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: How do grassroots protest movements typically get their funding?
Executive Summary
Grassroots protest movements receive money from a mix of small donors, crowdfunding platforms, NGOs and foundations, and sometimes political or partisan intermediaries, but public debate centers on claims that major foundations like Open Society gave large sums to groups tied to violent or extremist activity—an assertion appearing in multiple recent reports [1]. Other reporting notes crowdfunding and local giving as common channels, though those pieces do not directly document protest financing patterns [2] [3]. The largest claims about terror-linked funding come from investigative reports and partisan critiques published in September 2025; readers should weigh evidence, dates, and potential agendas [1] [4].
1. What the big claims say — an explosive accusation about foundations
Multiple September 2025 reports assert that the Open Society Foundations and certain liberal NGOs funneled tens of millions to organizations alleged to praise or enable violent protests, citing a figure over $80 million and listing nonprofits such as the Center for Third World Organizing and Sunrise Movement [1] [5]. These pieces present this total as a central fact, tying philanthropic grants to later protests and, in some narratives, to extremism. The reporting frames the transfers as problematic and grounds for scrutiny of tax-exempt giving. The claims are recent and repeat similar language across at least two investigative pieces from September 18 and September 24, 2025 [1] [4].
2. Crowdfunding and local donations — the quieter, verifiable channels
Separate coverage in September 2025 highlights crowdfunding and small-donor campaigns as routine fundraising pathways for civic and social initiatives, including student projects and local impact investments, but these articles do not directly document protest movement financing [2] [3]. Crowdfunding platforms and peer-to-peer giving are transparent, trackable, and widely used for community organizing, regional revitalization, and wartime civilian efforts, which indicates that grassroots mobilizations commonly rely on many small contributions rather than large, opaque grants. The absence of direct ties in these sources is notable and suggests diversity in funding models [2] [3].
3. NGO and foundation money — legitimate support or risky influence?
Reports from late September 2025 argue that mainstream foundations, including the Ford Foundation and other liberal funders, have bankrolled organizations later implicated in violent protests or civil unrest, prompting political scrutiny and calls for investigations into tax-exempt status and oversight [4] [1]. These accounts present grants as part of normal philanthropic support for advocacy, while critics interpret funding as enabling unlawful activity. The evidence cited focuses on grant amounts and recipient identities rather than documented causation between giving and violent acts, leaving open the question of intent and responsibility for grantees’ subsequent conduct [4] [1].
4. How narratives diverge — patterns of argument and agenda
The coverage from September 2025 shows two competing narratives: one that highlights grassroots funding as decentralized and crowd-driven, and another that emphasizes large foundation influence and potential links to violence [2] [1]. Sources making the largest accusations often come from investigative or partisan outlets that aim to prompt policy responses, while crowdfunding stories are neutral and descriptive. The timing and repetition of the foundation-focused claims in mid-to-late September suggest an organized effort to spotlight certain donors, which readers should interpret in light of possible political motives and the single-source nature of some allegations [1] [4].
5. Limits of the evidence — what these articles do and do not prove
The documents from September 2025 provide grant totals and recipient lists but stop short of showing direct proof that funding caused or deliberately supported terrorist or extremist violence; causal links are asserted or implied rather than proven with incident-level forensic tracing [1] [5]. Conversely, crowdfunding pieces show transparent transactional records but do not map those flows to protest organizing. In short, the strongest factual basis across these sources is for the existence of grants and public fundraising, not for definitive legal or operational links between donors and violent acts [1] [2] [3].
6. What’s missing — transparency, timelines, and independent audits
Key omissions across the September 2025 coverage include detailed grant agreements, timelines matching funding to specific events, and independent audits or legal findings establishing wrongdoing by donors or recipients [1] [4]. The crowdfunding reports underscore transparency where it exists, suggesting that verifying grassroots funding is feasible when platforms and records are available [2]. Absent those documents, readers and policymakers face uncertainty: allegations can prompt oversight, but substantiated conclusions require document-level evidence and impartial review.
7. Bottom line for readers and policymakers
The available September 2025 reporting shows that grassroots protest movements typically draw from diverse revenue streams—small donors and crowdfunding, nonprofits and foundations, and occasionally political intermediaries—and that recent claims tying large foundations to terrorism-linked groups rest on grant tallies and allegation rather than adjudicated proof [2] [1]. Responsible analysis requires combining transparent financial records, grant agreements, and independent audits before concluding that philanthropy intentionally financed extremist violence; meanwhile, crowdfunding coverage illustrates the common, verifiable path of many grassroots efforts [3] [1].