Public records show that millions of dollars given to former President Barack Obama’s foundation were later redirected to a progressive fund that has supported anti-Israel groups, including those accused of organizing encampments at Ivy League universities.
According to federal tax filings, the Obama Foundation — established to construct a 19-acre campus in Chicago featuring a museum, athletic facility, and gardens — transferred $2 million to the Tides Foundation in 2022 and 2023, the New York Post
The cash was earmarked to “support local organizations that are working to reduce violence in communities,” according to filings by the foundation.
The Tides Foundation — which also receives funding from Democratic donor George Soros — serves as a fiscal sponsor for organizations that have not registered with the IRS as charities. The group is currently under review by the House Ways and Means Committee for its role in directing donations to groups including the Adalah Justice Project, Samidoun, and the People’s Forum.
These organizations have been linked to pro-Palestinian demonstrations and student encampments that followed the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks in Israel, which killed 1,200 people, The Post reported.
Following publication of the story on Friday, a spokeswoman for the Obama Foundation said the $2 million in question was distributed to more than 50 organizations nationwide to reduce “surging summer violence” and to create “safe spaces” for young people.
“The Tides Center played an administrative role in the program by processing grants while Cities United [a nonprofit] managed the application process,” the spokeswoman told The Post in an email.
Tides has also overseen donations for the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, which filed a lawsuit in California Superior Court last year accusing the fund of “egregious mismanagement” of more than $33 million, according to court records. That case remains ongoing.
In addition to its donations to Tides, filings show the Obama Foundation directed more than $3 million in grants to Gofundme.org in 2022 and 2023 for unspecified programs described as supporting “grassroots leaders to empower girls through education.”
Caroline Leavitt’s Courtroom Stand Sparks Nationwide Legal Debate
In a striking display of legal assertiveness, Caroline Leavitt, former press secretary under President Donald Trump, challenged a $50,000 fine imposed for alleged violations of the Federal Communications Act during a federal hearing in Washington, D.C. The case, which initially came before Chief Justice John Roberts, took an unexpected and closely watched turn when Leavitt demanded the right to personally present her defense, raising questions about procedural fairness and the limits of governmental authority.
Roberts initially dismissed her request, describing the matter as “straightforward” and suggesting that formal deliberation was unnecessary. Leavitt, however, persisted, invoking her right to due process and arguing that the potential precedent set by an unchallenged ruling could have far-reaching consequences for citizens facing government scrutiny. Her insistence led to a recess and the appointment of Judge Samuel Coleman, a jurist recognized for his impartiality and adherence to procedural integrity.
Under Judge Coleman’s oversight, Leavitt delivered a methodical and meticulously documented defense. She referenced several landmark Supreme Court decisions to underscore the constitutional protections afforded to individuals and highlighted glaring deficiencies in the prosecution’s case, including the absence of any substantive evidence linking her to the alleged violations. At one point, an investigator for the prosecution conceded that they had no documentation to substantiate the claims—a revelation that further strengthened Leavitt’s argument.
Leavitt framed her defense not merely as a personal matter but as a broader statement on the dangers of unchecked governmental power. She argued that fines and penalties imposed without clear evidence undermine public trust in federal agencies and erode the protections enshrined by the Constitution. Her remarks resonated beyond the courtroom, sparking discussions among legal scholars, civil liberties advocates, and the broader public about the delicate balance between enforcement and individual rights.
Ultimately, Judge Coleman dismissed the charges against Leavitt, citing insufficient evidence to support the fine. The ruling has been hailed by supporters as a victory for due process and judicial transparency, while also prompting renewed debates about the responsibilities of federal regulators when enforcing complex statutory frameworks.
Legal analysts note that the case underscores the critical role of the Department of Justice in maintaining fairness and accountability within the U.S. judicial system. For aspiring lawyers and policymakers, the case also serves as a reminder of the importance of rigorous legal education. Experts suggest that obtaining a Master’s degree in law or related fields in the United States can provide the knowledge and analytical skills necessary to navigate complex legal disputes and influence pivotal policy debates.
Leavitt’s courtroom stand has ignited a national conversation about individual rights, government oversight, and the mechanisms available to challenge official action. Her case is now frequently cited in legal forums and academic discussions as an example of how tenacity, preparation, and a thorough understanding of constitutional principles can alter the trajectory of legal proceedings.
As debates continue, the broader implications of the case remain evident. Questions about the boundaries of federal authority, the safeguards for individuals facing regulatory scrutiny, and the enduring significance of due process are being revisited in light of Leavitt’s successful defense. For legal professionals, scholars, and citizens alike, the case serves as a powerful illustration of the principle that in the United States, no individual should be penalized without evidence and the opportunity for a fair and transparent hearing.