4. How donors fit in: stated fundraising philosophy
Indivisible publicly states a three‑part fundraising approach: prioritize small‑dollar grassroots donations as the largest single source, supplement with larger individual gifts, and accept family and public foundations — while rejecting for‑profit corporate funding [4]. The movement says this mix is meant to provide stability and prevent any single donor from exerting outsized influence [4].
5. Donor practice in action: small donors plus big money
Indivisible materials and third‑party profiles show that small donors are a deliberate priority, but larger gifts and foundations played a major role in growth, especially early on. Reporting cited by InfluenceWatch (attributing a New York Times reporter) links Indivisible’s expansion during the first Trump administration to funding from prominent progressive donors such as Reid Hoffman and foundations tied to Democracy Alliance donors [3]. Indivisible’s own documents note that grassroots donations were 25% of revenue in 2019 — a figure that highlights the presence of other significant funding streams [4].
6. PACs, political activity and transparency
Indivisible operates outside‑spending arms and PAC activity is traceable: OpenSecrets shows hundreds of large ($200+) contributions to Indivisible Project PAC in recent election cycles, indicating sustained individual donor support at higher contribution levels [13]. InfluenceWatch and OpenSecrets provide different angles: InfluenceWatch notes donor names tied to organizational growth, OpenSecrets lists itemized PAC donors [3] [13].
7. Points of debate and the limits of available reporting
Sources agree that the founders were former congressional staffers and that Greenberg and Levin are central leaders [1] [2]. Where reporting diverges or leaves gaps: exact shares of total revenue from small donors versus foundations fluctuate over time and detailed contemporaneous donor lists depend on the entity (501(c), 501(c), PAC) and year — available sources do not provide a single, up‑to‑date ledger reconciling all Indivisible affiliated entities’ receipts [4] [13]. InfluenceWatch highlights large donor influence early on, while Indivisible’s fundraising philosophy emphasizes grassroots primacy, creating competing interpretations about how bottom‑up the funding actually is [3] [4].
8. What this means for accountability and influence
Indivisible’s public rules — no corporate money, try not to compete with local groups for funds, prioritize grassroots donations — are designed to limit single‑donor sway, but published reporting shows the organization has accepted meaningful foundation and wealthy individual support that critics say helped scale its operations [4] [3]. Evaluating influence therefore requires attention to which legal entity received funds, when, and for what purpose — details that are in financial filings and PAC disclosures rather than summarized consistently in promotional materials [13] [9].
Limitations: this analysis is built only from the provided sources; available sources do not mention specific recent donor dollar amounts across all Indivisible entities in one place or provide a full reconciled accounting of donors by year beyond the cited snapshots [3] [13].