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: What are the key differences between George Soros' Open Society Foundations and other major philanthropic organizations?
Executive Summary
Open Society Foundations (OSF) distinguishes itself from many large philanthropies through a stated emphasis on long-term, unrestricted support for human rights, democratic principles, and inequality-focused work, combined with an explicit willingness to engage in what it calls "political philanthropy." Critics and governments have contested this approach, producing bans, investigations, and partisan attacks that shape both OSF's strategy and public perception [1] [2] [3].
1. Why OSF’s mission reads more like political strategy than charity
Open Society Foundations frames its work around promoting democracy, justice, and human rights, positioning grants as tools to challenge authoritarianism and systemic inequality rather than solely funding service delivery or scientific research. This self-description and programmatic emphasis on democratic resilience and rights-based advocacy set OSF apart from foundations that primarily focus on health, education, or scientific innovation, and it signals an overtly political aim: bolstering civil society actors who contest power structures. That orientation is repeatedly noted across recent internal and external accounts [1] [2] [4].
2. Long-term, unrestricted funding as a strategic differentiator
OSF increasingly emphasizes multiyear, flexible commitments and an operating model that gives partners discretion over how to use funds, framing this as necessary for sustained social change. This contrasts with many grantmakers that prefer short-term, project-specific funding tied to measurable outputs. OSF’s approach—described as enabling partners to invest in long-term action—aims to build capacity and resilience in civil society, particularly in fragile or repressive contexts where predictable support is scarce [5] [6].
3. A global footprint that targets the Global South and contested spaces
OSF has historically maintained a global presence and has been reported to intensify focus on Africa and the Global South, reflecting a strategic pivot toward regions where democratic institutions and rights defenders face acute pressures. This international scope and willingness to operate in politically contested environments differ from many philanthropies that concentrate grantmaking domestically or prioritize less controversial development work. The geographic emphasis amplifies OSF’s role as a funder willing to confront entrenched power relations abroad [7] [8].
4. Organizational change: downsizing, new models, and adaptive strategy
Recent internal reforms describe OSF adopting a new operating model—"opportunity teams" and streamlined staffing—intended to increase adaptability and responsiveness to emergent challenges like environmental defenders and inequality. Reports of staff reductions and structural shifts reflect both strategic reorientation and responses to external pressures, illustrating a foundation attempting to balance agility with sustained commitments to partners. Those organizational choices mark a tactical difference from larger, bureaucratically stable foundations [5] [6].
5. The backlash: legal probes, bans, and partisan narratives
OSF’s explicit political focus has provoked legal and political pushback, including bans, restrictions, and investigations in some countries, and sustained targeting by right-wing movements and conspiracy narratives. That backlash both evidences the foundation’s capacity to influence contentious public debates and constrains its operational space, forcing strategic recalibrations and shaping public perceptions. The pattern of being politically contested is a distinguishing operational risk compared with less politically engaged philanthropic actors [3] [7].
6. Issue mix: inequality, environmental defenders, and human rights defenders
OSF’s programmatic emphasis has shifted toward inequality and protection of environmental defenders, alongside enduring investments in human rights work. This portfolio blends systemic political change goals with support for frontline defenders, diverging from major philanthropies that often prioritize technical, sectoral interventions such as global health, education, or biomedical research. That thematic blend reflects a normative commitment to open societies as both a political project and social-policy agenda [6] [4].
7. Multiple perspectives and strategic ambiguity—strengths and vulnerabilities
Supporters argue OSF’s model—long-term, flexible funding to politically engaged civil society—creates durable capacity to defend democratic norms. Opponents frame the same features as political interference or ideologically driven grantmaking. OSF’s pivot to new operating models and regional priorities suggests adaptive learning, while persistent political targeting indicates vulnerabilities inherent in politicized philanthropy. These competing views explain why OSF is simultaneously influential, embattled, and distinct from philanthropic organizations that avoid overt political engagement [2] [3].