A recent U.S. Senate subcommittee hearing has renewed debate over political funding transparency after claims that tens of millions of dollars in non-profit grants flowed to organisations active in anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) protests in Minnesota.
At a February 11, 2026 hearing chaired by Republican Senator Josh Hawley, witness Seamus Bruner of the Government Accountability Institute testified that analysis of publicly available IRS Form 990 filings showed more than US$60 million in grants directed to at least 14 organisations involved in immigration-related advocacy in Minnesota.
No criminal findings were made at the hearing. The organisations named have not been charged with wrongdoing. Several frame their activities as lawful civil rights advocacy and protest coordination protected under the U.S. Constitution.
Nevertheless, the testimony has intensified a broader policy debate: how transparent is political funding in the United States, and how should the public evaluate large-scale non-profit grant networks involved in contentious political movements?
What Was Alleged
According to Bruner's testimony, his organisation reviewed non-profit tax filings to identify grant flows to advocacy groups engaged in immigration-related protest activity. He described what he characterised as an "ecosystem" of major philanthropic networks distributing funds to legally registered non-profit entities that then support advocacy, legal defence, and organising.
Senator Hawley has since called for federal authorities to examine whether any laws were violated. At the time of writing, no formal findings or enforcement actions have been announced.
The dollar figure cited — approximately US$60 million — refers to cumulative grants over multiple years, based on publicly filed disclosures. Independent verification of the precise total would require review of the underlying tax documents.
The Organisations Involved
Groups referenced in reporting on the hearing include:
ACLU
CAIR
Open Society Foundations
Arabella Advisors
Tides Foundation
Ford Foundation
Rockefeller Foundation
These are established non-profit or philanthropic institutions. They publicly describe their missions as advancing civil liberties, social justice, human rights, or policy reform. None have been found by a court to have engaged in criminal activity in connection with the Minnesota protests.
Some conservative commentators have also referenced funding linked to businessman George Soros through the Open Society network, as well as grants associated with Neville Roy Singham. Both figures have been subjects of extensive media coverage in U.S. political debates. Allegations of improper foreign influence remain disputed and unproven in this context.
Understanding "Dark Money"
The controversy centres on what is often termed "dark money" — funds distributed through non-profit entities that are not required under U.S. law to publicly disclose individual donors.
This structure is not unique to progressive causes. Both conservative and liberal networks use 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) entities to fund advocacy. Donor-advised funds and fiscal sponsorship arrangements can make tracing the original source of funds difficult, even when the grants themselves are publicly reported.
Importantly, anonymity in non-profit giving is lawful under current U.S. tax law. The policy question is whether the legal framework provides adequate transparency for politically sensitive advocacy.
Protest Activity and Legal Boundaries
Minnesota has experienced sustained protests related to immigration enforcement. Some demonstrations have been described by law enforcement officials as involving disorderly or unlawful conduct. Other events have been peaceful.
There is currently no judicial finding that the named national philanthropic organisations directed, funded, or endorsed unlawful activity. Distinguishing between lawful advocacy funding and potential support for unlawful conduct is central to any legal investigation.
In U.S. law, funding civil rights litigation, protest training, or policy advocacy is generally protected activity. Any allegation of criminal conspiracy or racketeering would require a substantially higher evidentiary threshold than has so far been presented publicly.
The Broader Transparency Debate
The Senate hearing ultimately feeds into a long-running American debate over political funding transparency. Critics argue that large philanthropic networks — across the political spectrum — can shape public policy debates in ways that are opaque to voters. Defenders argue that non-profit anonymity protects donors from harassment and preserves freedom of association.
From an Australian perspective, the episode highlights structural differences between U.S. and Australian political finance law. Australia imposes disclosure requirements on political donations above certain thresholds, though non-profit advocacy groups operate under separate regulatory frameworks here as well.
Where the Issue Stands
At present:
No criminal charges have been announced in connection with the hearing.
The US$60 million figure derives from testimony referencing publicly filed tax documents.
The named organisations publicly describe their activities as lawful advocacy.
Allegations of coordinated misconduct remain untested in court.
The controversy underscores a broader governance question rather than a settled legal conclusion: should large-scale non-profit funding of politically charged movements be more transparent?
Until formal investigations, if any, produce findings, the matter remains a subject of political dispute rather than judicial determination.