The SPLC was founded in 1971 in Montgomery, Alabama, by Morris Dees, Joe Levin, and civil‑rights leader Julian Bond, who served as its first president. The founders created the organization because, even after the major civil rights victories of the 1960s, African Americans in the South still faced exclusion from jobs, housing, education, and political representation. Few lawyers were willing to take on controversial civil rights cases, and the founders sought to fill that gap.
In its early years, the SPLC pursued litigation that led to desegregation of public facilities, reapportionment of the Alabama legislature, integration of the Alabama state troopers, and reforms in the state prison system.
Over the decades, the SPLC became nationally known for winning multimillion‑dollar civil verdicts against violent white supremacist groups, effectively bankrupting several of them. The SPLC played a major role in bankrupting several Ku Klux Klan organizations. This is one of the most historically significant parts of its legacy.
The SPLC describes its mission as dismantling white supremacy, strengthening intersectional movements, and advancing human rights, particularly in the American South. It positions itself as a catalyst for racial justice, working through litigation, advocacy, education, and research.
As you can imagine, the people who hate the SPLC the most are the white supremacist groups the SPLC is trying to dismantle. Add the Department of Justice to that list, as it represents the biggest threat to their existence, having indicted the SPLC.
According to the Department of Justice, the SPLC routed more than $3 million between 2014 and 2023 to individuals affiliated with groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, Aryan Nations, National Socialist Movement, and others. Prosecutors say donors were told their money would fight extremism, not be paid to its leaders.
The DOJ argues that these payments — made through concealed bank accounts and prepaid cards — constituted wire fraud, bank fraud, and conspiracy to commit money laundering.
Federal prosecutors claim the SPLC:
- Used fake entities and concealed accounts to move donor money
- Paid extremist leaders and organizers under the guise of “field sources.”
- Failed to disclose these payments to donors or banks
- Misrepresented its activities in fundraising materials
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche stated that the SPLC was “manufacturing the extremism it purports to oppose” by paying sources who allegedly helped stoke racial hatred. The tactics used by the SPLC are often the same ones used by the FBI and local police departments to infiltrate criminal organizations. Using paid informants wasn’t the problem; the DOJ is alleging fraud for failing to disclose the specific payments to donors. Have you ever seen that type of disclosure from the FBI or the police about their paid informants?
The SPLC does not deny paying informants. Instead, it argues that these were confidential sources embedded in violent groups. They believe payments were necessary to monitor threats and prevent violence and information gathered was shared with the FBI and law enforcement
Interim CEO Bryan Fair stated that the informant program “helped save lives” and that the organization will “vigorously defend” its work. The FBI stopped receiving information from the SPLC in October 2025, when FBI Director Kash Patel formally severed the Bureau’s long‑standing partnership with the organization.
In a related note, the Department of Justice has changed the mission of the Civil Rights Division to focus solely on preserving the rights of white people. Many of their actions have been purported to be responding to antisemitism when the goal is anything but. The DOJ sees any action designed to shed light on the persecution of Palestinians as antisemitic. Many of the rest are part of a systemic plan to eradicate DEI, which existed in an attempt to level the playing field for others besides white males. Here’s what the DOJ has been up to:
1. Antisemitism investigation at the University of Washington
Allegedly protects Jewish students from harassment. The DOJ is going after pro-Palestinian protests.
2. Second DOJ review of UW’s antisemitism response
A separate report confirms the Civil Rights Division launched another review of UW’s response to pro-Palestinian incidents,
3. DOJ inquiry into antisemitism tied to an off‑campus event
The Civil Rights Division initiated a compliance review after a group planned a fundraiser off-campus, which they say was linked to violent antisemitic activity. The group targeted by the DOJ for the off‑campus fundraiser in Washington was Students United for Palestinian Equality and Return (SUPER UW).
4. Removal of prosecutors accused of selective FACE Act enforcement
The DOJ removed prosecutors alleged to have selectively targeted conservative Christian defendants — many of whom are white — under the FACE Act. This action was framed as a means of restoring fairness in civil rights enforcement. The DOJ report alleged that Biden‑era prosecutors applied the FACE Act unevenly, focusing overwhelmingly on anti‑abortion defendants while bringing far fewer cases against abortion‑rights activists accused of similar conduct. Anti-abortion defendants over the years have been guilty of bombing clinics and killing doctors. Abortion-rights activists have been accused of vandalism, spray painting messages, interfering with access, and “wearing masks and dark clothing to conceal identity during attacks,” which isn’t a crime when ICE does it.
5. Lawsuit against UCLA medical school for discriminatory admissions practices
The Civil Rights Division joined litigation alleging racial discrimination in admissions — claims that include allegations of discrimination against white applicants.
6. Lawsuit against Harvard for withholding race‑related admissions documents
This action supports transparency in race‑related admissions practices, including potential discrimination against white applicants.
7. Voting‑rights lawsuits against five states for failing to maintain voter rolls
These suits are alleged to ensure voting‑rights compliance for all voters, including white voters, by ensuring accurate voter‑roll maintenance. The result will be a reduction in the number of minority voters and students.
8. Fair Housing Act enforcement cases involving race discrimination
Recent FHA cases focus on white renters or homeowners when alleged discrimination occurs.
9. Equal Credit Opportunity Act enforcement
The Civil Rights Division pursued cases ensuring equal access to credit — protections that apply to white borrowers as well as others.
10. RLUIPA enforcement protecting religious congregations
These actions protect religious groups — including white-majority congregations — from discriminatory zoning or land‑use restrictions.
Besides changing their mission to primarily serve white people, effectively becoming the Just-Us Department. The DOJ is now actively protecting white supremacist groups by going after the group most responsible for keeping them somewhat in check.
Attorneys in the Civil Rights Division used to solicit SPLC officials’ advice about issues they should be “tracking” and even invited the left-wing nonprofit to attend quarterly departmental meetings. This all ended when FBI Director Kash Patel stopped accepting information from the SPLC.
Patel stated that the SPLC was no longer a neutral civil‑rights watchdog but had turned into a “partisan smear machine.” This was his primary justification for ending the relationship.
Patel argued that the SPLC’s long‑running hate‑map project — which tracks extremist and anti‑government groups — was being used to malign political organizations, including those aligned with conservative causes. Is it the fault of the SPLC that the vast majority of hate groups aligned themselves with MAGA and other right-wing groups?
Patel said the Bureau was “severing its relationship” with both the SPLC and the Anti‑Defamation League as part of a larger shift in how the FBI engages with outside civil‑rights and extremism‑tracking organizations. We now see the FBI engaging with outside civil rights groups by charging them with crimes while they focus on the rights of white people.
The DOJ is portraying the use of paid informants as helping fund the hate groups the SPLC says they want to bring down. They used the exact same tactics the FBI and DOJ used in targeting crime families and hate groups, back when they used to investigate them. Did the FBI disclose the funding to taxpayers when they infiltrated every civil rights organization and leader during the COINTELPRO era, more recently named Black Identity Politics? The indictment of the SPLC serves a single goal: to protect white supremacist groups from investigations that the FBI is no longer interested in. Politics has made hate groups their not-so-strange bedfellows.