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: What are the most significant criticisms of the Open Society Foundations' funding priorities?
Executive Summary
The most prominent recent criticisms allege that the Open Society Foundations (OSF) funneled over $80 million to organizations the critics say are tied to extremist or terrorist activity, sparking investigations and broad political debate [1] [2] [3]. Defenders point to OSF’s public mission to promote justice, human rights, and new programmatic shifts toward inequality and the Global South, arguing that critics conflate contentious activism and civil-society support with terrorism [4] [5]. The debate is dominated by competing interpretations of “ties” and “support”, partisan framings, and differing source agendas.
1. Why the $80 million allegation grabbed headlines — and what it actually claims
Reports published in October 2025 claim that OSF has given more than $80 million to groups “tied to terrorism or extremist violence,” including U.S.-based organizations accused of endorsing or facilitating violent actions during protests [1] [2] [3]. The core allegation links grants to groups that critics say either trained activists in destructive tactics, publicly supported violent foreign actors, or engaged in “direct actions” the FBI labels as domestic terrorism [3] [1]. The figure and the list of recipient organizations are central to the critics’ case, but the reports rely on a specific framing of financial flows and organizational relationships rather than legal verdicts or court findings [1] [6].
2. Who is making the accusations and what their agendas might be
The allegations are driven largely by investigative work from the Capital Research Center and commentators like Ryan Mauro, and amplified by outlets such as VINnews and The Center Square in late September–October 2025 [1] [2] [3]. These organizations and individuals have histories of scrutinizing philanthropy and left-leaning donors; their reporting frames OSF’s grants as security risks and moral failures, which aligns with broader political narratives targeting George Soros [2]. Observers should note the potential for partisan motivation and selection bias in how recipients and activities are characterized, because the claims convert complex funding relationships into categorical charges of support for terrorism [6].
3. The foundation’s stated priorities and programmatic shifts that complicate the picture
OSF’s own communications emphasize commitments to justice, equality, human rights, and a recent pivot to economic and climate work in the Global South — a response OSF presents as recalibration rather than retreat [4] [5]. This public mission contrasts sharply with the critics’ portrayal, and it matters because grantmaking to grassroots groups often looks different from high-profile policy grants: small operational support, capacity-building, and advocacy can be portrayed as either legitimate civil-society aid or problematic if recipients later engage in controversial tactics [4] [5]. The foundation’s track record supporting marginalized communities, like Roma inclusion, is cited as evidence of broader philanthropic aims [7].
4. Legal and definitional gaps that make simple conclusions risky
The reports conflate grantmaking with criminal liability without citing court findings; “ties to terrorism” can mean many things — funding an organization that later endorses violence, funding a partner that has a separate problematic actor, or funding groups that engage in civil disobedience but not criminal violence [1] [3]. The claims reference FBI definitions and allegations but do not document prosecutions tied directly to OSF grants, leaving an evidentiary gap between funding and legal culpability [1]. This definitional ambiguity is a central point opponents of the critique stress.
5. Political fallout: investigations, rhetoric, and second-order effects
Following these reports, commentators noted a DOJ inquiry and political pressure focused on Soros and OSF leadership, including claims about investigations into family members and the foundation itself [2]. Even absent legal conclusions, such investigations and media attention produce tangible consequences: donor scrutiny, partner organizations distancing themselves, and intensified political attacks. Critics emphasize accountability; defenders warn of chilling effects on civil-society funding and the weaponization of investigative findings for partisan aims [6] [5].
6. What remains unanswered and what to watch next
Key open questions include how the $80 million figure was compiled, whether specific grants can be causally linked to violent acts, and what due-process outcomes any DOJ review produces; the most consequential evidence would be legal findings that trace funds to criminal conduct, which the published reports do not present [1]. Observers should watch for primary-source grant records, court filings, and OSF’s responses with itemized grant rationales; transparency from both critics and the foundation would clarify whether the debate is about negligent oversight, political targeting, or valid national-security concerns [4] [5].
7. Bottom line: contested facts meet partisan storytelling
The recent critiques present a high-impact numerical claim and link it to alarm about terrorism and domestic security, while OSF’s publicly stated priorities and third-party coverage of philanthropic shifts portray a different story focused on rights and inclusion [1] [5]. Readers should treat both the $80 million allegation and the foundation’s mission statements as partial truths: the former relies on selective interpretation of funding relationships, the latter on normative aims that do not by themselves disprove problematic grant outcomes. The dispute will hinge on transparent documentation, legal standards, and recognition of the political contexts shaping both accusations and defenses [2] [7].