The recent “No Kings” protests on October 18, 2025, have stirred significant controversy, drawing scrutiny and outrage, particularly from Republican figures. The protests were organized by Indivisible, which has been criticized for its financial ties to George Soros, a billionaire known for his involvement in progressive causes. Reports have traced over $7.61 million in grants from Soros’s Open Society Foundations to Indivisible since 2017, purportedly aimed at promoting civic engagement.
Sen. Ted Cruz has taken a strong stance on the issue, asserting that these protests have financial backing from Soros’s network, equating them to politically charged demonstrations that might escalate into riots. Cruz stated, “There’s considerable evidence that George Soros and his network are behind funding these rallies, which may well be riots all across the country.” His remarks highlight a broader Republican concern that these protests are not organic expressions of political dissent but rather orchestrated events funded by external influences.
The financial entanglements of Indivisible raise questions about the legitimacy of the protests. Critics allege that the substantial funding from organizations linked to Soros, as well as connections to the Tides Network, suggest the presence of astroturfing… creating the illusion of grassroots movements. This notion of paid activism fuels skepticism about the authenticity of protests labeled as citizen-driven, especially when they are backed by significant financial resources from what some consider controversial figures.
In response to the backlash, an Open Society Foundations spokesperson issued a carefully crafted statement, asserting that they support a “wide range of independent organizations” dedicated to civic engagement. However, this statement appears to deflect accountability, as it insists that grantees operate independently, thus distancing Soros’s organization from any potential accusations of inciting violence. The spokesperson claimed, “We oppose all forms of violence, including violent protests,” reinforcing the image of the Open Society as committed to peaceful, democratic participation.
In contrast, the messaging coming from Indivisible presents a more assertive stance. Their website proclaimed, “On October 18, millions of us are rising again,” suggesting a rallying call for significant public engagement. They assert that protests are most effective when participants exercise their constitutional rights to assembly and speech, indicating an insistence on the legitimacy of their activities. However, the tone and implications of the protests have roused enough concern to prompt voices across social media to raise alarms about the funding mechanisms and motivations behind these demonstrations.
Conservative commentators have expressed outrage over the perceived exploitation of nonprofit status. One social media post claimed that there are indications Soros’s nonprofit could lose its tax-exempt status due to its connections with the anti-Trump protests. The post went so far as to suggest that the money trail shows a $3 million grant awarded in 2023 to Indivisible, alleging that this type of involvement might contravene federal tax law. “Nonprofits must not participate in politics,” the post warned. “Nonprofits have lost their tax-exempt status for less.” Such statements suggest concerns that Soros’s involvement could result in legal repercussions.
Moreover, reactions on social media have amplified claims of the protests being financially incentivized. One user declared, “The entire FAKE ‘No Kings’ protest was paid for by over 300 liberal groups,” further alleging that Soros’s funding makes these protests illegitimate. The language used reflects a deep-seated frustration akin to being duped, implying that the demonstrations are fabrications rather than genuine expressions of dissent. Another user claimed that the protests were “insanely astroturfed,” suggesting an orchestrated effort to create the appearance of widespread discontent against Trump.
This situation is emblematic of the broader polarization in American politics, where financial transparency and the motivations of activist groups are increasingly scrutinized. The entwinement of money and political advocacy raises ethical questions surrounding the purity of grassroots movements. As protests unfold, the narrative surrounding them becomes a pivotal factor in shaping public perception and further complicating the already charged political landscape.
In essence, the “No Kings” protests have brought issues of funding, legitimacy, and political involvement into sharp relief. The involvement of George Soros and the significant financial connections to organizations like Indivisible complicate the narrative of these protests as a sincere grassroots reaction. Instead, they suggest an orchestrated effort that many argue undermines the authenticity of political dissent. As the financial ramifications and public perceptions continue to evolve, it remains to be seen how this controversy will influence future protests and the entities that support them.
"*" indicates required fields
