What investigations or audits have been conducted into Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation and what were their findings?
Executive summary
A string of federal and state reviews, lawsuits and watchdog assessments has targeted the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation (BLMGNF) since 2020, focusing on whether donations raised amid the 2020 racial justice protests were properly handled; federal investigators have issued subpoenas and at least one search warrant but, as of the reporting available here, no public criminal findings have been released [1] [2] [3]. State attorneys general in Indiana, California and elsewhere opened inquiries that produced compliance demands and civil actions, and independent charity monitors have flagged gaps in financial reporting and stewardship even as the foundation has disputed being a DOJ target and has published its own accounts of grants and giving [4] [5] [6] [7].
1. The federal inquiry: subpoenas, a search warrant, and no public conclusions
Federal law enforcement activity escalated to subpoenas and at least one search warrant tied to allegations of donor fraud and misuse of pandemic‑era and 2020 protest donations, according to multiple news reports; those reports also note the Justice Department has not publicly detailed the scope or produced criminal charges as of the cited coverage [1] [2] [3]. The foundation has publicly denied being “a target of any federal criminal investigation,” though media accounts say prosecutors have been issuing formal process while declining to comment [7] [2].
2. State probes: Indiana lawsuit, California registry warning, and other compliance actions
Several state attorneys general opened inquiries into BLMGNF’s filings and operations: Indiana’s attorney general began an investigation in February 2022 and later filed a lawsuit against the foundation; California’s Department of Justice flagged delinquency with charitable trust reporting and sought compliance, while other offices—Washington, New Mexico and Ohio among them in various reports—have demanded documents or sought to “secure compliance” [4] [8] [5]. News reporting indicates some states received documents and that at least some civil disputes followed the investigatory steps, but public records of definitive enforcement outcomes vary by jurisdiction [4] [5].
3. IRS and tax-exempt scrutiny noted in reporting
Accountability concerns included IRS-related scrutiny reported by watchdog and investigative outlets; influence reporting and third‑party analyses described IRS attention alongside multiple state attorneys general inquiries, though direct public IRS determinations or penalties are not detailed in the cited sources [8] [2]. The foundation’s transition from fiscal sponsorship to independent 501(c) status and the timing of late filings in 2021 figure in that tax‑related scrutiny [4] [5].
4. CharityWatch and other watchdog assessments: ratings, spending ratios, and transparency flags
CharityWatch downgraded its fiscal assessment of BLMGNF—issuing a “?” rating for fiscal year ending 6/30/2024 and previously a “D”—citing concerns about the reliability of the foundation’s financial reporting and computing program‑spending ratios that fell below some donor‑expectation benchmarks [6] [9]. CharityWatch and similar analysts also highlighted that the foundation reported significant contractor spending and gave attention to how much cash expenses were devoted to programs versus other uses [6] [9].
5. Audited transfers and the Thousand Currents handoff
Independent financial records cited by charity monitors show the foundation received a large transfer—$66,490,000—from its former fiscal sponsor, Thousand Currents, in October 2020, a fact commentators use to trace the flow of 2020 donations and to question controls during the organizational transition [10].
6. Media accounting: AP’s asset tally and the public debate over spending
The Associated Press reported the foundation held tens of millions in assets after spending some funds on grants, real estate and consultants, noting more than $37 million in those categories and an overall multimillion-dollar balance; that reporting triggered broader debate about priorities, governance and the divide between national leadership and grassroots organizers [5].
7. Litigation within the movement: BLM Grassroots and other suits
Internal movement disputes produced litigation: Black Lives Matter Grassroots, a separate chapter network, sued the national foundation and has publicly asserted that the national organization’s leadership and resources were not built by grassroots chapters; that suit and counterclaims became part of the broader public record and fed calls for scrutiny of internal governance and asset control [11] [12].
8. Accusations, third-party complaints, and contested allegations
Outside groups such as the National Legal and Policy Center submitted complaints urging audits and even criminal referrals, and other reporting has relayed allegations—ranging from insider contracting to stock purchases and diverted funds—advanced by critics; those allegations prompted investigators to seek documents, but the sources here do not record final judicial or prosecutorial findings validating all contested claims [4] [8] [13].
9. What the investigations have actually concluded so far
Taken together, the reporting shows multiple investigations and audits launched by federal prosecutors, state attorneys general, watchdog groups and internal litigants that have produced subpoenas, at least one search warrant, compliance demands, civil suits and critical ratings—but no single, public final criminal judgment or universal audit finding documented in these sources; the foundation disputes some characterizations and says it remains committed to transparency while providing its own accounting of grants and community investments [1] [2] [5] [7].