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.
Fact check: Which organizations are supporting the no-kings rally financially?
Executive Summary
The evidence about which organizations are financing the No Kings rallies is mixed: several local and national progressive groups are listed as organizers and supporters, while one widely cited report attributes significant grant funding to George Soros’s Open Society Foundations for allied groups — a claim present in a 2025 article but not corroborated by the No Kings organizers’ own materials. No single source provides a definitive donor ledger; available documents show organizers and endorsers but limited transparent accounting of direct financial backers [1] [2] [3].
1. What organizers themselves list when asked — a mosaic of progressive groups and unions
Organizers for local No Kings events and the national movement publicly list a range of progressive civic groups and labor unions as sponsors and partners. Indivisible Twin Cities, 50501MN, Women’s March MN and AFL-CIO MN are named on event pages and local promotion materials, with AFSCME and SEIU appearing among supporters referenced for the Twin Cities effort [1] [2]. These listings indicate active organizing and endorsement relationships and imply logistical or volunteer support, but the event pages do not function as financial disclosures and do not specify amounts or direct funding flows, leaving open whether listed groups contributed money, in-kind services, or only endorsement.
2. A prominent claim: Open Society grants to Indivisible — serious but isolated reporting
A news report dated October 16, 2025 asserts that the Open Society Foundations awarded $7.61 million in grants to Indivisible, which it links to nationwide No Kings protests, suggesting a major financial role for Soros-affiliated philanthropy in the movement [3]. This item is the strongest explicit financial-actor claim in the corpus provided and supplies a concrete dollar figure. It stands apart from organizer materials, which emphasize grassroots organizers and coalition partners without presenting matching grant-level transparency or confirmations of how those grants were applied to No Kings-specific activity.
3. Local organizers describe grassroots funding and decentralized logistics
Local activists in Franklin County and other communities frame their No Kings events as locally organized actions built from community groups and grassroots chapters such as Franklin County Continuing the Political Revolution and Indivisible North Quabbin, emphasizing volunteer-driven logistics and local coordination [4]. These local accounts do not mention external foundation grants; they highlight decentralized mobilization and suggest that much of the visible organizing is paid for or supported through local chapter resources, small donations, or in-kind contributions rather than large centralized grants. That framing points to a hybrid funding model where national groups may assist communications while events rely on local capacity.
4. Official No Kings materials emphasize nonviolence and broad popular support, not donors
The No Kings movement’s own “About” pages and national statements focus on mission, rules of engagement and participation expectations, noting a commitment to nonviolent action and lawful conduct [5] [6]. Those materials present the movement as a mass democratic mobilization and refer to millions of supporters in some outlets without breaking down financial backers. The absence of donor detail in movement-authored content is noteworthy: organizers appear more focused on messaging and recruitment than on publicizing funding sources, which complicates efforts to independently verify claims about financial sponsorship.
5. Apparent contradictions and why they matter: grant claims vs. organizer silence
There is a clear tension between explicit grant reporting in one news item and the relative silence about finances in organizer documents. The Open Society/Indivisible grant claim [3] provides a specific funding trail that would explain centralized capabilities in communications and data management if confirmed, while organizer listings [1] [2] focus on coalition partners and local groups without naming large foundation donors. This divergence matters because policy debates and public perceptions about outside influence hinge on whether major philanthropic dollars are driving strategy or whether the events are primarily locally financed mobilizations.
6. How to interpret motives and possible agendas across reports
Each source displays potential agendas: organizer pages aim to recruit and present broad legitimacy by listing well-known progressive partners [1] [2], local press frames emphasis on grassroots action [4], and the October 2025 article naming Open Society grants may reflect investigative reporting or partisan framing that highlights external influence [3]. Treating every source as possibly biased, the strongest cautious conclusion is that organizational endorsements and possible foundation grants coexist in the ecosystem, but existing materials here do not yield a reconciled, auditable funding picture.
7. What remains unresolved and what to look for next
Key questions remain: whether the reported $7.61 million Open Society grants were explicitly designated for No Kings-related organizing or for broader Indivisible capacity-building, and which organizations, if any, made direct financial contributions to specific local events. To resolve this, one should seek: grant-level reporting from Open Society and Indivisible clarifying purpose and dates, IRS/financial disclosures from named organizations, and local event expense ledgers. Until such documents surface, the best-evidenced claim is that several progressive groups and unions are active organizers or endorsers, and one report attributes significant foundation grants to an allied national organization [1] [2] [3].