Inside America's Protest Machine: Who's Funding The Chaos?
A spreadsheet circulating on X, shared by @DataRepublican on June 13, 2025, appears to expose a coordinated network of activist groups orchestrating monthly protests across the United States—including the recent 'Tesla Takedown' on February 15, 2025.
The document identifies multiple organizations—reportedly 22 in total, according to the original post—including CHIRLA, which allegedly received $34 million in grants, and progressive advocacy arms like Vote Save America. The coordination suggests these demonstrations are far from spontaneous grassroots activism.
The spreadsheet, corroborated by posts from journalist @AsraNomani, shows a pattern of overlapping organizers and synchronized nationwide protest dates.
Critics on X, including @DataRepublican, have labeled the network a potential 'color revolution'—a term historically associated with uprisings like Ukraine's 2004 Orange Revolution, where foreign-funded NGOs were widely believed to have played a role.
A 2016 article in the Journal of Democracy discussed how NGO networks can sometimes serve as soft-power instruments for geopolitical influence, lending context to the comparison.
Concerns over foreign involvement have surfaced alongside allegations that Neville Singham, a controversial activist and donor, is linked to groups behind the June 8–9 protests, as previously reported by The Dallas Express.
Multiple outlets have accused Singham of having ties to entities aligned with Chinese Communist Party (CCP) interests, though no formal charges or direct financial links have been proven. These reports have nonetheless intensified scrutiny of nonprofit funding channels.
Taxpayer dollars may also be fueling the activity. According to @DataRepublican's analysis of public filings, CHIRLA's grant income surged from $12 million to $34 million within a year.
Other organizations, such as the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL), are said to operate with opaque donor networks.
The failed H.R. 5128 Nonprofit Transparency Act of 2023, which aimed to require 501(c)(3) nonprofits to disclose foreign donations, left a loophole that critics say enables this kind of funding.
Watchdog groups have long warned that many nonprofits do not fully comply with donor transparency standards, allowing millions to circulate with limited federal oversight.
Users on X expressed outrage. @JKash000 asked, 'Why is a nonprofit charity funding riots against American citizens?' Another user, @TonyDGianino, posted, 'By paying taxes, we're funding the destruction of our own country.'
Such reactions reflect mounting public distrust in nonprofit and government oversight, with increasing calls for audits and federal investigations. 'The IRS needs to step in,' wrote @SaveUSAKitty.
This controversy goes beyond isolated demonstrations—it raises questions of influence and intent. The spreadsheet's pattern of methodically scheduled, nationwide events mirrors tactics seen in past politically motivated revolutions.
As @realMAG1775 noted, drawing clear lines between domestic billionaire donors and alleged foreign-linked operatives like Singham is crucial.
The involvement of platforms such as ActBlue and affiliated PACs suggests a convergence of financial and ideological motives.
Congress must act. Weak regulatory oversight has allowed what @DataRepublican describes as a 'well-oiled machine' to exploit DHS grants and route money through nonprofits, potentially turning taxpayer funds into fuel for political agitation. Proposed reforms—such as mandatory disclosure of foreign donations and stricter IRS compliance audits—could help restore accountability.
Until then, Americans may be unknowingly bankrolling a protest apparatus with global ambitions.
As the nation watches, one question remains: Are these uprisings authentic expressions of dissent—or orchestrated campaigns to destabilize American society?
The emerging evidence increasingly points to the latter—and demands urgent scrutiny.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
3 days ago
- Miami Herald
Senate proposes big change to Social Security, SALT income tax deduction
The Senate Finance Committee this week unveiled its proposed tax provisions for inclusion in the budget reconciliation bill currently under consideration in Congress. The House of Representatives passed its version of the bill, H.R. 1, known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, in May. Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter The Senate is now working on its own version, which must meet specific requirements to qualify for reconciliation. This would allow it to bypass the filibuster and pass with a simple majority vote, according to a report by the Journal of Accountancy. The goal? Passage by July 4. Among the provisions for individuals in the Senate version of the bill that are different from the House version, several stand out. Harold Mendoza The Senate bill, like its House counterpart, would permanently establish the expanded standard deduction amounts enacted under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). Starting in tax year 2026, the standard deduction would be set at $16,000 for single filers, $24,000 for heads of household, and $32,000 for married couples filing jointly, with future adjustments for inflation. Related: Social Security income tax deduction hits major roadblock The Senate proposal also includes a temporary tax break for older Americans: a $6,000 deduction for individuals age 65 and older. The House version offered only a $4,000 "senior bonus" deduction. The Senate's senior deduction would begin to phase out at a modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) of $75,000 for single filers and $150,000 for joint filers, and would apply from 2025 through 2028. Tax expert Ted Sarenski notes that whether the additional senior deduction is $4,000 or $6,000, for joint filers with both spouses over 65, this would result in a standard deduction of $38,000 or $42,000 – amounts that exceed what the majority of seniors who currently itemize could reach, especially with the state and local tax (SALT) deduction capped at $10,000. Related: How the IRS taxes Social Security income in retirement However, Sarenski warns of potential challenges ahead: "The bigger issue: come 2028 when this bonus is set to disappear, there will be tremendous squawking about a $8,000 or $12,000 drop in the standard deduction like we see now with proposed Medicaid cutbacks today which are merely trying to put Medicaid back where it was before COVID." Under current law, the deduction for state and local taxes (SALT) is capped at $10,000. The original House bill proposed raising that cap to $30,000, but a manager's amendment increased it further – to $40,000 per household ($20,000 for married individuals filing separately), effective in 2025. Related: SALT income tax deduction takes critical step forward The Senate version, by contrast, would keep the SALT deduction cap at $10,000 and make that limit permanent. It also includes provisions to prevent taxpayers from using workaround strategies to bypass the cap. However, this provision remains a point of negotiation between the chambers. Senate Republicans, led by Majority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.), have signaled that the $10,000 cap is a negotiating position rather than a final offer, suggesting a compromise could land somewhere between the House and Senate proposals. Still, members of the House SALT Caucus, including Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), are holding firm on the $40,000 cap. Lawler called the Senate proposal "DEAD ON ARRIVAL" and reiterated, "$40,000 is the deal – I will not accept a penny less." Sarenski emphasized that the SALT provision "is a concern for residents of high tax states like California, New York, Connecticut, etc." He anticipates that if the Senate moves to keep the cap at $10,000, "it may not pass the House," and expects "there will be a compromise somewhere in the middle of those two figures." More Social Security: Jean Chatzky sends strong message on 401(k)s, Social SecurityDave Ramsey's blunt advice regarding Social Security and 401(k)sSuze Orman addresses growing Social Security problem Harold Eisenberg, the founder and CEO of WealthTec, takes a more critical view of the overall legislation, describing the One Big Beautiful Bill as "just not sound tax policy on many levels" with "too much politics in this proposed legislation." He characterizes the temporary senior tax break as "gimmicky," though notes that this very quality "means some form of it likely passes." On the SALT deduction, Eisenberg argues that the limitation "is targeted primarily at taxpayers in Blue states, so on its face is discriminatory." The prospects for these tax changes remain uncertain, with the legislative path forward depending heavily on House dynamics. "The chances of any of these changes rests with the house," said Sarenski. "The senators can pass whatever they agree on. The house is the issue with Republicans not voting in tandem." Tax professional George Papadopoulos takes a more cautious approach to predicting outcomes, noting his long experience with the legislative process: "I have been around for a while and long enough to not really get into pending legislation matters. I know in general what is on the table and stay away from guessing what will actually be signed into law. When we actually have a law then it is time to get into analyzing it." Related: These are the most tax-friendly states if you work in retirement Despite his general reluctance to speculate, Papadopoulos does offer some measured predictions based on political realities. He expects the $10,000 SALT deduction cap will increase "but not more than doubling," suggesting a final figure well below the House's proposed $40,000 limit. He also anticipates "some form of senior deduction" will ultimately be included, driven by the political influence of older voters as "that voting block is so large." However, he expects the income thresholds for phasing out the senior deduction may be set higher than currently proposed. Eisenberg, despite his self-described role as a "federal tax policy cynic," also weighs in on the political dynamics. He believes that with the narrow House Republican majority, "keeping the SALT limitation at $10K would likely kill the bill in the house" because "too many Republicans in 'swing districts' in the Blue states are depending on raising that cap." Reflecting on the complex nature of tax legislation, Papadopoulos said: "Whoever said negotiating tax legislation is like making sausage was right." Got questions about retirement, email What is a pledged asset line? The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
Newsweek
3 days ago
- Newsweek
Clarence Thomas Knocks Landmark Supreme Court LGBTQ+ Ruling—'Incorrect'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas criticized a landmark LGBTQ+ rights case as being decided based on "incorrect" reasoning in a new ruling issued on Wednesday. Newsweek reached out to the court for comment via its public information office email on Wednesday. Why It Matters The Supreme Court has considerable authority to interpret the laws of the United States, and its recent rulings had extensive impact on key policies around LGBTQ+ rights. Thomas, viewed as among the court's most conservative justices, has been critical of these rulings, such as in Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the court ruled the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination against employees on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity. What To Know The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued their latest case on LGBTQ+ rights in U.S. v. Skrmetti, upholding a Tennessee law that bars gender-affirming care for transgender youth. Plaintiffs in the case argued the law benefits the Equal Protection Clause because it prohibits transgender minors from receiving hormones based on their biological sex; a transgender boy would not be able to receive testosterone, but the law does not apply to cisgender boys, those who identify with their birth gender. The court wrote in the majority opinion that the reasoning from the Bostock case does not back up their view. Thomas, in a concurring opinion, went further and took aim at the court's ruling in the 2020 Bostock ruling. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas sits during a group photo of the jurists on April 23, 2021, in Washington, D.C. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas sits during a group photo of the jurists on April 23, 2021, in Washington, D.C. Erin Schaff-Pool/Getty Images Thomas wrote that he believes the "Bostock majority's logic 'fails on its own terms.'" "While the majority concludes that SB1 does not discriminate based on sex, even under Bostock's incorrect reasoning, I would make clear that, in constitutional challenges, courts need not engage Bostock at all," he wrote. Thomas dissented from the majority in the original Bostock ruling, joining an opinion penned by Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote, "There is only one word for what the Court has done today: legislation. The document that the Court releases is in the form of a judicial opinion interpreting a statute, but that is deceptive." Alito wrote at the time that while a bill extending those protections passed the House of Representatives, it had stalled in the Senate. "Title VII's prohibition of discrimination because of 'sex; still means what it has always meant. But the Court is not deterred by these constitutional niceties. Usurping the constitutional authority of the other branches, the Court has essentially taken H.R. 5's provision on employment discrimination and issued it under the guise of statutory interpretation," the dissent reads. Thomas has also expressed interest in revisiting the court's 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which said same-sex couples have marriage rights under the Equal Protection Clause. He wrote in June 2022—after the High Court ruled to overturn Roe v. Wade—the case that guaranteed reproductive rights across the country—that he wanted to see the court revisit Obergefell. "We have a duty to 'correct the error' established in those precedents," Thomas wrote. What People Are Saying In the Skrmetti ruling, the High Court wrote: "We have not yet considered whether Bostock's reasoning reaches beyond the Title VII context, and we need not do so here. For reasons we have already explained, changing a minor's sex or transgender status does not alter the application of SB1." Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in Wednesday's ruling: "Yet the majority refuses to call a spade a spade. Instead, it obfuscates a sex classification that is plain on the face of this statute, all to avoid the mere possibility that a different court could strike down SB1, or categorical healthcare bans like it." What Happens Next It is unclear if the Supreme Court will revisit the precedents set in the 2015 Obergefell ruling.
Black America Web
4 days ago
- Black America Web
DACA Turns 13 In Uncertain Times, As Obama Voices Support
Source: Win McNamee / Getty The 13th anniversary of the DACA program is celebrated as it faces uncertainty under the Trump Administration. On Sunday (June 15), the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program celebrated 13 years of existence after its creation during the administration of former President Barack Obama. It comes as the administration of President Donald Trump has endorsed numerous raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents nationwide, and has worked to end the program outright, doing so for six months in his first term. In a post on X, formerly Twitter, Obama honored the day and the program, which was created to provide a pathway to aid the young children of immigrants to becoming citizens and to protect them from deportation. 'Thirteen years ago, my administration acted to protect young people who were American in every single way but one: on paper,' the former president began in the post. 'DACA was an example of how we can be a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws. And it's an example worth remembering today, when families with similar backgrounds who just want to live, work, and support their communities, are being demonized and treated as enemies.' Obama concluded, 'We can fix our broken immigration system while still recognizing our common humanity and treating each other with dignity and respect. In fact, it's the only way we ever will.' Obama was joined by a slew of other Democratic lawmakers voicing their own support for DACA on social media, and who called for the passage of the bipartisan H.R. 1589 bill, commonly referred to as the 'American Dream and Promise Act'. The bill, if passed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate, would codify parts of DACA into federal law. The 5th Circuit Court ruled against DACA being continued in full in January, but allowed applications for renewal to continue. The Trump Administration recently received a verdict in its favor from the Supreme Court, 7-2, to remove Temporary Protected Status from over 500,000 immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela last month drawing ire from advocates. DACA and the issue of protecting young immigrants have taken center stage again within the past week, as protesters decrying the deportations and policies of ICE outside of a federal building in downtown Los Angeles were confronted by local police. President Donald Trump moved to send in 2,000 members of the National Guard, and subsequently 200 Marines without approval from California Governor Gavin Newsom or Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass. DACA Turns 13 In Uncertain Times, As Obama Voices Support was originally published on Black America Web Featured Video CLOSE
