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: Chart that shows funders of no kings rally
Executive Summary
The central verifiable claim is that the Open Society Foundations, associated with George Soros, provided multi-million-dollar grants to Indivisible and other progressive groups that participated in or helped organize the “No Kings” protests, but the protests were also organized by a broad coalition of more than 200 groups and funded through unions, progressive foundations, and grassroots donations rather than being solely financed by one donor. Reporting across outlets in mid- to late‑October 2025 converges on a core funding fact while diverging on emphasis and political framing [1] [2] [3].
1. How big is Soros’ contribution and what does it actually fund?
Multiple accounts report that the Open Society Foundations awarded roughly $7.6–$7.61 million in grants to Indivisible, with at least a $3 million grant in 2023 cited as support for social‑welfare activities; outlets use near‑identical figures when describing grants to Indivisible specifically [1] [4]. These descriptions confirm a material financial link between Open Society and Indivisible, but the sources also indicate these grants are part of broader funding portfolios rather than earmarked solely for nationwide protest logistics, stressing philanthropic support for civic and social programs instead of direct line‑item "paying for" rallies [1] [2].
2. Who else is listed as organizer or funder beyond Soros’ network?
Reporting and organizational lists show the movement was led by a coalition of over 200 organizations, including Indivisible, the ACLU, Public Citizen, labor unions, and local grassroots groups such as Metro Detroit DSA, with funding described as a mix of progressive foundations, labor unions, and small‑dollar grassroots donations [2] [5] [6]. This creates a multi‑channel funding picture: major foundation grants, institutional backers like unions, and decentralized small donations, all contributing to the national day of action rather than a single centralized funding source [3].
3. Dispute lines: one‑donor narrative versus coalition reality
Conservative outlets and political figures frame the protests as Soros‑funded special‑interest actions, stressing the Open Society grants and portraying the event as top‑down rather than grassroots [4] [7]. In contrast, organizational accounts and other coverage depict a broad alliance and significant grassroots mobilization, emphasizing hundreds of local chapters and small donations that indicate organic participation alongside institutional support [5] [6]. Both narratives rely on overlapping facts but differ on which elements—foundation grants or grassroots contributions—are foregrounded [1] [2].
4. What do the timelines and publication dates tell us about credibility?
Most reporting in the dataset clusters in mid‑ to late‑October 2025, with several pieces dated October 17–20 and October 18, 2025, indicating contemporaneous coverage of the protests and subsequent reactions [4] [1] [5]. Contemporaneity reduces the chance major new facts emerged after publication in this dataset, but the near‑simultaneous reporting also reflects partisan media dynamics: outlets with differing editorial slants published similar grant numbers while offering divergent interpretive framing on the same dates [1] [4] [3].
5. What is omitted or underemphasized across the accounts?
None of the provided summaries give a complete itemized ledger showing exactly how Open Society grant dollars were allocated to protest activities versus other programs, nor do they present audited event budgets or receipts for national rally coordination. This absence of granular financial trail leaves open how much of any foundation grant directly enabled logistics, advertising or paid staff time for the No Kings events versus broader organizational capacity building, a distinction central to the debate over whether Soros “paid for” the protests [1] [2].
6. How political agendas shape interpretation and public reaction
The dataset shows clear agenda dynamics: conservative outlets and political actors use emphasis on Soros funding to frame the movement as externally driven special‑interest activism, while progressive outlets and organizers emphasize coalition scale and grassroots donations to portray the event as a popular response to perceived authoritarian threats [4] [7] [5]. Both framing choices are consistent with each side’s broader political narratives; readers should therefore treat the common factual base—the grant figures and coalition lists—as distinct from the contested interpretive claims about motive and control [1] [3].
7. Bottom line: what can be said with confidence and what remains uncertain
Confident statements: Open Society Foundations granted roughly $7.6M to Indivisible and the No Kings protests were organized by a coalition of over 200 groups with funding from a mixture of foundations, unions, and grassroots donors [1] [2]. Remaining uncertainty: the precise share of any donor’s funds that directly financed protest activities versus general organizational capacity is not documented in the provided material, leaving the “paid for” framing partially substantiated on amounts but not on specific expenditure pathways [1] [2].