Introduction and Overview
When Charities Betray America: How “Pro-Palestinian” Protest Groups Promote Anti-Americanism is a special report by the Capital Research Center (CRC) co-authored by investigative researcher Ryan Mauro. This comprehensive report examines how certain U.S.-based nonprofits and charity-linked activist groups have allegedly “morphed” into a movement that is vehemently anti-American and openly advocates sedition and violence on U.S. soilcapitalresearch.orgcapitalresearch.org. The report’s data analysis of social media content shows a dramatic spike in extremist rhetoric since the Hamas terrorist attacks of October 7, 2023. For example, thousands of posts by roughly 496 of the most active “pro-Palestinian” organizations and activists in the U.S. revealed a 3,000% surge in calls for violence and a 186% increase in the use of anti-American and anti-police phrases after October 7, 2023capitalresearch.org. CRC’s findings suggest that many of these radical actors are operating under the cover of domestic nonprofit organizations – including 501(c)(3) charities and university-based groups – effectively “betraying” American institutions by exploiting the privileges of charitable status to undermine the nation’s government and founding principlescapitalresearch.orgcapitalresearch.org.
Radicalization of a “Pro-Palestinian” Movement
The CRC report contends that the self-described “pro-Palestinian” protest movement in the U.S. has been overtaken by a broader anti-American, anti-Western ideology. While these activists claim to champion the Palestinian cause, the most prominent organizations and influencers in the movement routinely demonize the United States – to the point of referring to themselves as “seditionists,” “insurgents,” and “guerrillas” in their own communicationscapitalresearch.org. According to the report, this coalition of roughly 500 groups and individuals espouses a hostile agenda that “incites instability, national security threats, economic sabotage, and hateful” behavior threatening U.S. civil societycapitalresearch.org. Their rhetoric and actions suggest they see America not as a legitimate nation but as an enemy to be attacked from within. In fact, a mainstream belief among these activists is that the United States – like Israel – is a “settler-colonial” state with no right to existcapitalresearch.org. Many posts explicitly state that just as they seek to eliminate Israel, they also seek to abolish the United States and its “colonial borders,” to be replaced by “Turtle Island,” a mythologized pre-colonial entitycapitalresearch.org. In their narrative, Israel is often portrayed as merely an appendage of a villainous United States; thus, anti-Israel hatred is “commonly rooted in anti-Americanism, anti-Westernism, and anti-capitalism,” effectively blending the two targetscapitalresearch.org.
This radical anti-American shift is evident in the slogans popularized since late 2023. Protest chants like “Globalize the intifada” and “Bring the War Home” have been widely adopted, urging activists to bring violent resistance onto U.S. soilcapitalresearch.orgcapitalresearch.org. The report notes that these phrases, originally referring to violent uprisings overseas, are now used as “explicit calls for domestic terrorism” in Americacapitalresearch.org. For example, the slogan “globalize the intifada” was displayed at protest encampments in the U.S. accompanied by guerrilla-style actions (occupying public spaces and clashing on campuses) and was even invoked to justify an act of vandalism against the German Consulate in New York on June 12, 2024capitalresearch.org. Likewise, on Election Day (November 5, 2024), protesters hung a banner reading “Bring the War Home” alongside a burning American flag on a Brooklyn bridge – an unmistakable call to “destroy the imperial death machine from the inside,” i.e. to sabotage the United States internallycapitalresearch.org. Such examples illustrate how post-2023 protests have escalated from policy grievances to overt anti-U.S. agitation, including celebrating violence. Activists praised an anti-Semitic mob attack in Amsterdam as an “intifada in Europe,” and in the U.S. they defaced monuments (e.g. a Harvard University statue) as acts of war brought onto American turfcapitalresearch.orgcapitalresearch.org. Law enforcement has become another prime target: protest groups routinely equate American police with Israeli “occupation forces,” applauding assaults on Israeli soldiers and encouraging similar “resistance” against U.S. policecapitalresearch.orgcapitalresearch.org. The report documents how chants like “cops are pigs” and “f** the police”* became common at campus demonstrations, with some activists calling for the abolition of police altogethercapitalresearch.org. A particularly extreme cell, Unity of Fields (formerly “Palestine Action US”), openly promotes crimes against police and brags about attacks on NYPD facilities. In one October 2024 incident, Unity of Fields took responsibility for vandalizing a New York police station, warning: “we will be back again and again” until their demands are metcapitalresearch.org. The same group celebrated the murder of American police officers, declaring “may no cop rest peacefully” and deriding the United States as “AmeriKKKa,” a slur equating America with the KKK and implying a moral imperative to defeat the U.S. as one would vanquish white supremacistscapitalresearch.orgcapitalresearch.org.
Organizations and Coalitions Behind the Agitation
CRC’s investigation identified 78 key organizations (and 30 influential individuals) at the core of this radical networkcapitalresearch.org. These are the groups most responsible for spreading toxic anti-American or anti-police rhetoric online and organizing militant protests. Importantly, many operate under benign-sounding nonprofits – often legally registered charities or affiliated with charitable institutions – which grants them legitimacy, funding, and protection. According to the report, it would surprise most Americans to learn “so many charities [are] assisting” this radical activism, given that such behavior is far from the public’s image of charitable workcapitalresearch.org. Yet the data show a significant overlap between extremist protest groups and the nonprofit sector:
- Campus Chapters: Nearly half (35) of the 78 groups are student chapters at universitiescapitalresearch.org. This means colleges (some private, some public) have officially recognized these groups, often providing them funding via student activity fees and the use of campus facilities. In essence, taxpayer-funded or tax-exempt educational institutions are hosting and subsidizing some of the most extreme activistscapitalresearch.org. A prime example is the network of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) chapters across numerous campuses, which propagate the “from the river to the sea” and anti-America messages under the banner of student organization. These campus groups benefit from the prestige and resources of their schools while pushing an agenda hostile to the schools’ home country.
- 501(c)(3) Charitable Organizations: 26 of the groups (one-third of the 78) are operating as IRS-approved 501(c)(3) charities or as fiscally sponsored projects of 501(c)(3) charitiescapitalresearch.org. Being a registered charity confers significant benefits: tax-deductible donations, access to foundation grants, and an assumption of public benefit. The report highlights several instances of radical groups hiding within charitable legal structures. For example, Within Our Lifetime (WOL) – a militant New York City protest group known for its “Globalize the Intifada” rallies – is not an independent nonprofit but operates through the WESPAC Foundation, a New York-based 501(c)(3) that acts as its fiscal sponsorcapitalresearch.org. Similarly, the Palestinian Youth Movement (PYM), a self-described “transnational… grassroots movement of young Palestinians,” enjoys 501(c)(3) status by being a project of the WESPAC Foundationcapitalresearch.org. In another case, American Muslims for Palestine (AMP), a leading advocacy group, does not itself have a public charity determination; instead, AMP is fiscally sponsored by the Americans for Justice in Palestine Educational Foundation, a registered charitycapitalresearch.org. This arrangement allows AMP’s activities – which have included highly charged campus events and anti-Israel propaganda – to be underwritten by tax-exempt funds. Even some high-profile national nonprofits are implicated. Code Pink, for instance, is a well-known 501(c)(3) organization (famous as an anti-war feminist group) that the report identifies as a key player in the coalition. Despite its peace-focused branding, Code Pink’s agenda “frequently aligns with radical ideologies that undermine the core principles of American foreign policy”capitalresearch.org. The report notes that Code Pink’s leaders have links to authoritarian regimes (one co-founder is married to a businessman tied to the Chinese Communist Party) and that the group often portrays America as the aggressor while defending hostile states like China, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea as “victims” of U.S. imperialismcapitalresearch.orgcapitalresearch.org. In 2024, Code Pink emerged as “a leading force in organizing protests, events, and disruptive actions” across the country – especially in Washington, DC – explicitly seeking to “disrupt and shame” U.S. politicians and diplomats in the name of dismantling the “American empire”capitalresearch.org. Its activists engaged in countless disruptions of government hearings and political rallies, solidifying Code Pink’s image as an overtly anti-American organizationcapitalresearch.org. On multiple occasions, Code Pink members have interrupted official proceedings: for example, in August 2024 they crashed the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, unfurling a “Free Palestine” banner on the convention floor and yelling that “the United States is responsible for killing women and children in Gaza,” until they were removed by policecapitalresearch.orgcapitalresearch.org. In another instance, Code Pink protesters were arrested after disrupting a U.S. Senate hearing on global security threatscapitalresearch.org. The group even heckled Vice President Kamala Harris during a speech, demanding an end to U.S. support for Israelcapitalresearch.org. These actions underscore how a tax-exempt charity is directly challenging and undermining American officials in public forums.
- 501(c)(4) “Social Welfare” Groups: The analysis found 2 entities structured as 501(c)(4) nonprofitscapitalresearch.org. Such organizations (unlike charities) are allowed more political activity, but they are still tax-exempt and cannot engage in unlawful aims. An example in this milieu is the Alliance for Global Justice (AfGJ) – not listed among the 78 groups, but mentioned as a facilitating organization – which is a 501(c)(3) that acts as a fiscal sponsor for many radical projects (including the pro-Palestinian militant network Samidoun). AfGJ has recently faced serious repercussions: major banks and payment processors have severed ties with it, and the chairman of the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee publicly declared that AfGJ should be stripped of its tax-exempt statuscapitalresearch.org. This indicates growing scrutiny on the financial vehicles supporting extremist activism.
- Unknown or Unregistered Groups: 15 of the 78 groups studied had no clear legal status on recordcapitalresearch.org. Some may be informal associations or ad hoc coalitions. One example is Unity of Fields (UoF), the shadowy collective promoting violent direct actions. UoF is effectively the U.S. wing of a British activist network (Palestine Action) and is not a registered nonprofit at allcapitalresearch.org. Despite lacking legal status, UoF and similar groups often partner with or receive support from the above-mentioned charities and campaigns.
Undermining U.S. Government and Principles
The report provides extensive evidence of how these organizations and their coalitions allegedly undermine American institutions and core principles. Their tactics range from incendiary propaganda to direct interference with civic processes:
- Delegitimizing America’s Existence: A recurrent theme is the rejection of the United States’ moral and legal right to exist. Activists in this movement routinely refer to the U.S. as “the so-called United States” or by pejoratives like “AmeriKKKa,” framing the country as fundamentally illegitimate and rooted in white supremacycapitalresearch.orgcapitalresearch.org. For instance, on July 4, 2024 (U.S. Independence Day), Code Pink issued a public statement declaring, “We do not celebrate the independence of [a] settler colonial fascist United States. American ‘independence’ comes at the expense of people across the world… Today, we demand independence from U.S. imperialism for [Palestine and numerous countries].”capitalresearch.org. By condemning America’s founding holiday and calling the U.S. a “fascist” colonizer, the activists explicitly reject the nation’s founding principles of liberty and self-governance. A Code Pink organizer was even quoted acknowledging that “Our resistance to U.S. imperialism makes us an enemy” of the United Statescapitalresearch.org. Far from dissenting within the system, these actors proudly identify as adversaries to America’s government and “sabotage the oppressive U.S. system from within” as a “moral imperative”capitalresearch.org.
- Inciting Sedition and Violence: The report characterizes much of the movement’s rhetoric as incitement to lawlessness and insurrection. Slogans like “bring the war home” are essentially calls to wage war against the U.S. government on American soilcapitalresearch.org. The report documents that after October 2023, posts endorsing violent resistance (e.g. praising uprisings or urging attacks on infrastructure) skyrocketed by 3,000% compared to the previous yearcapitalresearch.orgcapitalresearch.org. Specific incidents underscore this trend: activists vandalizing government property (such as spray-painting monuments and defacing a police memorial mural in Philadelphia) were lauded by movement leaders as acts of justified rebellioncapitalresearch.org. In one alarming example, Unity of Fields praised those who smashed windows at Harvard University and defaced statues, explicitly framing it as having “brought the war home” in retaliation for U.S. “genocide” abroadcapitalresearch.org. The movement’s communications often blur the line between advocacy and criminal conspiracy – some social media channels actually instruct followers on disrupting transportation, occupying public spaces, and other illegal tactics to hinder government operationscapitalresearch.org. CRC’s report points out that this crosses a legal line: decades-old IRS guidance (cited in the report) holds that organizing protests to “deliberately block traffic, disrupt the work of government, and prevent the movement of supplies” indicates an illegal purpose incompatible with charitable statuscapitalresearch.org. In other words, a nonprofit cannot lawfully incite people to break laws or shut down government functions without risking its tax exemptioncapitalresearch.org.
- Aligning with Foreign Adversaries: The network described does not limit its antagonism to U.S. policy on Israel. The report observes that these activists increasingly side with America’s adversaries globally as part of a generalized anti-Western stancecapitalresearch.org. They portray virtually any opponent of the U.S. (from Islamist militants to authoritarian regimes) as righteous “resistance” fighters, while branding the U.S. as “the imperialist aggressor.” For example, Code Pink and its allies have defended the actions of the Chinese Communist Party, Iran’s theocracy, and other anti-American governments, painting U.S. criticism of those regimes as unwarranted imperialismcapitalresearch.orgcapitalresearch.org. In protest messaging, flags of groups like Hamas or slogans supporting Hezbollah often appear alongside anti-U.S. chants, signaling ideological alignment with foreign terrorist organizations that seek America’s harmcapitalresearch.org. During a joint rally or online event with The People’s Forum (a pro-Beijing “pacifist” group), Code Pink speakers lambasted U.S. media (even the New York Times) as pro-America propaganda, and one speaker went so far as to insult the memory of fallen U.S. soldiers on Memorial Day, depicting American war dead as mere “victims of imperialism” rather than heroescapitalresearch.org. Such rhetoric directly undermines the honor of American institutions (like the military) and aligns narratively with hostile foreign propaganda.
- Subverting Democratic Institutions: Through disruptions and intimidation, these groups also undermine the functioning of American democratic institutions and civil discourse. Their organized disruptions of congressional hearings, political conventions, and speeches by public officials represent attempts to silence or derail U.S. leaders rather than engage in lawful protest. By invading the stage at the DNC and interrupting a sitting Vice President’s event, for instance, activists not only exercised free speech but deliberately sought to embarrass and delegitimize elected officialscapitalresearch.orgcapitalresearch.org. These stunts erode the norms of respectful dialogue and can chill the ability of officials to communicate with constituents. On campuses, the more extreme protest chapters often create an atmosphere of intimidation, where speakers who defend U.S. policy or support Israel are shouted down or physically threatened, effectively undermining academic freedom and open debate.
Legal and Political Frameworks Enabling Operation
One of the most striking aspects highlighted by “When Charities Betray America” is how the U.S. legal and institutional framework has inadvertently allowed these groups to thrive. America’s robust protections for free speech and association, along with the broad leeway given to nonprofit organizations, provide the space in which these actors operate. Many of the organizations in question leverage 501(c)(3) charitable status, 501(c)(4) social welfare status, or public university affiliation as shields that grant them both legitimacy and material support:
- Charitable Status (501(c)(3)): Being recognized as a charity signals to the public and donors that an organization serves the public good. The CRC report argues that in these cases, charitable status is being misused to promote extremist agendas. The benefit for the groups is significant: they can raise funds tax-free, often receive donations from well-meaning individuals unaware of the radical rhetoric, and sometimes tap into grants from larger foundations. For instance, by operating under WESPAC Foundation’s 501(c)(3) umbrella, militant groups like WOL and PYM gain access to funding channels and legal protection they likely could not obtain on their owncapitalresearch.orgcapitalresearch.org. Likewise, Code Pink’s tax-exempt structure enables it to maintain offices and staff in Washington, DC, and coordinate nationwide actions under the guise of a peace charity. The prevalence of nonprofit ties is notable: Overall, at least 26 out of 78 extremist groups identified were 501(c)(3) entities or fiscally sponsored projects of onecapitalresearch.org, and 19 of the 30 leading activists held roles in charitable organizations or academiacapitalresearch.org. This means a substantial portion of the anti-American agitation is coming from inside America’s nonprofit sector and educational system, not from underground terrorist cells.
- Campus and Institutional Support: As mentioned, 35 of the groups are college chapterscapitalresearch.org. Universities (which themselves are often 501(c)(3) educational charities or state institutions) provide these chapters with meeting space, publicity through campus channels, and funding drawn from student tuition/fees. In essence, public money or tax-subsidized tuition can end up bankrolling activism that seeks to destabilize the countrycapitalresearch.org. This is possible because universities generally encourage student organizing and free expression. Without vigilant oversight, even groups that espouse violence or hatred can sometimes slip through under the banner of student activism. Similarly, some radical activists hold positions as professors or staff at universities, giving them a platform and salary as they propagate anti-American sentiment. The report’s Appendix B notes that many of the worst online agitators draw paychecks from academia or nonprofits, effectively being subsidized by those institutions while engaging in extremist organizingcapitalresearch.orgcapitalresearch.org.
- Social Welfare Nonprofits (501(c)(4)): Two identified groups use the 501(c)(4) modelcapitalresearch.org, which allows unlimited lobbying and advocacy (unlike 501(c)(3)), but still confers tax-exemption on the organization itself. This model can be attractive for politically radical groups that want to engage in overtly political protest or campaigning without the stricter restrictions of charity law. However, even 501(c)(4)s are bound by law not to pursue illegal objectives. The IRS has indicated that if a social welfare organization’s activities are illegal or fundamentally contrary to public policy, it can also lose its exemptioncapitalresearch.org.
- Fiscally Sponsored Projects: Many of the groups lack independent legal incorporation and instead piggyback on existing nonprofits. This is done through fiscal sponsorship agreements, where an established nonprofit assumes legal and financial oversight for the activities of an unincorporated group. The benefit is that the group can accept tax-deductible donations under the sponsor’s umbrella and avoid the scrutiny of applying for its own IRS status. The report lists at least 16 groups that are projects of 501(c)(3) sponsor organizations (for example, AMP under the AJP Educational Foundation, and various campaigns under “progressive” grant-making intermediaries like Tides Center or NEO Philanthropy)capitalresearch.orgcapitalresearch.org. This arrangement creates a legal buffer: if the radical project draws controversy, the sponsor might cut ties, but until then the project operates with the sponsor’s legal privileges. Critics in the report imply that some sponsors may knowingly harbor these extreme projects, effectively laundering their activism through a charitable front.
Politically, enforcement of regulations on nonprofits has been lax when it comes to extremist political activity, perhaps out of concern for First Amendment rights. The CRC authors note that historically the IRS has taken action in cases where nonprofits clearly incited illegal acts – for example, citing a case where the IRS denied tax-exemption to groups organizing demonstrators to break lawscapitalresearch.orgcapitalresearch.org. The legal standard is that a tax-exempt charity must operate exclusively for lawful charitable purposes; if its activities “demonstrate an illegal purpose… [it] does not qualify” under 501(c)(3)capitalresearch.org. Under this framework, the report suggests that many of the nonprofits entangled in the anti-American protest movement are vulnerable to investigation and possible revocation of their tax-exempt statuscapitalresearch.org. Private universities could likewise face consequences if they are found to facilitate criminal activism. The case of Alliance for Global Justice is presented as a cautionary tale: after AfGJ’s ties to violent groups became public, it was cut off by banks and even singled out by Congress as undeserving of its nonprofit statuscapitalresearch.org. This indicates a growing political will to clamp down on charities that “betray” their legal obligations by abetting extremist causes.
Evidence and Examples Supporting the Claims
Throughout the report and its endnotes, CRC provides concrete examples, data points, and events to substantiate its claims of subversion. Some key pieces of evidence include:
- Data Analytics: By comparing social media activity in the 15 months before vs. after the Hamas October 7, 2023 attacks, the report quantitatively demonstrated the radicalization of rhetoric. In the pre-attack period, there were 518 posts containing the selected anti-American keywords, whereas in the post-attack period the count jumped to 1,482 posts – a 186% increase in hateful anti-U.S. and anti-police contentcapitalresearch.org. Likewise, explicit calls for violent resistance (e.g. celebrating “intifada” or urging attacks) spiked dramatically, reflecting a “rapidly radicalizing” movementcapitalresearch.org. These posts did not languish in obscurity; they accumulated over 23 million views on platforms like X (Twitter) and TikTok, and over 4.2 million user engagements (likes, shares, comments)capitalresearch.org, indicating broad reach. Such metrics bolster the report’s assertion that anti-American agitation isn’t limited to fringe echo chambers, but is permeating mainstream social networks and potentially influencing large audiences.
- Verbatim Rhetoric Samples: The report’s authors compiled numerous quotations from activists’ speeches, social media posts, and protest footage. For example, a protest organizer leading a chant of “From Gaza to Minnesota, globalize the intifada!” or graffiti found at a demonstration proclaiming “Death to AmeriKKKa.” One striking quote came from a Code Pink “Counter-Summit” event in Washington, DC (July 2024), where a speaker openly stated: “Our resistance to U.S. imperialism makes us an enemy.” and urged that American institutions be sabotaged from withincapitalresearch.org. Another example is the Fourth of July statement by Code Pink (mentioned earlier), which was reproduced in the report to show the group’s direct opposition to U.S. independence and solidarity with America’s foescapitalresearch.org. Additionally, in internal chats some activists label themselves “insurgents” fighting the U.S.capitalresearch.org, which CRC cites to demonstrate that this is not benign dissent but proudly seditious self-identification.
- Events of Violence or Disruption: CRC correlates the incendiary rhetoric with real-world acts. It documents how after certain slogans trend online, related acts follow. For instance, as the phrase “globalize the intifada” proliferated, activists in New York staged an occupation of a park and later vandalized foreign diplomatic property (the German consulate) under that bannercapitalresearch.org. After “bring the war home” gained traction, banners bearing that slogan appeared in public with imagery of violence against U.S. symbols (burning flags)capitalresearch.org. The report also lists incidents like the defacement of a police memorial in Philadelphia, which was cheered by organizers calling U.S. police an “occupation force” and explicitly wishing for more police deathscapitalresearch.org. By connecting these dots, the report provides evidence that the online hate speech is indeed translating to material actions – vandalism, harassment of officials, and potentially worse (the report warns of escalating trends toward domestic terrorismcapitalresearch.org).
- Profiles of Key Groups/Individuals: In its “Three Organizational Examples” section, the report dives deeper into three groups (Within Our Lifetime, PYM, and Code Pink), profiling their leaders, funding, and activitiescapitalresearch.org. These profiles serve as case studies. For example, Within Our Lifetime (WOL) is shown to have been founded by an activist (Nerdeen Kiswani) who initially operated as part of Students for Justice in Palestine in NYC, then spun off WOL which specialized in aggressive street actionscapitalresearch.org. WOL’s chants (like “globalize the intifada”) and tactics (harassing pro-Israel events, vandalism) are documented, and its dependency on the charitable WESPAC Foundation is noted as crucial to its operationcapitalresearch.org. Code Pink’s profile, as detailed earlier, reveals its entanglement with foreign interests and its strategic role in coordinating nationwide protests to disrupt U.S. governancecapitalresearch.orgcapitalresearch.org. These examples put a spotlight on how seemingly legitimate organizations or coalitions can pursue aims that directly conflict with American national interests, all while enjoying nonprofit protections.
In summary, the evidence assembled by CRC paints a picture of a network of domestic groups using America’s own freedoms and institutions to mount a campaign of subversion from within. They leverage charitable status, academia, and online platforms to spread an ideology that America is an evil to be fought, and they back up that talk with real acts of disruption and calls to violence. The title “When Charities Betray America” reflects the core allegation: that tax-exempt organizations, which are supposed to serve the public good, are instead enabling and funding a movement that seeks to destabilize the countrycapitalresearch.org.
Conclusion and Implications
The CRC report’s key findings can be summarized as follows: Anti-American extremism has significantly infiltrated domestic activist movements that present themselves as championing human rights (in this case, Palestinian rights). Many of those leading the charge are American nonprofits or charity-linked entities that are effectively betraying the nation’s trust. The very institutions designed to foster civil society – charities, universities, social advocacy nonprofits – are, in these instances, providing cover and resources for individuals who advocate the overthrow of American ideals and, at times, American government by forcecapitalresearch.orgcapitalresearch.org. This paradox raises urgent questions about law and public policy. Are current laws adequate to prevent nonprofits from inciting harm? The report suggests that existing regulations (IRS rules for 501(c)(3) and (c)(4) status) do provide mechanisms to penalize or strip errant organizations of their privilegescapitalresearch.orgcapitalresearch.org. However, enforcement is key. The authors point out that if federal and state authorities were to apply these rules strictly, several of the groups and sponsoring charities involved in this “toxic crusade” could indeed lose their tax-exempt statuscapitalresearch.org. Such consequences have precedent – as seen with Alliance for Global Justice’s recent troubles – and could significantly disrupt the funding and operations of the radical networks.
Beyond legal penalties, the findings underscore a broader societal challenge: maintaining the balance between protecting free expression and preventing the abuse of our charitable sector for anti-democratic ends. The report refrains from policy prescriptions, but its factual synthesis implies a need for greater vigilance. Philanthropic donors, university administrators, and regulators may need to more carefully vet which “charitable” causes they are indirectly supporting. In the end, When Charities Betray America shines light on a hidden threat from within: groups that enjoy American freedoms and philanthropy, yet work to undermine the very nation that sustains them. The evidence compiled – from surging online hate metrics to specific acts of sedition – provides a sobering, factual basis for this claim, leaving readers to ponder how American society should respond to charities that forsake their public trust in pursuit of revolution. capitalresearch.orgcapitalresearch.org
