The SPLC and CAIR are pressuring donor-advised funds to blacklist conservative and Christian "hate groups" in an attempt to defund their political opponents. DAFs had $121 billion in 2018. /1 pjmedia.com/trending/splc-…
In calling for this blacklisting, the report praises #ChangeTheTerms, a coalition of Soros-funded groups that pressure #BigTech to silence conservatives on the SPLC "hate group" list. /2 pjmedia.com/trending/splc-…
The entire report is very circular. In addition to citing Change the Terms, it cites a CAIR report from last year, urging philanthropic groups to blacklist "anti-Muslim hate groups," citing — once again — the SPLC "hate group" list. /3 pjmedia.com/trending/anti-…
The SPLC/CAIR report also cites Amalgamated Bank's "Hate Is Not Charitable" campaign, which is — sorry if I'm sounding like a broken record here — an attempt to blacklist SPLC-accused "hate groups." /4 pjmedia.com/trending/25-do…
Urging donor-advised funds to blacklist these groups is a huge deal. DAFs represent a huge chunk of philanthropy in America today, and they allow donors some degree of anonymity with their giving. Leftists like to demonize donors to conservative groups, as @AFPhq knows well. /6
The SPLC "hate group" list is also notoriously corrupt and unreliable. Former employees have called it a "scam" because it exaggerates hate and is intended to destroy political opponents. A huge chunk of my book, #MakingHatePay, focuses on this. /7
To its credit(?), the report acknowledges that blacklisting falsely-accused "hate groups" might seem "controversial," but it claims this is important for "public safety," which is ironic since the SPLC "hate map" inspired an attempted terrorist attack in 2012. /8
The SPLC routinely peppers reports like this w/ references to white supremacist terror, the El Paso shooter (a radical environmentalist as well), and white supremacist groups, giving the impression that "hate group" has KKK connotations, which it does. /9 pjmedia.com/trending/splc-…
Yet the SPLC routinely argues in court that its "hate group" accusation is mere meaningless opinion. This report, like so many others, gives the lie to that claim — they cite the number of "hate groups" as a statistically significant measure for white supremacy. /10
It is important to note that this report praises iTunes, PayPal, and AmazonSmile for taking "measures to screen out hate from their platforms." What does this mean? These #BigTech firms have allowed themselves to be weaponized by the SPLC. /11 pjmedia.com/trending/its-b…
Make no mistake: the SPLC is an engine of defamation, fundraising, and political warfare. It aims to destroy the reputations of conservative and Christian groups, even going after their funding, while making wads of cash by exaggerating hate. /12
Donor-advised funds that are tempted to take this report seriously should check out my book, #MakingHatePay: The Corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Don't become a tool for the SPLC to further bilk its donors, defame law-abiding Americans, and worsen polarization. /13
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
After pressure from @IWPCapital & @ADFLegal, DoorDash has taken steps to allow employees to contribute to conservatives unfairly smeared as "hate groups."
ADF's Noah Nash told me that it "sets an excellent example for other companies to follow."
🧵2/10
How does it work? DoorDash uses a platform called Deed to help connect DoorDash employees to nonprofits. Deed, like the company Benevity, facilitates employee giving and volunteering—an important service. Unfortunately, Deed uses the SPLC to "screen" nonprofits.
The SPLC moved to dismiss the DOJ indictment for "vindictive prosecution," claiming that the Trump admin was targeting the leftist group for its free speech.
Here's why that doesn't work, according to the DOJ.
First, a motion to dismiss for vindictive prosecution often occurs when the government files a new indictment in an existing legal case. That's not the case here. "At bottom, this is a standard white collar fraud prosecution."
🧵2/12
The cases the SPLC cites in its own defense actually cut against its argument.
"The defendant does not even allege facts that would fit a recognized claim of vindictive prosecution."
How does corporate America blacklist conservatives? Companies don't do it outright. Instead, they outsource it: to the very same leftist "hate watchdog" that allegedly paid for KKK hoods and cross burnings😲
Meet Benevity. This software companies connects nearly 1K companies to 513K nonprofits, managing $16B in grants and 99M employee volunteer hours. It's the middleman between companies and the charities they voluntarily support.
🧵2/16
But Benevity also systematically excludes mainstream conservative and Christian nonprofits. Its former CO bragged about using the Southern Poverty Law Center's "hate list" to "vet" nonprofits.
Today, Society for the Rule of Law moved to file an amicus brief in U.S. v. SPLC, suggesting the DOJ engaged in vindictive prosecution. I can't help but wonder, what sort of conservative group takes the SPLC's side?
🧵1/15
The society claims it wants to protect prosecution from "political influence." The group says it "has not always concurred with" the SPLC's rhetoric, action, or tactics, but "opposes vindictive prosecution of any target."
🧵2/15
The society notes: @FBIDirectorKash condemned the SPLC as a "partisan smear machine" (it is), @Jim_Jordan asked the AG to examine the SPLC's influence under Biden, Pam Bondi was fired reportedly in part for not being aggressive enough, and Trump attacked SPLC.
Reminder: the SPLC raises money by claiming it exists to "dismantle white supremacy," but DOJ says the SPLC was actually propping up the hate it told donors it aimed to destroy. SPLC paid "field sources," whom SPLC says were merely informants.
🧵2/20
Yet the field sources used the SPLC's $ to:
1⃣Attend extremist rallies
2⃣Host rallies
3⃣Grow existing chapters
4⃣Create new chapters
5⃣Recruit individuals
6⃣Donate to extremist leaders
7⃣Purchase cross-burning material
8⃣Create racist paraphernalia
9⃣Pay living expenses
What if I told you an EPA lawyer who is also a union leader signed a document explicitly stating that she is "opposing this administration’s policies," but still seems to have kept her job?
On June 30, 2025, Cantello signed a "Declaration of Dissent," condemning the Trump "administration’s focus on harmful deregulation, mischaracterization of previous EPA actions, and disregard for scientific expertise."
🧵2/5
As a citizen, she has every right to take this stand. But as an executive branch employee, she needs to follow lawful orders from the president on down.
This mentality captures the essence of the deep state—opposition to the president's agenda from within the gov't.