White supremacy remains profitable in America, illustrated by individuals raising large sums after racist or violent acts
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Crowdfunding and online donations have in several recent cases turned racist or violent viral acts into substantial financial windfalls, with one high-profile example raising between roughly $150,000 and more than $700,000 for the woman who hurled a racial slur at a 5-year-old in Rochester, Minnesota [1] [2] [3]. Researchers and watchdogs say extremists have long used platforms to monetize bigotry — the ADL documented $6.2 million raised across 324 extremist-linked campaigns from 2016–2022, and investigators flagged coordinated white-supremacist support behind the Hendrix fundraiser [4] [5].
1. Viral racism becomes portable cash: how one incident exposed a pattern
When a video of a white woman repeatedly using the N-word toward a Black child spread online, a GiveSendGo fundraiser created on her behalf accumulated hundreds of thousands of dollars — reports place the total variably from about $150,000 in the immediate aftermath to claims exceeding $700,000 as the campaign continued to draw donors [1] [2] [3]. Local and national outlets noted not only the size of donations but the tenor of many contributors, with donation names and comments reflecting overt racist language and Nazi imagery, prompting platforms to disable comments and sparking alarm among civil-society groups [2] [6] [3].
2. Extremist infrastructure and crowdfunding: the analytics
This is not an isolated novelty. The Anti-Defamation League’s research shows extremists and bigots have used crowdfunding repeatedly — between 2016 and 2022 such campaigns raised more than $6.2 million across 324 campaigns — and the ADL and other investigators traced white-supremacist organizing and influence into the Rochester fundraiser, including apparent coordination by known actors and groups [4] [5]. Experts told The Guardian and other outlets that small networks on social platforms can amplify campaigns, quickly funneling broad microdonations to a single beneficiary [3] [6].
3. Why donors give: motives and narratives behind the money
Reporting and watchdog commentary point to multiple motives: some donors explicitly rewarded the racist act as ideological solidarity; others framed donations as defending a persecuted individual from “cancel culture”; and a subset appears mobilized by organized white-supremacist actors using the incident to recruit and fundraise [3] [5] [7]. The ADL warned that these campaigns serve tactical functions: they finance legal defenses, pay for logistics, normalize hateful rhetoric and broadcast propaganda to potential recruits [4].
4. Platforms, policy gaps, and accountability
Coverage documents that platforms like GiveSendGo have become recurrent venues for extremism-linked fundraising and that platform moderation often lags or reacts only after public pressure; the ADL and journalists called for clearer anti-extremism policies and enforcement by crowdfunding services and financial intermediaries [4] [5]. In the Rochester case, platform safeguards — comment moderation, campaign takedowns or tighter identity checks — did not prevent large flows of funds before criticism mounted [2] [6].
5. Broader political context: why this matters beyond one video
Advocacy groups and analysts situate these fundraising episodes inside a wider political moment in which critics argue state and institutional shifts are normalizing or enabling exclusionary policies and rhetoric — for example, debates around Project 2025 and shifts in federal cultural and education policies are frequently described by civil-rights organizations and commentators as part of a broader retrenchment that benefits white-nationalist narratives [8] [9] [10]. Those sources argue that when extremists can convert social-media virality into resources, it amplifies their capacity to shape narratives and mobilize supporters [4] [8].
6. Disagreements, limits of reporting, and what remains unclear
Sources disagree on scale and causation: local fundraisers reported different totals at different times [1] [2] [11], and some experts call individual campaigns an “anomaly” while also warning such cases reveal systemic vulnerabilities [3] [6]. Available sources do not mention long-term audits of donor identities or final accounting for the Rochester fundraiser beyond initial reporting, and do not establish whether all donors acted from extremist motives rather than a mix of impulsive, ideological, or mercenary reasons [3] [2] [6].
7. What watchdogs recommend and what to watch next
Civil-society groups urge platforms, payment processors and regulators to adopt explicit anti-extremism rules, proactive monitoring and swift enforcement to choke funding streams; the ADL report lays out broader policy prescriptions and documents the use-cases of such funds [4] [5]. Observers say future indicators to watch include whether platforms change policies, whether financial intermediaries freeze accounts tied to violent or extremist campaigns, and whether similar viral incidents continue to translate into large-scale fundraising [4] [5].
Limitations: this account synthesizes reporting from news outlets and watchdogs provided above; it does not attempt to verify private donor motives or final disposition of funds beyond what those sources report [3] [4] [2] [5].