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: Who are the top individual donors to Project 2025 and their donation amounts?
Executive Summary
Available reporting identifies six principal donor families and individuals who have funneled substantial sums into Project 2025-affiliated groups since 2020, led by the Bradley Family and including Barre Seid, the Scaife Family, Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein, Charles G. Koch, and the Coors Family. Reported ranges place total giving from these fortunes at more than $120 million, with individual reported contributions ranging from about $2.7 million to $52.9 million [1].
1. Who the coverage names as the big money behind Project 2025—and the dollar headlines that follow
Multiple investigative pieces converge on a common roster of wealthy families and individuals as the top financiers of Project 2025-related advisory groups and allied organizations. The names consistently listed are the Bradley Family ($52.9 million), Barre Seid ($22.4 million), the Scaife Family ($21.5 million), Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein ($13 million), Charles G. Koch ($9.6 million), and the Coors Family ($2.7 million); those totals are presented as minimums and are framed as sums given to Project 2025 groups since 2020 [1]. These figures are reported together with an aggregate claim that "at least six family fortunes have funneled over $120 million" into the project’s advisory apparatus, a framing that emphasizes concentration of funding among a small set of established conservative donors and philanthropic networks [1].
2. How reporters assembled that donor list—and what the disclosures actually show
The coverage relies on public records, think-tank disclosures, and donor-revealing filings aggregated by investigative reporters to attribute giving to Project 2025-affiliated initiatives. The headline dollar figures are presented as "at least" amounts, indicating they are conservative tallies or minimums rather than finalized totals. The same reporting notes ties between contributors and organizations listed on Project 2025 advisory boards, but individual gifts are often routed through foundations, donor-advised funds, or intermediary nonprofits, complicating direct attribution. Where a specific amount is cited for a name—such as the Bradley Family’s $52.9 million—reporters treat that as the minimum traceable sum to groups identified with Project 2025 work since 2020 [1].
3. What alternative or narrower data sources add—and where they fall short
Other documented sources referenced in the analysis do not provide top-donor lists and instead profile organizational contributors, affiliated companies, or small-dollar PAC supporters. One dataset lists a broad roster of companies linked to Project 2025 or to candidates associated with it but does not quantify individual donor wealth or itemized gift totals to Project 2025 itself. Another source catalogs small individual donors to a PAC formed to oppose Project 2025, with contributions in the $500–$5,000 range, which is a separate fundraising stream and not evidence of the large-family funding claims [2] [3] [4] [5]. Those sources underscore that public records are fragmented across entity types and cycles, leaving room for differing framings and incomplete tallies.
4. Where dates and publication timing matter to interpreting the claims
The principal donor totals are repeatedly tied to a reporting date of August 14, 2024, which is the timestamp attached to the core investigative piece naming the six fortunes [1]. Subsequent datasets and organizational profiles carry later dates in 2025 but do not contradict the original donor roster; instead they either provide expanded context on organizational ties or present unrelated donor rolls. The August 2024 reporting functions as the primary attribution point for the dollar amounts and the "over $120 million" aggregate; later materials reiterate organizational involvement or offer complementary data without revising the headline donor totals [1].
5. What remains uncertain and what would be needed to close the gaps
The available analyses present minimum contribution figures tied to named families and individuals, yet they do not conclusively prove that every dollar listed was intended specifically for Project 2025 policy design rather than for allied groups or general institutional support. The reporting acknowledges that donations flow through foundations and intermediaries, making exact attribution difficult without granular, time-stamped giving records from donors or recipient organizations. A full accounting would require direct donor disclosures, audited gift ledgers from recipient organizations, or a consolidated database mapping every dollar from donor entity to the specific Project 2025 advisory or operational unit [1] [3].
6. How to read the coverage: motives, agendas, and corroboration needs
The investigative pieces frame the funding story to highlight concentration of conservative philanthropic power behind a policy project, and that framing aligns with concerns by opponents about influence; supporters have an incentive to emphasize grassroots or organizational legitimacy. The reporting does not present contested denials from donors in the analyses provided here, nor does it show contradictory donor tallies from independent auditors. Readers should treat the cited totals as well-documented minimums that illuminate major funders while recognizing that exact attribution and purpose of each gift remain partly unresolved without primary accounting from donors and recipients [1] [2] [3].