George Soros, through his Open Society Foundations, has poured millions into funding the "No Kings" protests set for Saturday, drawing thousands alongside Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.
As reported by Fox News, Soros’ foundations, via the Open Society Action Fund, granted $3 million over two years to Indivisible, the group orchestrating these nationwide demonstrations. This isn’t pocket change; it’s part of a broader $7.61 million in grants to Indivisible since 2017, revealing a sustained push to amplify anti-Trump sentiment through organized action.
Indivisible, led by executive co-directors Ezra Levin and Leah Greenberg, isn’t just a grassroots outfit; its ties run deep with Soros’ network, including Greenberg’s past role with Tom Perriello, a former Open Society executive. A separate $350,000 grant from Tides Advocacy, linked to the Tides Network, adds another layer of well-funded support to this protest machine.
The Open Society Foundations, per their own statement, claim a noble aim: “We support a wide range of independent organizations that work to deepen civic engagement through peaceful democratic participation,” as told to Fox News Digital. Yet, when millions flow to a single group like Indivisible, managing data and communications for a protest explicitly targeting Trump as a “tyrant,” one wonders if this is engagement or engineered opposition.
Soros himself has funneled over $32 billion of his fortune into these foundations, now chaired by his son Alex. That kind of money doesn’t just sit quietly; it shapes narratives, mobilizes crowds, and, in this case, paints a sitting president as an authoritarian king on a national stage.
Then there’s the historical overlap with Tides, a network accused of funding anti-Israel campus unrest, which further muddies the waters of Indivisible’s funding sources. If protests are truly organic, why do they so often trace back to the same handful of deep-pocketed players?
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, didn’t mince words, telling Fox News Digital, “This politicized march is being organized by Soros operatives and funded by Soros money.” His alarm, first raised on Sean Hannity’s show, points to a pattern of elite funding behind what might erupt into disruptive rallies across the country.
Cruz has gone further, pushing the Financial Underwriting of Nefarious Demonstrations and Extremist Riots (STOP FUNDERs) Act to allow the Department of Justice to target those bankrolling violent protests with RICO charges. It’s a bold move, signaling that some in Congress see these funded demonstrations as more than just free speech, but as potential threats to public order.
Meanwhile, Schumer’s decision to join the march, claiming he’s there to “celebrate what makes this country so great,” adds a layer of political theater to an already charged event. One has to ask if his presence legitimizes a movement so heavily underwritten by a single billionaire’s agenda.
Indivisible’s own website frames the protests as a mass uprising on Saturday, declaring, “On October 18, millions of us are rising again” to challenge Trump’s leadership. Their “How to Prepare for a Protest” section advises that demonstrations “are most effective when we peacefully use our constitutionally protected rights,” which sounds reasonable until you trace the money behind the megaphone.
The group’s leadership, with Levin and Greenberg at the helm, has built a sophisticated operation, managing participant data and communications for events in Washington and beyond. Such coordination doesn’t happen on a shoestring; it’s the product of years of grants and strategic alliances with powerful donors.
Open Society Foundations, for their part, insist they “oppose all forms of violence, including violent protests,” per their website. But when the protests they fund carry such pointed anti-Trump messaging, the line between peaceful assembly and provocative agitation starts to blur.
These “No Kings” protests, backed by Soros’ millions, aren’t just about one administration; they reflect a deeper struggle over who gets to shape public opinion through street action. When dissent is so heavily subsidized, it risks drowning out the voices of those without billionaire benefactors.
The involvement of figures like Schumer only amplifies the perception that this is less about principle and more about political posturing. If protests are to remain a genuine tool of the people, they can’t be seen as the playthings of a select few with outsized influence.
Ultimately, the question isn’t whether Americans have the right to assemble, but whether the machinery behind these gatherings serves democracy or distorts it. As Saturday approaches, the nation will watch if this funded fervor stays peaceful, or if Cruz’s warnings of potential riots prove prescient.