Fact check: Which organizations have been accused of funding protests in major US cities?

1. Summary of the results

Several high-profile accusations have been made about protest funding, but most lack substantial evidence:

• President Trump accused Governor Gavin Newsom and LA Mayor Karen Bass of paying violent protesters, but provided no evidence to support this claim ^[1]
• While George Soros's Open Society Foundations has provided grants to some organizations linked to protests, there is no direct evidence of paying specific protesters, and university representatives explicitly deny such payments ^[2]
• Senator Josh Hawley is investigating CHIRLA for alleged protest support, though the organization maintains they only organized a press conference and rally ^[3]

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

Several important contextual elements are worth noting:

• The accusations against Soros are part of a documented pattern of antisemitic conspiracy theories ^[2]
• There's significant political tension between Trump and California officials, particularly regarding the deployment of National Guard troops without state consent ^[4]
• The Los Angeles protests were specifically related to ICE immigration raids, providing important context about their origin ^[4]
• There's a crucial distinction between:

Direct payment to protesters (which lacks evidence)

Legal grant funding to organizations (which is documented)

Organizational support for legitimate rallies (which CHIRLA acknowledges)

**3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement**

Several parties have vested interests in these narratives:

• **Political Figures**:

Trump benefits from portraying Democratic leaders as instigators of violence ^[1]

Senator Hawley gains political capital from investigating immigrant rights organizations ^[3]

California officials benefit from portraying federal intervention as overreach ^[4]

• Media and Organizations:

Some sources make broad, unsubstantiated claims about Soros's involvement, pushing a conspiratorial narrative without evidence ^[5]

Organizations like CHIRLA must balance their legitimate advocacy work with distancing themselves from unauthorized protests ^[3]

The question of protest funding is often oversimplified, ignoring the complex nature of how social movements receive support through legal channels while focusing on unsubstantiated claims of direct payment to protesters.