What specific policies has the Open Society Foundations funded in the United States since 2010?
Executive summary
Since 2010 the Open Society Foundations (OSF) has funded a portfolio of U.S. policy efforts focused on democratic practice, justice system change, economic opportunity, public health and climate policy — including support for election-integrity and campaign‑finance transparency work after Citizens United, voting‑rights litigation after Shelby County, expanded reproductive‑rights grants after the overturning of Roe, criminal‑justice reform fellowships and campaigns, poverty‑alleviation partnerships with the federal government, and green stimulus/climate funding [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Critics argue that this concentrated support advances a left‑liberal policy agenda and exerts political influence; OSF responds that it funds nonpartisan organizations and legal advocacy to protect rights and democracy [6] [7] [1].
1. Election integrity and campaign‑finance transparency
Following the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, OSF explicitly directed grants to investigative journalism and government‑accountability groups to expose “dark money” and increase campaign‑finance transparency, and it supports nonpartisan efforts to bolster election integrity in the U.S. rather than political parties or candidates [1] [7].
2. Voting‑rights litigation and the Shelby Response Fund
After the Supreme Court’s 2013 Shelby County v. Holder ruling weakened federal preclearance, OSF helped create and fund the Shelby Response Fund to pool resources for coordinated litigation and nonpartisan grantees working to prevent further erosion of federal voting‑rights protections [1].
3. Reproductive‑rights state‑level work post‑Dobbs
OSF increased grantmaking to organizations working to protect and expand reproductive freedom at the state level following the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision overturning Roe v. Wade, framing such support as defense of bodily autonomy and a component of open‑society values [1].
4. Criminal‑justice reform and fellowships
OSF’s U.S. criminal‑justice programming includes the Soros Justice Fellowships and grantmaking aimed at reducing the impact of punitive policies, supporting alternatives to incarceration, and funding public education, litigation and organizing that target sentencing, parole and bail reforms [2] [4].
5. Economic mobility, poverty alleviation and workforce policy
Through targeted funds such as the Special Fund for Poverty Alleviation, OSF has invested in programs to strengthen social safety nets, create career pathways and spur economic growth in low‑income communities — partnering with federal initiatives like the Social Innovation Fund to match grants and expand capacity for workforce and youth opportunity programs [3].
6. Workers’ rights, health and social policy advocacy
OSF publicly lists support for efforts to secure living wages, union organizing, affordable child and home care, prescription‑drug affordability and broader health‑care access as part of its U.S. agenda to increase democratic participation and economic dignity [8].
7. Climate and green stimulus funding
OSF has committed significant funding to climate priorities in the U.S., including multi‑million dollar pledges for green economic stimulus during the COVID‑19 crisis and participation in climate advocacy to protect frontline communities, support energy transitions and counter disinformation on environmental policy [4] [5] [9].
8. Strategic litigation, impact investing and cross‑program approaches
Beyond grants, OSF uses strategic litigation (via the Open Society Justice Initiative), impact investments through the Soros Economic Development Fund, and cross‑program funding to support change across sectors — a mix of direct advocacy, legal action and private‑sector investments deployed toward its stated goals [9] [10].
9. Criticism, influence claims and OSF’s defense
Conservative critics and watchdogs characterize OSF’s U.S. grantmaking as an engine for left‑progressive policy influence across immigration, drug and social policy; some accuse it of funding groups aligned with partisan aims, while OSF emphasizes nonpartisanship, local relationships and a mission to strengthen rights and democratic institutions [6] [11] [7]. Independent listings and watchdogs document extensive grant networks and differing interpretations of the political impact of those grants [12] [6].
10. Limits of the public record and what remains unsettled
Public OSF materials and third‑party trackers detail thematic priorities and major programs, but precise line‑by‑line lists tying individual grants to discrete policy wins in every state since 2010 are not fully available in the supplied reporting; evaluating causal impact on specific laws or electoral outcomes requires deeper grant‑by‑grant and grantee‑level analysis beyond these sources [10] [2] [5].