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.
Are there public filings or disclosures showing corporate donations to Project 2025 in 2023 or 2024?
Executive Summary
Public disclosures reviewed in the provided analyses show significant philanthropic funding tied to Project 2025 affiliates during 2023–2024, largely channeled through family foundations, donor-advised funds, and conservative nonprofits rather than as direct corporate line-item gifts; estimates across the sources point to more than $120 million associated with a small set of billionaire families since 2020 and at least $171 million routed through donor-advised funds by Fidelity, Schwab, and Vanguard through 2024 [1] [2]. The records indicate transparent filings for many institutional funders and intermediaries (foundation 990s, DAF grant reports, OpenSecrets entries), but they also show obfuscation where intermediaries or aggregated reporting mask direct corporate involvement, leaving open questions about the precise extent of traditional corporate donations in calendar years 2023 and 2024 [3] [4].
1. Who the analyses say is paying the freight—and how clearly the money shows up on the books
The most consistent claim across the analyses is that a handful of wealthy family foundations and conservative philanthropic networks are major funders of Project 2025-aligned entities, with named families including Coors, Koch, Uihlein, Scaife, Seid, and Bradley and totals suggested to exceed $120 million since 2020; those figures come from consolidated nonprofit disclosures and investigative aggregation [1]. Reporting also documents direct grants to the Heritage Foundation and related policy groups—for example, sizeable gifts from the Adolph Coors Foundation and Koch-linked nonprofits to Heritage—demonstrating clear paper trails in tax filings and foundation reports even when funds are routed through intermediaries [1]. At the same time, the analyses stress that some giving is routed through vehicles designed to preserve donor anonymity, which complicates attribution of specific corporate donors in public filings [1] [2].
2. The donor-advised fund angle that makes corporate ties murky but material
A prominent and specific finding in the dataset is that donor-advised funds (DAFs) managed by Fidelity, Schwab, and Vanguard were used to direct at least $171 million into Project 2025 groups through 2024, with Fidelity accounting for the largest share [2]. DAFs legally permit donors to claim immediate tax benefits while delaying or anonymizing final grant recipients; this mechanism creates a mix of public documentation (DAF payout totals) and less transparent linking to ultimate beneficiaries, complicating efforts to identify corporate donors versus wealthy individuals using corporate-associated accounts or philanthropic arms [2]. The analyses treat the DAF flow as evidence of substantial institutional facilitation of Project 2025 funding even where direct corporate checks are not visible on nonprofit 990s, revealing a structural channel that enables large-scale, semi-anonymous funding [2].
3. What the public filings do and don’t show for 2023–2024 specifically
The available analyses compile a mix of 2023 and 2024 disclosures but emphasize different granularities: some sources enumerate family-foundation grants and Heritage receipts for 2023 [5] [1], while others assemble 2023–2024 election-cycle donor lists and PAC filings that reflect political responses to Project 2025 rather than programmatic funding to it [4] [6]. OpenSecrets-style entries and PAC donor listings show public filings for anti-Project 2025 groups and some cycle-specific donors, but they do not present a single, exhaustive ledger of corporate donations to Project 2025 in calendar-year 2023 or 2024 [4] [7]. The combined evidence indicates documented institutional and family funding during 2023–2024, but it stops short of proving widespread direct corporate corporate‑treasury donations labeled explicitly to “Project 2025” in public filings for every instance [3] [7].
4. Diverging interpretations and potential agendas in the reporting
Analyses portraying the funding as dominated by a narrow set of “billionaire fortunes” frame the story as concentrated elite influence and name specific families and foundations to underline that point [1]. Other pieces emphasize the role of financial intermediaries and DAFs and focus scrutiny on Fidelity, Schwab, and Vanguard as facilitators, which shifts attention from donor identities to the platforms enabling large flows [2]. These framing choices reflect different investigative priorities—one focusing on donor identity and ideological influence, the other on institutional practices—and both are backed by overlapping disclosure evidence. Readers should note that advocates aligned with Project 2025 and some financial firms could portray DAF use as routine philanthropy, while critics present it as a deliberate opacity vector; the underlying filings cited support both lines of scrutiny [1] [2].
5. Bottom line: what is established and what remains uncertain
What is established in the supplied analyses is that substantial funding connected to Project 2025-affiliated organizations flowed in 2023–2024 through family foundations, large conservative nonprofits, and donor-advised funds, and that public filings document many of those grants [1] [2]. What remains uncertain is the extent of direct corporate donations from corporate treasuries explicitly earmarked to Project 2025 in calendar-year 2023 or 2024, because many contributions appear routed through intermediaries or reported under broader organizational umbrellas that do not name Project 2025 explicitly [3] [7]. The evidence supports the claim of major institutional funding but leaves unresolved whether and how often corporations themselves wrote direct, labeled checks to Project 2025 during those two years.