TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

These groups claim they’ve secured injunctions that stop deportation flights and press local governments to not cooperate with the feds. “Kian Bahad admitted their caucus has secured injunctions that literally halt deportation flights” and “pressuring your local government to not cooperate at all with any of these federal agents.” They point to donors, including “Goldman Sachs, donated $5,000,000, Fidelity forking over $1,300,000 Bank of America, $250,000 and even Universal Music Group giving $50,000 all to the five one c three NGO, the Vera Institute.” The Vera Institute “isn't just help illegal immigrants evade ICE. They funnel money into radical causes like Black Lives Matter.” Inside Congress, “a widespread coordinated effort” to undermine federal law enforcement and slow down deportation efforts; “the cruelty is the point” and “we deserve transparency.”

Speaker 0: This is not just a story about violence and chaos; this is a money story. At the Government Accountability Institute, Peter Schweitzer and I followed the money to the top of what we call the protest industrial complex, Riot Inc. We found a network of NGOs—not just the Soros/Open Society network, but also the Arabella Funding Network, the Tides Funding Network, Neville Roy Singham and his network, Foreign Cash, and other big left-wing funders, including Hans Georg Wiese of Switzerland. They’re pouring money into this ecosystem. Here are three money facts about Riot Inc. Number one: Riot Inc. has many divisions like any corporation. It doesn’t just have the Antifa boots on the ground division; it has PR divisions, marketing divisions, and a well-funded legal division to get these boots back on the ground as quickly as possible. It has investors I mentioned. Number two: We have identified dozens of radical organizations—not just decentralized Antifa groups, but dozens of radical organizations—that have received more than $100,000,000 from Riot Inc. investors. These include lawyer groups and groups that advocate for calling good honest Americans fascists, etc. Number three: More than $100,000,000 in U.S. taxpayer funding has flowed into these funding networks, including at least $4,000,000 to these very groups themselves. There was an event in Atlanta called Stop Cop City; over 60 rioters were charged with domestic terrorism. These groups received money for that from both the billionaire class and taxpayer money. Additionally, this money helps fund decentralized crowdfunding platforms that support Antifa, the John Brown Gun Club of Elm Fork (which had links to the ICE facility attack), the Socialist Rifle Association, and others. Even though some groups don’t have LLCs or EIN numbers, they can still get paid. Some funding platforms are funded by this network that we call Riot Inc. Speaker 1: Do you know the name of any of the funders? Do you know the names? Because if you do, I’d like you to give them to Cash or Pam—or Christie? Speaker 0: Absolutely. Speaker 1: Or Christie? Speaker 0: Yes, we’ll do that. Speaker 1: As soon as you can. That’s all of you. Because you probably know the names after a certain period of time, you tend to find out. But these are people that do not have good intention for the country and that’s treasonous probably. So if you could, it would be very important if you could do that, it would be great. Speaker 0: it

The transcript centers on allegations that Naftali Aaron Kranz is a paid protester and that a group called GetFree recruits and deploys paid demonstrators. A journalist questions whether there is someone they can speak to, and the conversation suggests the person of interest is on the other side of a park. The speaker asserts that Naftali Aaron Kranz is “a paid protester through and through,” and that he posts on LinkedIn to hire paid protesters for GetFree, a company advertising itself as a grassroots organization while paying people to protest. GetFree is described as hiring for part-time mobilization support contractors, seeking individuals with four-plus years of experience in leading direct action, large-scale mobilizations, demonstrations, and civil disobedience (which is described as experience getting arrested). Compensation is reportedly 3,500 to 4,200 dollars per month for an average of twenty hours per week. The speaker claims GetFree’s stated mission is to undo white supremacy, despite the assertion that Kranz and others are paid to protest. The narrative highlights Kranz’s participation in protests, including celebrating vandalism, with an example cited of “Crown Heights stay winning” after an egg was thrown at a stranger’s cyber truck and dog feces placed on it. The speaker places Kranz at an abolish-the-police rally, noting he is not leading the protest but blending in with recruits, enabling a later photo op. The claim is that this recruitment tactic blends various leftist causes to inflate the appearance of each individual cause. The speaker also states Kranz works with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and was encountered at a DSA Tax the Rich rally. LinkedIn activity is cited again, with Kranz posting about paid protester roles and recruiting nationwide in Chicago, the Bay Area, and Baltimore to expand turnout at events. When clicking a linked job posting, the contract is described as nine weeks, part-time, paying about 3,400 dollars in stipends issued biweekly, with responsibilities including recruiting and training people to drive turnout. The speaker identifies Nicole Cardi at the top of the Get Free movement and attributes a belief that George Floyd protests were a factor in Biden’s 2020 victory. The transcript connects protest NGOs to political goals, claiming donations to Get Free are funneled through ActBlue, which the Department of Justice is investigating for foreign contributions. It also asserts ActBlue funds activists like Indivisible Twin Cities, which allegedly orchestrates resistance to ICE agents in Minneapolis and has been paid protesters, receiving over 7.6 million dollars from Open Society Foundation, funded by George Soros. The speaker concludes with a personal note to stay away, and the journalist states they have to go.

The video discusses the United Nations and its connection to various NGOs, highlighting the financial flow between them and the lack of transparency. It mentions big names like the Gates Foundation, Buffett Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, and Clinton Foundation, and their involvement in moving large amounts of money. The video also explores the role of Arabella Advisors, a consulting company that manages four nonprofits and is considered a "dark money monster" by some researchers. It raises questions about the use of charity funds for political agendas and the lack of accountability in the nonprofit sector. The transcript ends by mentioning the Gates Foundation and leading into the next part of the series.

The discussion centers on allegations that the United States has used or could use domestic and international mechanisms to effect regime change, including through domestic unrest and foreign influence operations. Speaker 0 describes a 2021 Special Operations Command instruction manual, framed as a vision for 2021 and beyond, that purportedly contains instructions and examples on how the military could work with the State Department, intelligence services, and USAID to use race riots to destabilize nations. He points to examples labeled as part of this manual’s guidance for destabilization via combined military-government-civilian efforts. Speaker 1 lays out a model of how revolutions are allegedly structured, starting with a government at the top and support funneled through USAID, the State Department, or other administration entities. He then describes a degree of separation through privatized NGOs, including the National Endowment for Democracy, the International Republican Institute, and similar organizations, with money flowing from entities such as George Soros’s Open Society Foundations through tides and government-funded NGOs like NED. He suggests money ultimately comes from the people, and that demonstrators, youth movements, a sympathetic media, and labor unions contribute to organizing protests. He outlines conditions for regime change: an unpopular incumbent, a semi-automatic regime (not fully autocratic), a united and organized opposition, the ability to quickly frame the voting results as falsified, media amplification of that falsification, an opposition capable of mobilizing thousands, and divisions among coercive forces like the military or police. He asks whether those conditions are present and implies they are. Speaker 2 cites a declassified CIA guide from 1983 aimed at training operatives to organize riots in foreign countries, including using agitators and hiring professional criminals to manipulate mass meetings, with the goal of turning general anger into violence against the regime. The guide describes creating a climate where a few hundred agitators could mobilize tens of thousands, using 200 back channels and 200 human assets to generate a 10,000–20,000 demonstration. It also notes strategies such as setting up job fairs near riots to enlist disaffected workers. He references USAID’s Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI), implying that “transition” is a code for regime change, and cites a 2009 congressional report warning that OTI was a foreign operation aimed at toppling governments through organized political warfare, including mobilizing unions, boycotts, and shutdowns of roads, transportation, hospitals, and schools. Fulton Armstrong’s quote is cited regarding government secrecy surrounding such operations. The speakers conclude by condemning actions conducted in the shadows, destabilizing nations using race wars to achieve political aims, and advocating that the military be involved, arguing these efforts occur without oversight.

A lot of your tax dollars are going to organizations you may have never heard of. The Consortium for Elections and Political Process Strengthening, or SEPs, gets $165 million. The East West Management Institute receives $25 million annually. The National Endowment for Democracy and its affiliates, like NDI, get $167.3 million, while Freedom House gets $93 million. The Tides Foundation, known for being a progressive left-wing dark money machine, also receives tax dollars. Money donated to Tides goes dark, so you can't trace who's giving it. A money trail search on Tides reveals connections to Freedom House, NED, SEPs, East West, and Intra News. These organizations are spreading tax dollars to each other, and then to places like Soros.

A journalist engages with a person at a park, aiming to speak to someone, and the conversation shifts to a narrative about Naftali Aaron Kranz. The speaker identifies Kranz as a paid protester through GetFree, detailing LinkedIn evidence of the arrangement. GetFree is described as hiring for part-time mobilization support contractors, seeking individuals with four or more years of experience in leading direct action, large-scale mobilizations, demonstrations, protests, and civil disobedience (the latter implying experience with arrests). Compensation is stated as 3,500 to 4,200 dollars per month for an average of twenty hours a week. GetFree brands itself as a grassroots organization, but Kranz and others are described as being paid to protest. The narrator asserts Kranz’s role in celebrating vandalism, citing an incident in Crown Heights where someone threw an egg at a stranger’s Cybertruck and dog feces were placed on it, describing Kranz as part of this sentiment. They place Kranz at an abolish-the-police rally, noting he was blending in with other recruits rather than leading, with the implication that field photos can be staged for later use. The claim is made that Kranz works with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), and the narrator reports meeting him again at a DSA Tax the Rich rally. LinkedIn activity is cited to show Kranz frequently posting about recruitment and expanding efforts to win reparations nationwide, with mentions of Chicago, the Bay Area, and Baltimore. A linked link is described as listing a nine-week contract, part-time, paying 3,400 dollars in stipends biweekly, seeking someone excited about experimentation and capable of recruiting and training people to drive turnout to events. Nicole Cardi is named as a figure at the top of the Get Free movement. The narrative shifts to donations, stating that donations to Get Free are funneled through ActBlue, which is under Department of Justice investigation for foreign contributions. ActBlue allegedly funds activist groups like Indivisible Twin Cities, which purportedly orchestrates resistance to ICE agents in Minneapolis and has been reported to pay protesters, receiving over 7,600,000 dollars from the Open Society Foundation, funded by George Soros. The speaker concludes with a personal reaction to the information, expressing a need to stay away, before the conversation ends with Speaker 0 saying they have to stand there.

The left uses NGOs to influence elections and reshape American culture, often funded by taxpayers. Each dot represents an NGO linked to the Chinese Progressive Association, which has funded various organizations like the Black Voters Matter Fund and the National Domestic Workers Alliance. These groups, in turn, support others such as the Fair Work Center and LGBTQ Alleyship. This network reveals how taxpayer money is funneled into leftist activities. The Chinese Progressive Association receives funding from major institutions like the San Francisco Foundation and Vanguard Charitable Endowment. Recent advancements in technology now allow for detailed tracking of financial flows between these NGOs, revealing connections and directors across multiple organizations. This information will be made available on the website.

I see NGOs as a hack, and George Soros was a master at it. He understood how to use a relatively small amount of money to establish a nonprofit, and then lobby politicians to funnel large sums of money into it. For example, a $10 million donation could be leveraged into a billion-dollar NGO. These NGOs, or nongovernmental organizations, often have appealing names, but they can essentially be graft machines. They receive grants with minimal requirements, and the government often assumes they're doing good work, even when they might not be. Many within the government are aware of this dynamic, but the funding continues.

The whole NGO thing is a nightmare because government funded non-governmental organizations are essentially just government organizations, it's an oxymoron. Government funded NGOs are a loophole that allows the government to do things that would otherwise be illegal, by sending funds to a nonprofit. These nonprofits are then used for people to cash out and become very wealthy, it's a gigantic scam. There are probably millions of NGOs, and tens of thousands of large ones. It's a hack to the system where someone can get an NGO for a small amount of money. Soros was really good at this, he figured out how to leverage a small amount of money to create a nonprofit, then lobby politicians to send a ton of money to that nonprofit.

Tax records reveal significant financial support for various organizations involved in protests and demonstrations. Jewish Voice for Peace received $650,000, Adala Justice Project received $710,000, If Not Now received $86,000, Center For Constitutional Rights received $38,000, Mass Liberation Project received $600,000, and Westpac received $132,000. These organizations have been involved in protests related to issues such as genocide prevention, ethnic cleansing, and justice in Palestine.

Speaker 1 describes the scope of funding tracked by their organization. They state they have tracked over $60,000,000 according to the latest 990 disclosures, directed to approximately 14 groups—some national, others on the ground. Examples of groups involved include the ACLU (providing legal defense and facilitating trainings for some tactics described by Senator Corin) and Democracy Forward, Take Minnesota. Take Minnesota has reportedly received over $10,000,000 from these large NGO networks, including the Neville Roysingham network, Indivisible, National Lawyers Guild, CTUL, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Minnesota Care, Minnesota 3-5-0, Voices for Racial Justice, and others. The speaker emphasizes that the total spans at least 14 groups and more than $60,000,000 in disclosed funding. Speaker 0 asks where the money is coming from and how it flows to these groups. Speaker 1 explains that they have built a database with hundreds of thousands of rows of grants from networks such as the Soros network, Arabella Funding Network, the Neville Royce Singham Funding Network, and many others, including Tides, the Ford Foundation Network, and the Rockefeller Funding Network. These are described as massive NGOs with billions of dollars to spend on all kinds of coordinated protest or, in this case, riot activity.

Remember during COVID and the George Floyd protests? It seemed like money was being poured in to create outrage and destabilize the country in 2020, even though it felt artificial. It started after President Trump's inauguration with the pink hats, then transitioned into BLM and Antifa. The funding behind all of this seemed suspicious. Recently, we discovered USAID is one source. And just wait until we get to the Department of Defense and other departments! We've only scratched the surface of where this money is coming from.

Mike Benz outlines a conspiracy tied to the Transition Integrity Project (TIP) and a June 2020 war game that purportedly sought “a way to use riots, nationwide riots, and do favors to the Black Lives Matter movement so that they would owe them favors back to take to the streets against Trump if Trump won the election fair and square,” while also needing “a robust, intentional, and specific strategy to go after the networks that enabled Trump's rise to power” so they could be jailed after Trump left office. Bubba Boyd, who has written about the event since August 2020, explains that the discussion will cover the key players in TIP, the plan to subvert the 2020 election, how rigging the election and four prosecutions of Trump flow from the June 2020 conspirators’ meeting, and excerpts from a January 2020 Donald Trump speech to the World Economic Forum that allegedly signals why Trump and Trumpism had to be eliminated. The publicly named sponsors of the war game are Rosa Brooks and Niles Gilman of the Berggruen Institute in Los Angeles, described as the “globalist home of Silicon Valley’s anti-Trump billionaires,” with branches in Venice and Beijing and a China branch in direct dialogue with Xi Jinping. Michael Anton is cited as the author of a Trump national security document who criticized TIP’s war game, stating they were planning a coup against the election and publicizing the war game to normalize the idea. Brooks’s background is summarized as a lawyer for George Shullis at the Open Society Institute, then a State Department attorney for regime change, then a Pentagon policy lawyer under Obama, while teaching at Georgetown Law. The narrative asserts she advocated impeaching Trump and a potential 25th Amendment move, and even a military coup, in a 2017 Foreign Policy piece titled “three ways to get rid of president Trump before 2020,” including the sentence: “For the first time in my life, I can imagine plausible scenarios in which senior military officers might simply tell the president, no, sir. We’re not doing that.” The claim is that she “couldn’t wait to launch a coup against Trump,” a portrayal attributed to a New York Times editorial response. In June 2020, Brooks and Gilman allegedly convened TIP’s war game about the 2020 election and its possible aftermath, with over 100 participants and 76 role players drawn from former Pentagon officials, the intelligence community, Silicon Valley, Wall Street, the media, and Republican and Democratic institutions. Names publicly associated with anti-Trump activity are listed, including John Podesta, Donna Brazile, Bill Kristol, Michael Steele, Jennifer Granholm, and other unnamed figures, all described as major players in attempts to nullify the 2016 election and overthrow the government. Benz is said to detail the TIP war games and concludes that to prevent a second Trump term, Biden would need a large victory margin to overcome fraud perceptions, with the insurrectionist scenario calling for control of the military, Black Lives Matter, and other street rioters. The narrative asserts that BLM raised about 90 million in 2020 with donors like the Democracy Alliance and the Ford Foundation, and that Mark Elias led financial filings associated with the effort. The discussion further cites Defense One articles from August 2020 that reportedly called for a military coup and a subsequent open debate within the military about accepting orders, and claims that Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley “was not about to obey any order from the president.” The appendix to TIP’s report allegedly debated criminally proceeding against Trump after leaving office and wiping out his “white supremacist and extremist base,” with a quote describing the need for a strategy to challenge networks that enabled Trump’s rise and remained “imbecible to the kind of pluralist democracy the founders intended,” implying a path toward removing Trump’s influence even after his presidency. The transcript also notes contemporary references to Arctic Frost, an FBI investigation linked to 2022 midterms, and alleged targeting of Republican election operations and other figures by the FBI. Excerpts from Trump’s World Economic Forum address and a January 2020 speech are presented to illustrate a moral and strategic framing against globalism and “radical socialists.” The presentation ends by inviting audience support and promoting further engagement, including a free newsletter.

We followed the money to what is described as the protest industrial complex, referred to as Riot Inc., and to a network of NGOs funding it. The network includes not only the Soros/Open Society network but also the Arabella Funding Network, the Tides Funding Network, Neville Roy Singham and his network, Foreign Cash, and other large left-leaning funders, with some participants not citizens of the United States. Mr. Hans Georg Wiese of Switzerland is cited as recognizing this international funding flow into the ecosystem. Three money facts are shared about Riot Inc. First, Riot Inc. operates like a corporation with multiple divisions beyond the visible “Antifa boots on the ground” unit, including PR divisions, marketing divisions, and a well-funded legal division designed to keep these boots on the ground on the streets as quickly as possible, in addition to the investors previously mentioned. Second, dozens of radical organizations have received more than $100,000,000 from Riot Inc. investors. These include lawyer groups and other organizations that advocate for portraying good, honest Americans as fascists, among other activities. Third, more than $100,000,000 in U.S. taxpayer funding has flowed into these funding networks, with at least $4,000,000 directed to the groups themselves (not only Antifa-type groups). An example cited is an Atlanta event called Stop Cop City, where over 60 rioters were charged with domestic terrorism, and these groups reportedly received money from both billionaire donors and taxpayer funds. The speaker notes that this money also supports decentralized crowdfunding platforms, which facilitate funding for groups such as Antifa, the John Brown Gun Club of Elm Fork (linked to the attack on the ice facility), and the Socialist Rifle Association. The absence of LLCs or EIN numbers for some of these groups does not prevent them from getting paid. Crowdfunding platforms are funded by the network identified as Riot Inc., enabling these groups to receive funds despite organizational formalities. The speaker concludes by thanking leadership and promising to continue following the money, emphasizing the cabinet’s leadership in this effort.

Speaker 0 frames this as “a money story” and says, at the Government Accountability Institute, they followed the money to the top of what they call the protest industrial complex, “Riot Inc.” They identified a network of NGOs beyond the Soros/Open Society network—“the Arabella funding network, the Tides funding network, Neville Roy Singham and his network, Foreign Cash”—and other “big left wing funders” like Hans Georg Wiese of Switzerland. He shares three money facts: 1) Riot Inc. “has many divisions... not just the Antifa boots on the ground division. It has PR divisions, it has marketing divisions, it has a very well funded legal division to get these boots on the ground back on the streets as quickly as possible.” 2) Dozens of radical organizations have received more than $100,000,000 from the Riot Inc. Investors, including groups that advocate for calling good honest Americans fascists. 3) More than $100,000,000 in U.S. taxpayer funding has flowed into these funding networks, including at least $4,000,000 to these very groups themselves; Stop Cop City in Atlanta; over 60 rioters charged with domestic terrorism. These groups received money from both billionaire class and taxpayer money; money funds decentralized crowdfunding platforms; Antifa, John Brown Gun Club of Elm Fork, Socialist Rifle Association; lack of LLCs or EINs doesn't mean they can't get paid. “Absolutely”—we’ll share the names of funders; “As soon as you can.” That’s all of you... “treasonous probably.”

A protester, speaking during a recording, discusses an organization called Make the Road New York and its perceived financial scope as part of a broader critique of immigrant-rights organizations. The protester asserts that Make the Road New York has a budget of $30,000,000 and notes that the topic of the immigrants’ rights organization is of interest to those observing organizational funding and influence. The speaker identifies themselves as being with a union, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). They state that they looked at the tax returns of Make the Road New York and found there were registered 501(c)(3) entities that file Form 990, and that Make the Road New York “received $16,000,000 in grants.” This claim ties the organization to a substantial influx of grant funding, suggesting a significant level of financial support from funders or the government. The conversation shifts toward hypothetical implications of such funding, with the speaker asking, “Can you imagine what Nick Shirley could do with $16,000,000? Can you imagine what James O’Keeffe could do with $16,000,000?” This line of inquiry appears to juxtapose the perceived influence of large sums of money with recognizable figures associated with political and investigative activities, raising questions about the power and use of funds. A broader assertion follows: “The United States government is funding this.” This statement connects the funding to government support, implying that public dollars are being directed toward Make the Road New York or similar organizations. The speaker then contrasts national debt with alleged fraud, stating, “We're 36,000,000,000,000 in debt, or are we 36,000,000,000,000 in fraud?” This rhetorical question presents a dichotomy between debt and fraud on a colossal scale, underscoring the protester’s critical stance regarding government spending and accountability. Overall, the excerpt highlights concerns about the financial backing of Make the Road New York, the role of grant funding for immigrant-rights organizations, and the perceived connection to government funding, framed within a broader critique of national debt and potential misallocation of public resources.

A Free Press report reveals that the "Trump resistance" is bankrolled by wealthy individuals. The organization "Families Over Billionaires," which opposes Republican tax cuts, doesn't accept public donations and is a trade name for Arabella Advisors, a dark money network. Arabella Advisors is funded by billionaires like Bill Gates, Reid Hoffman, Pierre Omidar, and George Soros. These organizations are structured within the Arabella network, obscuring the donors' identities. Such setups raise transparency concerns. "Families Over Billionaires" is staffed by former Biden and Harris officials, including director Michael Linden, previously with Biden's Office of Management and Budget. Currently, the organization is releasing YouTube advertisements featuring paid actors expressing concerns about tax cuts. While this doesn't discredit the organization's message, it's important to know that groups calling themselves grassroots may not be.

The discussion centers on OCCRP (the Corruption Reporting Project), its funding, and how it operates as “mercenary media” for state interests, particularly the U.S. State Department and USAID. The speakers argue that OCCRP is not independent journalism but a State Department–funded operation that produces hit pieces to seize assets, indict officials, and press regime change across multiple countries. Key findings and claims discussed - OCCRP’s funding and control: The group is described as receiving substantial funding from the United States government through USAID and the State Department, with other sources including Open Society (Soros), Microsoft, and NED. A recurring claim is that half of OCCRP’s funding comes from the U.S. government, that USAID and the State Department actually control hiring and firing decisions of top personnel, and that a “cooperative agreement” structure channels editorial direction through government-approved annual work plans and key personnel (including the editor‑in‑chief or chief of party). - Financial returns and impact: It is claimed that USAID boasted in internal documents that paying $20 million to independent journalists yielded $4.5 billion in fines and assets seized, and that mercenary reporting led to 548 policy changes, 21 resignations or removals (including a president and a prime minister), 456 arrests or indictments, and roughly $10 billion in assets returned to government coffers across various countries (Central Europe, Eastern Partnership, Western Balkans, etc.). A related claim is that total spending over OCCRP’s history amounts to about $50 million, with returns rising from $4.5 billion in 2022 to about $10 billion by 2024. - Geographic scope and targets: The reporting funded or influenced by the State Department covered broad regions—Germany, Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Belarus, and the Western Balkans—extending to the Eastern Partnership and beyond. The pieces are described as having led to investigations and asset seizures that targeted political enemies of state authorities. - The role of “mercenary media” and independence claims: The speakers repeatedly contrast the claimed editorial independence of OCCRP with the reality of donor influence. They describe OCCRP as “mercenary media for the state,” funded to generate narratives and political outcomes favorable to U.S. foreign policy. They challenge the notion of independent journalism by noting the requirement that key personnel and annual work plans be approved or vetoed by USAID, and that there are “strings attached” to cooperative agreements that go beyond simple gifts. - Editorial process and donor influence: The conversation scrutinizes how the annual work plan, subgrants, and editor-level appointments are subject to USAID oversight. It is noted that, even when OCCRP claims editorial independence, the top editors must navigate donor influence, and in practice, the content may be shaped to align with funders’ interests. The argument is that without donor influence, OCCRP would not exist or would not continue to receive large sums of money. - The rhetoric of independence: Several speakers underscore the paradox of insisting on “independent media” while acknowledging that funding, governance, and personnel decisions are shaped by U.S. government agencies, with additional support from Soros/Open Society and corporate donors like Microsoft. They juxtapose “independence” rhetoric with admissions of entanglement with government and intelligence entities, and their discussions touch on the historical context of U.S. public diplomacy, the U.S. Information Agency, and the evolution of state-driven media influence. - Historical funding trajectory and organizations: The first funds reportedly came from sources such as the United Nations Democracy Fund, with later support from INL (the U.S. Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement) and a transition to USAID administration. The participants discuss the possibility that multiple U.S. government agencies (State Department, USAID, NED, INL) and private sponsors (Open Society, Microsoft) contribute to OCCRP’s budget, with the U.S. government described as the largest donor at various points, though not always claimed as the single dominating donor. - “Capacity building” and the machinery of influence: The conversation highlights “capacity building” as a common label for donor-driven expansion of media assets, civil society groups, and investigative journalism networks. They connect these efforts to broader U.S. democracy promotion programs and to the use of investigative reporting as a tool for law enforcement and political leverage—where journalists may gather information and feed it to prosecutors and foreign policy objectives. - Individual positions and disclosures: Several speakers identify named individuals (e.g., Drew Sullivan, Shannon McGuire) and discuss their roles, funding pathways, and concerns about editorial control. The dialogue reveals tensions between the journalists’ professional aims and the political-economic machinery enabling their work. Cumulative impression - The transcript presents a frontal, highly confrontational critique of OCCRP as a state-funded, state-influenced enterprise that positions itself as independent journalism while enabling significant political and legal actions abroad. The speakers claim conspicuously high returns on investment for government funding (billions of dollars in assets seized and numerous political changes) and describe the cooperative funding structure as funneling editorial output toward U.S. foreign policy objectives. They argue that independence is a veneer masking a structured, donor-driven process with formal approval channels for personnel and plans, and with direct implications for how narratives are shaped and which targets are pursued. They also connect OCCRP’s practices to broader historical patterns of U.S. public diplomacy, intelligence collaboration, and the global propaganda ecosystem.

I outline the speaker’s central claims about George Soros, the CIA, and global political influence. The speaker contends that George Soros has been one of the CIA’s most valuable private assets for over forty years, acting as the civilian, deniable funding arm of American regime-change operations worldwide. Because of this, Soros is not only allowed in the United States but protected there, enabling him to operate with impunity, which the speaker says explains his arrogance and continued influence. The speaker traces a pattern of Soros-backed “color revolutions” starting with Serbia in 2000, refined in Georgia in 2003, Ukraine in 2004, and the Arab Spring in 2011. They assert that logos for USAID, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and the Open Society Foundations appear in all these cases, framing Soros as central to these movements. According to the speaker, the Arab Spring served as a trial run for Europe’s migrant crisis. They claim that in 2011 the CIA and Soros turned that playbook on Libya and Syria. Gaddafi allegedly warned in March 2011 that removing him would unleash millions to flood Europe from Africa; eight months later, Gaddafi was dead, Libya descended into chaos, and migrant waves began as predicted. By 2015–2016, the speaker asserts, battle-hardened jihadists and economic migrants were crossing the Mediterranean with iPhones, prepaid cards, and Twitter guides written in Arabic, described as the same social media mobilization tactics used in Kyiv and Tahrir Square. Wayne Madsen is cited as having called this pattern out in 2015, described by the speaker as a deliberate CIA social-engineering operation to fracture Europe from within, applying the same playbook to new targets. The speaker then asserts that the United States has been subject to this strategy from 2020 to the present, pointing to the summer riots of 2020 as an example. The claim continues that Soros’s Open Society Foundations donated at least $33,000,000 to groups that organized and sustained the 2020 riots, and that Soros-backed NGOs provided lawyers, maps, and logistics for the southern border caravans, as well as funding to influence police departments and district attorneys in major cities, effectively helping to elect them. The speaker argues that Soros is implementing the color-revolution playbook “on us now,” with the target being ordinary Americans rather than foreign nations. A historical reference is made to JFK, who allegedly spoke of splintering the CIA after the Bay of Pigs betrayal, a chance JFK did not realize, leaving the world the speaker claims the CIA built. The speaker notes that Hungary, a country of 9 million, has passed Stop Soros laws and expelled his operations, asking why the United States cannot do the same, and suggests finishing what JFK started.

A journalist asks if there’s someone who can be spoken to about hearing, and is directed to the other side of the park. The exchange turns into a broader set of allegations about a man named Naftali Aaron Kranz and the organization Get Free. The speaker claims Naftali Kranz is a paid protester through Get Free. They present LinkedIn posts recruiting for paid protesters for the company, described as Get Free’s “part time mobilization support contractor.” The speaker asserts Get Free bills itself as a grassroots organization while Naftali and others are allegedly paid to protest. They claim Get Free aims to “undo white supremacy” and that one of the best ways to do that, in Naftali’s view, is to celebrate vandalism, citing Crown Heights, where someone threw an egg at a stranger’s cyber truck and placed dog feces on it. The speaker contends Naftali attended an abolish the police rally but was not the leader, instead blending in among other recruits, and that he works with the DSA, explaining why the speaker met him at a DSA Tax the Rich rally. On LinkedIn, the speaker says Naftali frequently posts about paid protester roles, urging people to join to “help us expand our effort to win reparations across the country,” with recruitment across Chicago, the Bay Area, and Baltimore. They describe a nine-week contract, part-time, paying $3,400 in stipends biweekly, seeking someone excited about experimentation who will recruit people and train them to drive turnout at events. The speaker also says Naftali is part of Jews Against Trump and urges donations to bail funds to “bail immigrants out of concentration camps,” adding a claim that a Jewish person who calls an immigration detention center a concentration camp has a serious mental illness, and criticizing colleges like NYU, the Democrat party, and mainstream media as brainwashing. The speaker asserts Nicole Cardi is at the top of the Get Free Movement and claims she says the George Floyd protests were the reason Biden won the 2020 election. They argue that protest NGO groups are about getting Democrats elected, and that donations to Get Free are funneled through ActBlue, which the speaker says is under investigation by the Department of Justice for foreign contributions. The speaker alleges ActBlue has funneled billions to activist groups like Indivisible Twin Cities, which is said to be orchestrating resistance to ICE agents in Minneapolis. Indivisible is claimed to have paid protesters and received over 7,600,000 dollars from the Open Society Foundation, funded by George Soros.

Fake NGOs are often fake charities, mostly run by Democrats, though Republicans may be involved to maintain silence. Billions of dollars are given to these Democrat-run NGOs, which then go through a network of additional NGOs. This is described as a giant money laundering scheme, where the terms NGO and money laundering are almost synonymous. Arrests are needed in this regard.

Government-funded NGOs are a way to do things that would be illegal for the government, but are made legal through nonprofits. These nonprofits are used for people to cash out and become wealthy, paying themselves enormous sums. It's described as a gigantic scam, possibly the biggest ever. There are potentially millions of NGOs, with tens of thousands being large. Someone can establish an NGO for a relatively small amount of money. George Soros is described as a system hacker who figured out how to leverage a small amount of money to create a nonprofit, then lobby politicians to send a ton of money to it, turning a $10 million donation into a billion-dollar NGO. The government continues to fund these NGOs yearly, and they often have nice-sounding names, but are essentially graft machines with no real requirements. Many in government are aware they are not doing good work.

We were covering an article about 55,000 Democrat NGOs discovered to be contributing to campaigns, moving things around, and pushing propaganda. It was discovered through AI that to figure out where the money's coming from, you have to go through layers and layers, and it's all funneling down to one group or another. It's a giant propaganda machine, a giant regime change machine.

The speaker describes a massive UN and NGO–driven immigration infrastructure in Mexico and Central America. In Tapachula, Mexico, the UNHCR is constructing a 75,000 square foot “illegal immigration mall” on Mexican land, with the UN and various NGOs under one roof. There is also a large tent city space, indicating a planned, long-term hub for migrants. The speaker notes similar NGO complexes in Colombia and Panama, where NGO villages resemble big swap meets with storefronts for different organizations and permanent billboards directing immigrants to resources needed to continue their journey. They claim hundreds of NGOs operate in the region, including US NGOs, European NGOs, and Latin American NGOs, many affiliated with Catholic dioceses or well-known groups like Doctors Without Borders. These NGOs are described as receiving substantial US taxpayer money to build a cross-border safety net, facilitated by UN agencies and then doled out to national NGOs via US appropriations from the State Department, USAID, and related sources. Financial figures are presented to illustrate the scale: $1.9 billion spent in 2024, $2.2 billion in the previous year, and about $45 billion over the last few years, with 2019 at $377 million in comparison. The speaker suggests this funding is intended to sustain a long-term, high-volume flow of migration from South America to the US border, with Tapachula identified as a key strategic city and the surrounding NGO towns on the migration corridor highlighted as part of the infrastructure. The speaker contends the operations are designed with an expectation of a political outcome, stating they are “betting on a Harris win” and that the system would halt “within an hour of his inauguration” if certain policies were enacted. Specifically, they claim the remain-in-Mexico policy could be immediately implemented, with orders to border patrol and possible invocation of Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to push back and deny asylum to 100% of border crossers. The claim is that this would deter migrants from attempting entry, and that the migrants themselves are closely watching US politics, with many believing that if Trump is in office, entry and asylum access would be substantially harder. The speaker observes that about 50,000 to 60,000 migrants arrive at the border monthly, noting a socioeconomic stratification: wealthier migrants tend to pay human smugglers to reach the border, while the poorer migrants—often from lower-income backgrounds—struggle to finance the final stages of the journey, sometimes needing to borrow or sell assets to reach Mexico, where the poorest end up on the streets in Tapachula. They remark that some nationalities, such as many Chinese and Venezuelans, are described as wealthier within this context.