During a Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) called on the Department of Justice to investigate and prosecute what he described as ‘dark money’ networks.
Hawley named billionaire-linked networks tied to George Soros and Neville Roy Singham, urging federal action to hold these organisations accountable.
Sen. Josh Hawley used a Senate homeland-security hearing this week to press a familiar Washington theme—follow the money—but in a setting that fused immigration unrest, nonprofit finance and allegations of foreign influence into a single prosecutorial pitch.
In the clip circulating online under the headline “‘Soros, Singham networks funding…’: Hawley ‘exposes’ dark money groups in Minnesota at fiery hearing,” Hawley (R., Mo.) argued that recent anti-ICE protests in Minnesota were less “spontaneous” than “highly organized,” and he urged the Justice Department to “untangle” what he called a “dark money” web and bring prosecutions where possible.
“A broad ecosystem”—and a number: $60 million
The exchange turns on testimony from Seamus Bruner of the Government Accountability Institute, whom Hawley cited as an investigator of nonprofit funding networks. Bruner told senators he had “tracked over $60 million” in payments—derived from IRS Form 990 disclosures—to “approximately 14 groups” that he said were active “on the ground” in Minnesota.
Hawley seized on the figure to argue that a large, multi-entity funding architecture sits behind street-level protest activity—an architecture he described as opaque by design because nonprofit pass-through structures can make it difficult to identify original sources of funds.
Who did the witness name?
In the portion of the hearing highlighted in Hawley’s office release, Bruner listed a range of organizations and advocacy groups he said showed up in his Minnesota-focused mapping, including the ACLU (which he described as providing legal defense and training support) and other national and local groups. Among those he named were Democracy Forward, TakeAction Minnesota, Indivisible, the National Lawyers Guild, CTUL, CAIR-Minnesota, Minnesota 350, and Voices for Racial Justice.
Bruner characterized this as an “ecosystem” rather than a single organization directing events—mixing legal support, organizing capacity and communications infrastructure.
The funding theory: “networks” and pass-through pipes
Pressed on where the money comes from, Bruner pointed to what he called major “networks,” including the Soros/Open Society sphere, the Arabella funding network and the Neville Roy Singham funding network, along with other large philanthropic channels. The alleged mechanism, he suggested, is straightforward: money moves through donor-advised funds and nonprofit intermediaries and arrives as large checks to local entities.
Hawley framed that pattern as a law-enforcement problem, not just a political-finance debate, arguing that if money is financing illegal conduct—assaults on officers, property damage or interference with law enforcement—then prosecutions should follow.
“Foreign money” as the accelerant
The hearing clip also elevates a second, more explosive claim: that some of the money behind U.S. protests may be foreign-linked. Bruner repeatedly invoked Singham—describing him as an American citizen living in China with pro-CCP sympathies—and also referenced Swiss billionaire Hansjörg Wyss in connection with Arabella-aligned vehicles, echoing prior media reporting he cited. Hawley used the allegations to argue that foreign influence should strip away any deference typically afforded to domestic political speech.
The backdrop: Minnesota as a national flashpoint
Hawley’s hearing moment is landing amid a larger national fight over the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota, which triggered mass demonstrations and intense scrutiny after the fatal shootings of two U.S. citizens during enforcement actions—events that have fueled political backlash and multiple congressional inquiries.
That context matters because it helps explain why Minnesota, rather than a border state, has become the stage for an argument about nonprofit money and protest logistics: the state has been treated by both parties as a test case for where immigration enforcement ends and civil unrest begins.
What the hearing does—and doesn’t—establish
The testimony Hawley highlighted relies on two different kinds of claims that often get blurred in political media:
- Accounting claims (Form 990-based mapping of grants and payments among nonprofits) can illuminate financial relationships and the size of funding streams.
- Operational claims (that specific dollars funded riots, violence, or coordinated interference with law enforcement) require additional proof tying funding to specific actions and intent.
In other words, tracing grants to organizations is not the same as proving direction of illegal conduct—something Hawley effectively acknowledged by making DOJ action the endpoint of his argument: investigate first, prosecute where the facts allow.
Date: February 10, 2026
1) Setting and what Hawley was trying to establish
In a Homeland Security Subcommittee hearing chaired by Sen. Josh Hawley, the line of questioning pivots from broad program fraud to public disorder/anti-ICE unrest in Minnesota and the claim that it was not spontaneous, but organized and financially supported through “dark money” nonprofit networks.
Hawley’s objective in this segment is basically a chain:
(a) protests/riots in Minnesota show signs of coordination →
(b) coordination suggests infrastructure (training, legal support, comms, logistics) →
(c) infrastructure requires funding →
(d) funding allegedly traces back to large donor networks (some described as foreign-linked) →
(e) therefore DOJ should investigate and, where possible, prosecute.
That “DOJ investigation + prosecution” demand is Hawley’s closing theme in the press release and the hearing clip.
2) What the “on-the-ground” witness claimed about organization and tactics
A) “Highly organized and coordinated”
Minnesota State Sen. Mark Koran (as described in the press release) answers Hawley’s “spontaneous vs organized” question by saying the activity is “highly organized and coordinated,” with a mix of national and professional agitation groups plus local reporting that “30,000 observers” were trained to insert themselves into protests.
B) Tactics alleged
Koran describes (as allegations/observations) a package of tactics:
- Doxxing (described as “highly coordinated”)
- Violence against federal agents (including severe injury claims)
- Projectiles (frozen bottles, stones, etc.)
- Direct interference with law enforcement operations
C) Alleged involvement of state/local officials
Koran also claims some elected officials in the Minneapolis area were “involved,” including participation in chats and at least one named state representative (as transcribed in your text). This is presented as assertion, not proven finding, in the clip.
3) The nonprofit-funding witness: what he says he tracked and what that means
Hawley then turns to Seamus Bruner (Government Accountability Institute), introduced as someone who tracks nonprofit funding networks, and asks the core question: “What organizations have been active on the ground in Minnesota?”
Bruner’s central funding claims are:
- He says he tracked “over $60 million” (based on IRS Form 990 disclosures) to ~14 groups tied to Minnesota protest activity.
- He says the money originates through large donor/funding “networks,” naming:
- Soros network (often shorthand for Open Society–linked giving)
- Arabella funding network
- Neville Roy Singham funding network
- and “many others” (he also references large philanthropic networks generally)
- He characterizes the structure as multi-entity pass-through funding that can obscure the original donor (“washed through multiple times”), then lands as large checks to organizations operating “on the ground.”
Important framing: in this hearing segment, these are testimony-level assertions about flows and purpose (protest/riot support), not adjudicated conclusions.
4) “What organizations have been active on the ground in Minnesota?” (the named list)
From your transcript (and consistent with Hawley’s office summary that Bruner listed Minnesota-active groups), the witness explicitly names the following as part of the Minnesota ecosystem he says received funding:
- ACLU (described as providing legal defense and facilitating trainings)
- Democracy Forward
- TakeAction Minnesota (he singles this out as receiving over $10 million from large NGO networks)
- Indivisible
- National Lawyers Guild
- CTUL (Centro de Trabajadores Unidos en Lucha)
- CAIR-Minnesota (Council on American-Islamic Relations, Minnesota)
- Minnesota 350
- Voices for Racial Justice
He presents this as a non-exhaustive list (“on and on”) within the broader “~14 groups” and “$60 million” claim.
5) How “dark money” and “foreign money” are used in the argument
In the clip, “dark money” is used in the colloquial political sense: money routed through nonprofit entities and pass-through structures that may not clearly identify original donors (especially depending on entity type and reporting). Bruner claims the structure makes it difficult to see “ultimate” donors and says this is intentionally opaque.
Then the exchange escalates into “foreign money” concerns. Bruner claims the most concerning aspect is foreign-linked funding, and the discussion focuses heavily on Neville Roy Singham and also mentions Swiss billionaire Hansjörg Wyss as a funder of Arabella-aligned vehicles (in the witness’s telling).
Sources: hawley.senate.gov/hawley-exposes-fraud-in-state-and-federal-programs-and-dark-money-funding-web/ , Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing, Sen. Josh Hawley video
Watch the full hearing here. Midtown Tribune News