“The Southern Poverty Law Center: Manufacturing Hate, Part II”
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
House Judiciary U.S. House of Representatives
Follow its sittings
Jim Jordan
Again, all told, four million dollars to manufacture hate. We said this last hearing. I still remember Rahm Emanuel saying, oh, talking about Democrats, never let a crisis go to waste. The SPLC took it a step further. They created the crisis.
They manufactured the crisis. And by so doing, they became the standard, the source for determining who is a hate group. They labeled Family Research Council a hate group. Moms for Liberty was labeled a hate group. Turning Point USA labeled a hate group.
Alliance Defending Freedom, even though they argued sixteen cases, multiple cases, won sixteen cases in front of the Supreme Court, they were labeled a hate group. But never Jane's Revenge. Never the group who vandalized crisis pregnancy centers, churches, in the aftermath of the Dobbs decision. They never got labeled.
Make them the standard. This is probably the part that bothers me, I think bothers most people the most. They help make the Southern Poverty the standard in evaluating who's a hate group, who isn't. Because they consulted with them, they had quarterly meetings. The Deputy Attorney General, Lisa Monaco, quarterly met with SPLC.
They would give SPLC any information they had, the Justice Department, the FBI had, they'd give it to them first. They even used them to train prosecutors. And of course we know what it resulted in. The now famous memorandum from the FBI field office in Richmond, Virginia, where the FBI said if you're a pro-life Catholic, you're an extremist. And of course who did they cite for that?
You guessed it, the Southern Poverty Law Center. Southern Poverty Law Center became part of the weaponized Garland-Biden Justice Department. Now here's what's interesting. The Biden DOJ knew all about this scam that they were running. They knew the SPLC was doing this, but they didn't pursue the case, they dropped the case.
Because when you meet with them, when you consult with them, when you have them train your prosecutors, you're not going to prosecute them. Nope, you're not going to do it because it's too valuable politically. And here's the scary part. And I'm sure we'll have questions for Mr. Fair later on about this. Here's the scary part.
It all worked. Field source 37, the guy at the Charlottesville rally, helped plan that rally, coordinate transportation there, was paid to attend. After the event, again after the event where a lady was killed, the Southern Poverty Law Center almost tripled their income. 51 million to 133 million after they were coordinating the hate that took place at that crazy rally. You run a scam, you become the standard, you don't get prosecuted, and you make a ton of money.
They got 800 million assets, 700 million in an endowment. Such a deal. And they would have gotten away with it but for the oversight of Congress and more importantly the work of the Justice Department. So God bless the Attorney General and the work him and his team are doing. And we look forward to hearing from our witnesses today and asking them questions.
And with that, I would yield to the ranking member for an opening statement.
Jamie Raskin
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Welcome to our witnesses. Created in 1971 and headquartered in Montgomery, Alabama. Created in 1971, headquartered in Montgomery, Alabama, the Southern Poverty Law Center is one of America's leading civil rights groups. It fights for voting rights throughout the South, economic justice, and criminal justice reform.
Like every major civil rights group in our history, it's been subjected to serious white supremacist violence. Its leaders have been threatened and attacked since its founding, and SPLC headquarters were firebombed in 1983 by members of the Ku Klux Klan who were convicted of conspiracy in federal court. After this attack and escalating racial terror, the SPLC added to its work a focus on the Klan and neo-Nazi groups and other purveyors of hate violence and white supremacy. In 1988, the SPLC litigated against the Southern Whites of the Ku Klux Klan, the Southern White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, and drove them into bankruptcy, winning a million-dollar damages verdict on behalf of more than 50 peaceful civil rights marchers in Forsyth County, Georgia, who had been savagely attacked and injured by the Klan. In 2019, it brought a 14-million-dollar judgment and won it against the neo-Nazi founder of the Daily Stormer for orchestrating an anti-Semitic troll storm harassment campaign consisting of more than 700 death threats and vile abuse against a Jewish woman and her family.
The SPLC has defended the rights of anyone and everyone targeted for hate violence, oppression, and murder. Today, it's under attack by the Trump administration and MAGA. Like the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the great legislative achievement of the modern civil rights movement, now dismantled by the Roberts Court, the SPLC is an enduring institutional beacon of hope for millions of people seeking to create a more perfect union. The Trump administration is thus naturally trying to tear it down. I've heard three main arguments for this astonishing crusade.
The first is that the age of racism and white supremacy violence is over in the 21st century, and so the SPLC's work is unnecessary. Well, this is plainly ridiculous. We live in an age of resurgent racial injustice, profound economic inequality, and relentless assault on the right to vote. Racist violence still permeates our society. In recent memory, avowed racists and white supremacists have killed 23 people in the El Paso Walmart massacre, 11 people worshipping at the Tree of Life synagogue in the worst anti-Semitic attack in American history, 10 people who were killed shopping for groceries in the Buffalo supermarket massacre, nine worshipping parishioners were gunned down at the Mother Emanuel Church massacre in Charleston, South Carolina, and eight people were killed at the Atlanta spa shootings, to name just five examples out of thousands.
In 2024 alone, the FBI recorded nearly 12,000 hate crime episodes in our country. Just a few weeks ago, three fathers died defending their mosque and 140 children at worship services in San Diego against two fanatical white supremacist teenagers jacked up on white great replacement theory and far-right neo-Nazi ideology who took their own lives tragically after the attack. But here's the second argument they use. They say, well, even if there's all this violence that we're engulfed in, the Southern Poverty Law Center itself is responsible for the violence that we see around us. The basis for this outlandish claim is that for decades, at least since the 1990s, the SPLC has infiltrated and investigated the Klan, neo-Nazis, and other groups by paying informants who go undercover.
The purpose of these operations is obviously to derail and prevent white supremacist hate crimes and actions, both the kinds of hate crimes and shooting sprees we see all around us, but even more massive terrorist attacks like the Oklahoma City federal building bombing, which took the lives of 168 Americans, many of them children who were in a daycare center when the white nationalists unleashed their terrorism on the people of Oklahoma. In the course of their work to investigate the extreme right, the SPLC has worked closely with the FBI for decades and turned over to the Bureau voluminous information, tips, and leads from their field sources for further investigation, criminal arrest, and prosecution. In 2017, the FBI listed the SPLC as one of its partners on its website, where it remained for eight or nine years before this administration. There's nothing new about that work. But now Todd Blanche and the Trump DOJ in Alabama have twisted and corrupted this proud history of cooperation with law enforcement to bring an 11-count criminal indictment against the SPLC, claiming that it was defrauding its own donors.
This is amazing, given not only that the SPLC donors and supporters cherish and prize the group precisely for its ability to get information in this way to stop hate crimes, but also incredible because the FBI itself uses the exact same practices for its own investigative work, spending in the neighborhood of not three or four million dollars on undercover informants, but more than 40 million dollars a year on undercover informants. There's nothing illegal about that. SPLC donors are not claiming fraud. They were proud to support this program.
Even the extremist groups themselves understood they were being infiltrated and were constantly looking for the traitors, the spies. Well, my friends, we know what a real fraud looks like. Consider a fraud called Trump University, a scam from top to bottom where 9,000 victims joined three different class action lawsuits to complain about the fact that they were cheated out of thousands of dollars for a university that existed in name only, without a real curriculum, without real professors, without an actual campus or any way to keep their extravagant and seductive promises to their students. The thousands of outraged victims were not silent. They came forward to complain and they won a 25 million dollar settlement against Donald Trump and the purveyors of this fraud.
One former instructor at Trump University said it, quote, preyed upon the elderly and uneducated to separate them from their money. Another former instructor said the institution was, quote, a total lie. That's what real fraud looks like. What have SPLC's donors done in light of this criminal indictment? They've not lined up to file class action suits or to denounce the SPLC.
They continue to support the SPLC's work. Donations to the organization have gone up since this fraudulent indictment was brought down by the Trump administration. Well, the final complaint I've heard from members of this committee speaking on behalf of certain groups who take exception to being called hate groups by the SPLC. So they're mad that certain groups that they like are called hate groups. And I can appreciate why people don't want to be called a hate group.
I don't like a lot of things that are said about me and the groups that I like. Stephen Miller said the Democrat Party is not a political party, it's a domestic extremist organization. I don't like that. Kristi Noem called Alex Pretti and Renee Good, law-abiding citizens shot down by ICE, domestic terrorists. Donald Trump said that Democratic donors like George Soros and Reid Hoffman were funding a conspiracy for domestic terrorists.
Look, under our First Amendment, love and hate exist in the eye of the beholder. Donald Trump has repeatedly said that January 6th was a day of love when our police officers were bathed in hugs and kisses from the Proud Boys and the insurrectionists. For most of us who lived through that violent insurrection, it wasn't a day of love, it was a day of hatred and sickening violence. But that's the great thing about the First Amendment. It's up to you.
You can say whatever you want. If you don't like the fact that someone's called you a hate group, then you get up and then you rebut them, you denounce them. I've heard Chairman Jordan say it a dozen times in our hearings, and I agree with him. The proper response to speech you don't like is counter-speech, not government prosecution, not government censorship. Counterpose honest speech to dishonest speech, the truth to the lies, let the public figure it out.
Whatever happened to I disagree with everything you say, but I will stand with my life for your right to say it? We need less vendetta and more Voltaire. All of this is a disgrace. When DOJ was founded in 1870, 156 years ago, it was to protect the newly freed African Americans against the Ku Klux Klan, which was rampaging violence throughout the South. Todd Blanche has capsized DOJ's commitment to the rights of all and disgraced the department.
He has directed DOJ to savage the SPLC while he does everything in his power with the president to aid and abet the right-wing extremists who commit acts of violence against racial minorities.
Just two weeks after becoming acting AG, he moved to vacate the criminal convictions of the leaders of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers for seditious conspiracy. They were convicted and sentenced to jail for many, many years. Seditious conspiracy means working to overthrow the government of the United States. These were crimes so toxic that President Trump wouldn't even pardon them when he was pardoning en masse more than 1,600 other cop-beating racist January 6th rioters and insurrectionists. These are the people that the DOJ now protects.
And now Todd Blanch wants to create a 1.776 billion dollar taxpayer-funded slush fund to turn the January 6th foot soldiers into MAGA millionaires. And while Blanch was at it, he signed an outrageous super-pardon to give not just Donald Trump, but his entire family and all their businesses complete and total immunity from any investigation, audit, lawsuit, or prosecution by any federal agency for any criminal or civil violation against the United States up until this point. And while systematically firing prosecutors and FBI agents who worked on the January 6th investigation, the largest criminal probe in American history, Trump and Blanch are putting January 6th rioters, violent extremists, and their closest allies in key positions throughout the DOJ, like Jared Wise, who urged rioters to kill police officers on January 6th, like Ed Martin, who defended violent cop-beaters both as a defense attorney and a federal prosecutor. He's been given free reign now as DOJ's pardon attorney despite his long history of consorting with neo-Nazis. Donald Trump nominated Paul Ingrassia three years out of law school to run the ethics watchdog Office of the Special Counsel and stood by him after it was revealed that he had admitted to having, quote, a bit of a Nazi streak in him, and he wrote that the Martin Luther King holiday should be tossed into the seventh circle of hell.
The Department of Defense hired Elias Irizarry, an unqualified, inexperienced 24-year-old Trump loyalist and convicted J6 rioter who was pardoned by the president to work on irregular warfare and counterterrorism, and so on. Uh, we understand, uh, that the extremist swamp that gave rise to this criminal indictment against the SPLC is just one more Orwellian attack on the civil rights movement and one more Kafkaesque prosecution designed to shame and ensnare the righteous and acquit and absolve the guilty. It is a tissue of lies that will join the pantheon of debunked fraudulent prosecutions that DOJ has been excoriated for by dozens of judges across the land appointed by all different presidents. A few weeks ago, a federal judge in Rhode Island, Judge McElroy, called the government's submissions in a case misleading, if not utterly false. Another judge said that DOJ attorneys had submitted a patently false allegation to the court.
Another judge rejected administration officials' testimony as disingenuous, squalid, and dishonorable, and another court found administration had provided a highly misleading, if not intentionally false, sworn declaration so disingenuous that the court is left with little confidence that the United States can be trusted to tell the truth about anything. I predict it will not be long before another federal judge casts this obscene prosecution to the winds.
I'm only sorry the great name of the House Judiciary Committee has now been made an accomplice to this fraud against the court and the country. I yield back to you, Mr. Chairman.
Jim Jordan
Gentleman yields back. I don't think we're part of the fraud. I think the Southern Poverty Law Center was defrauding their donors. Without objection, all other opening statements will be included in the record. Today's witnesses: Dr. Alveda King is the chair of the American Dream Initiative at the America First Policy Institute.
She is the daughter of civil rights activist Reverend A.D. King and the niece of Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. She is the founder of Speak for Life, an organization that advocates for the sanctity and dignity of human life. Mr. Brian Swer is the interim CEO and president of the Southern Poverty Law Center. He previously served as the chairman of SPLC's board of directors. Mr. Ryan Bangert is the senior vice president for strategic initiatives and special counsel to the president at the Alliance Defending Freedom.
He previously served in the office of the Texas Attorney General and was a litigation partner at Baker Botts LLP. And Professor Mary McCord is a visiting professor of law at the Georgetown University Law Center. She previously served in numerous roles in the Department of Justice. We welcome our witnesses and thank them for appearing today. We'll begin by swearing you in.
You know how this works. Would you please rise and raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you're about to give is true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you God? The record shows that the witnesses have answered in the affirmative. Thank you.
Please be seated. Please know that your written testimony will be entered into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, we ask that you summarize your testimony in five minutes. We're just going to start with Mr. Swer and we're going to go right down the line. So, Mr. Swer, you are recognized for five minutes.
Margaret Huang
Good morning, Chairman Jordan, Ranking Member Raskin, members of the committee. Last July, I took on a one-year leave from teaching to become the interim head of the Southern Poverty Law Center. So my testimony today will be one of my last official acts in this role. It has been one of the greatest honors of my life to work alongside the talented, dedicated, and principled SPLC staff. For 55 years, with the support of generous donors who appreciate our work, the SPLC has fought racial terror, white supremacy, and other forms of discrimination and hate, seeking to build and defend a multiracial democracy where we can all live and thrive.
That was the goal of the civil rights movement, and it is our mission. We are known for exposing and dismantling extremist hate groups. We took on the United Klans of America, whose hateful violence killed four little girls in the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing, and we sued them out of existence. In the decades since, hate has continued, but so have our efforts to expose it through litigation, policy research, and education. We fight for the underdog, the poor, the unhoused, the hungry, the incarcerated, the disenfranchised, the immigrant, the outcast, the vilified.
Many groups and some in this room have misrepresented our work, including our confidential informant program, repeating various false allegations. Some say we've lost our way. That's false. We've never lost our North Star: a fair and just society for every person. All our programs advance that mission.
Our work saves lives, but it comes at a price. Since our earliest days, we've been targeted by those who oppose our mission. Our office was firebombed, our staff threatened, our leaders the target of assassination. We know political violence. We unequivocally condemn it.
However, despite the danger, we will not stop exposing hate. This morning, we released our annual Year in Hate and Extremism report. It chronicles how the hard right has weaponized the levers of government to weaken the political and economic power of non-whites, immigrants, women, the LGBTQ+ community, religious minorities, and the poor.
The forces turning back hard-won progress against discrimination are unrelenting and unashamed. The SPLC, alongside many civil rights groups and democracy defenders, is resisting them. To American people of goodwill, especially those left out of the American promise, your civic participation matters now more than any time since the civil rights movement. Today, I'm joined by several people who inspire our work. First, Ms. Karen Finn and her son Aaron are here.
Aaron faced expulsion from school for alleged conduct that was a manifestation of his disability. Aaron lives with autism, and federal law prohibits schools from excluding students for behaviors connected to their disabilities. We sued, and with his mother's courage and dedication and his perseverance, Aaron graduated from that school in 2023. Ms. Tanya Gersh is also here. A Jewish Montana mom, Gersh and her family became the target of relentless antisemitic harassment from white nationalists, including threatening phone calls where all that could be heard on the line was gunshots.
With the center's help, Gersh won a $14 million judgment against the neo-Nazi who incited her harassers. We stand with Karen, Aaron, Tanya, and thousands we protect every day. Fannie Lou Hamer said, "Nobody's free until everybody's free." The SPLC will continue our constitutionally protected work to ensure everyone in this country is treated with dignity, lives lives free of discrimination, and enjoys liberty and opportunity to thrive. These promises of our democracy are not self-executing.
They require our collective vigilance, and we will continue to defend them when they come under attack. Finally, I must note that I'm constrained in answering some questions today because they may touch on matters involving pending criminal litigation against the SPLC or conversations that I've had with counsel. Frankly, this constraint is the result of the majority's injecting itself into a pending criminal matter three days after it was filed and then refusing our request to delay this hearing until that case is resolved. With that, I will answer what I can.
Alveda King
Thank you, Mr. Fayer. I'll just point out this committee's had hearings on the activities of the SPLC prior to the indictment from the Justice Department. We thank you for your statement. Dr. King, you are now recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Chairman, ranking member, and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for allowing me to testify today. I was born on January 22nd, 1951, not with a silver spoon in my mouth, but singing Amazing Grace and pledging allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. In other words, I was born into a Christian family led by Baptist preachers and men and women who loved God, believed in God, proclaimed the gospel of Jesus Christ, and embraced the truth found in Acts 17:26. And of one blood, God made every nation of people to dwell on the face of the earth. I was taught from birth to love, to repent, to forgive, to trust God, and to love my fellow brothers and sisters.
Human dignity is a creed of our family, the King family legacy.
My uncle Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. did not dedicate his life to dividing people into categories of oppressor and oppressed. He dedicated his life to bringing people together under the truth that every person bears the image of God. I come before you today not in anger, but in deep concern. I am not sure anyone can fully grasp the emotions of a young girl who grew up in a family that sacrificed so much for justice and reconciliation, only to spend much of her adult life being watched, shadowed, criticized, and even threatened because she believes in God, in Jesus Christ, in the sanctity of life, and in the American dream. My family legacy reflects the very truth that America is strongest when we recognize our common humanity.
My grandmother's family came from the West Coast of Africa. My grandfather's family came from Ireland. My mother's family included Cherokee roots. I have spent my entire life living the reality that America is not a collection of competing tribes. America is one people under God.
That is why I am troubled by the conduct and messaging of organizations that claim to fight hatred while profiteering from division. Recent allegations reportedly contained in a federal superseding indictment raise serious questions about the Southern Poverty Law Center's activities. Individuals associated with organizations the SPLC itself labeled as extremist or hate groups allegedly received substantial payments over many years. The indictment shares of payments totaling hundreds of thousands and in some cases more than a million dollars to sources connected to white supremacist, neo-Nazi, and Ku Klux Klan organizations. Those allegations deserve careful examination.
They reveal a troubling contradiction. Americans who faithfully donate their hard-earned money, many of them senior citizens like me, who sincerely want to combat racism and hatred, deserve transparency and accountability about how those funds are being used. America does not need more manufactured racial tension. We do not need more labels with the sole intention to drive us apart. We do not need more lists that place citizens under suspicion because they hold sincere beliefs about faith, family, life, or public policy.
I know myself about being labeled. Let me be clear. I reject racism. I reject hatred. I reject white supremacy.
I reject any ideology that seeks to elevate one group of people above another. But I also reject the notion that Americans who hold traditional Christian beliefs should be treated as threats or terrorists simply because we disagree with a prevailing political thought. Today I still have a dream. I dream that one day we will move beyond black power and white power and embrace God's power and human dignity. I dream that Americans will one day see each other not as enemies but as neighbors.
I dream that we will hear each other, see each other, and recognize that every human life has value from the womb to the tomb and beyond. We are, as scripture teaches, as science testified, one blood, one human race. And if we remember that truth, we can build a future worthy of the sacrifices made by those who came before us. We must speak out for truth and against the forces that would manufacture hate, fear, division, and violence simply to line their pockets and further their political ambitions. Thank you.
God bless America, and I look forward to your questions. Thank you so much. God bless you.
Jim Jordan
Thank you. God bless you. Well done. Mr. Banger, you are recognized for five minutes.
Matt Bangert
Thank you, Chairman Jordan, Ranking Member Raskin, members of the committee, for the opportunity to testify before you today. Over 50 years ago, the SPLC was founded to fight the scourge of racism. But the SPLC has drifted from that founding purpose. The indictment alleges that the SPLC deceived donors into funding the racist groups it claimed to fight. But beyond these shocking allegations of hypocrisy lies a broader story: how the SPLC tarred mainstream conservative organizations as hate groups and then relentlessly sought to silence those groups by persuading America's leading financial and technology firms to exclude them from the marketplace.
ADF is one of those organizations. We've been on the SPLC's hate map since 2016, which is odd given that we reject racism. Our Christian faith teaches that all are created equal and all are made in the image of God. But it makes sense when you understand today's SPLC, in the words of some, as a political hit operation. The SPLC has branded ADF and others like us as hate groups solely because it disagrees with our work, grounded in our religious conviction, on behalf of children told by the medical establishment to disfigure and permanently mutilate their bodies, on behalf of the most vulnerable among us, both those unborn and those at the end of life.
Our advocacy for these mainstream positions has repeatedly led us to the US Supreme Court, where we have secured 18 victories since 2011, including two more cases under submission today. In fact, the SPLC even quietly filed an amicus brief supporting one of ADF's Supreme Court wins on behalf of freedom of association and donor privacy. But the SPLC cannot abide our work on behalf of the vulnerable: parents, children, and the unborn. So it has slandered ADF and other groups like us as hate groups and sought to lock us out of the public square. The SPLC began targeting mainstream Christian and conservative organizations by adding them to their hate map in 2010.
Seven years later, the SPLC's fundraising skyrocketed in response to the notorious Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville. But this wasn't a stroke of good luck. The superseding indictment alleges that the SPLC funded and supported one of its ringleaders. In the immediate aftermath of Charlottesville, the SPLC received large donations or commitments from leading firms and personalities, including JPMorgan Chase, Facebook, Google, Twitter, and even Tim Cook at Apple. In 2018, it launched a coalition of left-wing organizations called Change the Terms.
They understood that you don't have to win a debate with your opponents if they're invisible. So the coalition targeted critical banking, payment processing, donor-advised, technology, and digital communications infrastructure. It embedded the SPLC within that infrastructure of corporate decision-making, allowing it to influence terms of engagement, flag business partners, and bully corporations into compliance. In short, the SPLC mobilized corporate America to crush the voices of mainstream conservative organizations. The Biden years saw the SPLC deepen its presence in America's political and corporate infrastructure.
The Biden DOJ and White House met regularly with SPLC officials. Amazon used the SPLC to blackball groups from its AmazonSmile giving program. So did the employee charitable giving platform Benevity, which serves nearly a quarter of the Fortune 1000. ADF saw tangible impacts. We lost access to the AmazonSmile program, non-profit pricing from large technology providers like Microsoft, Adobe, and Intuit, web hosting on the Pantheon platform, and access to donor-advised funds at Fidelity.
A partisan political organization like the SPLC should never have been allowed to function as an unaccountable private gatekeeper to critical financial, technology, and communications services.
Its co-founder and president left in 2019 amid staff reports of a systemic culture of racism and sexism. It received an F from Charity Navigator for hoarding donor money to the tune of more than $800 million, much of it offshore. Former employees have said that the SPLC is little more than a highly profitable scam. The time has come to uproot the SPLC from America's financial and technology infrastructure. And Congress can help.
Investigations of the SPLC can reach beyond the indictment to examine the SPLC's relationships with financial institutions, technology companies, and digital communications platforms. Moreover, Congress can pass legislation barring federally insured financial institutions from delegating decision-making to private entities that discriminate based on First Amendment protected activity. These would be critical steps toward dismantling the SPLC's shadow censorship regime. We thank the committee for its interest in doing so.
Thank you, Mr. Abengard. Miss Professor, excuse me, Professor McCord, you're recognized.
Mary McCord
Members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify. The Department of Justice should not use its power as a weapon against people and organizations disliked by the president. No one has said this better than former US Supreme Court Justice and US Attorney General Robert Jackson in his 1940 speech, The Federal Prosecutor. He said, the prosecutor has more control over life, liberty, and reputation than any other person in America. The prosecutor can order arrests, present cases to the grand jury in secret session, and on the basis of his one-sided presentation of the facts, can cause the citizen to be indicted and held for trial.
If the prosecutor is obliged to choose his cases, it follows that he can choose his defendants. It is in this realm in which the prosecutor picks some person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass, or selects some group of unpopular persons and then looks for an offense, that the greatest danger of abuse of the prosecuting power lies. It is here that law enforcement becomes personal and the real crime becomes that of being unpopular with the predominant or government governing group, being attached to the wrong political views, or being personally obnoxious to or in the way of the prosecutor himself. What Justice Jackson warned about has come to pass. The DOJ has initiated fraud investigations against political enemies such as New York Attorney General Letitia James, Federal Reserve Board member Lisa Cook and former chair Jerome Powell, and Senator Adam Schiff.
And at the same time, the president has granted clemency to more than 70 allies, donors, and others convicted of hundreds of millions of dollars in fraud across his two terms, often after receiving financial or other benefits from them. And he along with his Attorney General nominee have orchestrated a fraud on the court, settling the president's collusive lawsuit against the IRS, in which he, his family members, and his businesses all receive from the Justice Department an effective pardon from criminal and civil investigations, audits, claims, and prosecutions by any federal department or agency on any subject based on anything that could have been initiated as of the date of the settlement, known or unknown. The so-called settlement came after a federal judge ordered briefing on whether there was actual adversity between the parties, a constitutional requirement for a lawsuit. This one-sided use of prosecutorial power extends to the president's National Security Presidential Memorandum 7. Using the domestic terrorism label, it mandates that federal government, including the DOJ, use every tool in its toolbox to target groups with ideologies this administration perceives as, quote, anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity, extremism on migration, race, and gender, and hostility towards those who hold traditional American values on family, religion, and morality.
NSPM-7 states that the groups and entities that perpetuate this extremism have created a movement that embraces and elevates violence to achieve policy outcomes. It relies for support on the murder of Charlie Kirk, assassination attempts against the President and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and the so-called riots in protest of ICE activity. And although murders and threats of violence are reprehensible and illegal, the examples do not justify the stark lack of parity in NSPM-7's treatment of supposedly dangerous ideologies. There is no mention in NSPM-7 of the politically motivated murders of Minnesota Democratic legislator Melissa Hortman and her husband, or the mass shootings committed in Buffalo, New York, El Paso, Texas, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania by white supremacists who justified their violence based on the Great Replacement Theory. The one-sided memorandum not only lacks legitimacy, it raises the stakes for organizations that hold views the administration dislikes.
It has the strong potential to lead to the discriminatory targeting of organizations based on the exercise of First Amendment rights. Within months of then-Attorney General Pam Bondi's December 2025 memo reminding prosecutors of the many federal criminal provisions that might be used in implementing NSPM-7, the SPLC was indicted. SPLC has for decades spoken out against racial violence, sued to protect civil rights and dismantle hate groups, and worked cooperatively with law enforcement. Commenting on the charges, the President called SPLC one of the greatest political scams in American history. I'm not here to discuss the substance of the charges against SPLC, which is being ably defended in court, but the targeting of the organization harkens the very danger Justice Jackson warned about: that law enforcement becomes personal and the real crime becomes that of being unpopular with the predominant or governing group, being attached to the wrong political views, or being personally obnoxious to or in the way of the prosecutor himself.
Thank you.
Jim Jordan
Thank you, Professor. We will now move to five-minute questions. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Issa.
Darrell Issa
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Professor McCord, I congratulate you on your ad hominem attacks on the President and your deflecting any part of answers as to the nature of this hearing. Your absence of that shows a great deal about how you have no answers for our questions, but you have answers for your own party persuasion. Mr. Bangert, I apologize in advance. I'm going to focus a little bit over here, but it's not because you haven't, your organization hasn't been the subject of attacks by Mr. Fares' organization for what is now a decade and a half.
Dr. King, I'll start with you. You wear a cross here today. You spoke of God and Jesus Christ, your deep faith, and the conviction that comes with that faith as to how a just government and a people should act. Is that a fair statement of who you are?
Alveda King
The statement of who I am is just a 75-year-old woman who has experienced so much. I have been personally flagged by SPLC and I have been on a domestic terrorist list, interestingly enough, for much of my life.
Speaker 13
Well, Dr. King, that's the nature of the question. Is that because of who you are, because of your faith, because you have championed the teachings of your father and your uncle?
Yesterday I led a small trip into the Capitol where the Rotunda has virtually only presidents of the United States other than Dr. King. Is it in fact his teachings and the teachings of people like that that you follow that has caused you to be so labeled?
Alveda King
I believe that these attacks against me and others are not because only of my faith, certainly because of my faith, absolutely. My uncle Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once said that the law may not make you love me, but it can keep you from killing me. And so I believe that many of us are persecuted because of our faith and our beliefs. I think it's a little unfair because I say life from the womb to the tomb and beyond that I'm on a domestic terrorist list. I think that's unfair.
Speaker 13
Well, you join a group of faithful people as Mr. Van Gort mentioned, tend to be what we'd call center-right leading. You knew Charlie Kirk and his work, didn't you?
I did know Charlie Kirk.
Speaker 13
And his work, like your work, was about love, people getting along, but it was also about teaching of the benefits of faith, wasn't it?
Alveda King
I was able to make some peace with Charlie before he was killed because he said some bad things about my uncle. I didn't like it. I was upset and I said, Charlie, but one of the last things Charlie said to an African-American young man, he says, our DNA makes us the same, not the skin. Charlie actually said that and he publicly apologized at a meeting where I was. So Charlie was not an angel.
I'm definitely not an angel. President Trump, Biden, Obama, angels, please raise your hand right now if you're out there, I need to meet you. However, it's misguided compassion that brings us here today. It is misguided compassion that puts me on a domestic terrorist list. I think that is very unfair.
And you know, old people like me giving money to SPLC and then calling me later, oh my God, they believe it's okay to cut a boy's penis off. I was like, seems like they're spending a little money to do that and people are totally shocked. I hope people will take the medicine and come on and admit that they are funding some things. They might be doing some good stuff. But look at it like this, I have a dog and I'm making some brownies and they're chocolate.
The dog poops some brown stuff, I put a little secret ingredient in there and I put it in my brownies and the people get worms. It's not right. It's just not right.
Darrell Issa
Thank you, Dr. King. Mr. Fair, I don't want you to be left out of this conversation. You have, your organization has labeled Dr. King and Charlie Kirk and others. Do you regret that? Will you recant it or are you going to double down and say that these people, including the martyred Charlie Kirk, in fact somehow deserve to be on your hate list for their constantly talking about bringing people together, talking about the teachings of the Bible and the like?
Darrell Issa
Now wait a second, no, no, I heard your statement. I only want an answer to your question in the 11 seconds left. Are you going to recant, yes or no, and if you're not going to, please don't tell me it's because now you're under charges. Your organization did it as much as 16 years ago. Will you take back any part of that or is your hate list stand as your position of your organization as its head today?
Darrell Issa
Okay, we'll take that as the list stands. Mr. Chairman, I'd ask unanimous consent.
Darrell Issa
Thank you, that an admission from, a submission from the Heartbeat International for today's hearing be placed in the record.
Darrell Issa
That a message particularly from it's entitled The Truth About the SPLC from the Family Research Council be placed in the record.
Without objection.
Darrell Issa
And lastly Mr. Speaker Mr. Chairman for this hearing too a statement from the executive director's office of the Center for Immigration Studies be placed in the record.
Without objection.
Thank you. I yield back.
Jamie Raskin
Thank you kindly Mr. Chairman. Ms. McCord our colleagues invoke the fact that the SPLC had an informant in a white nationalist group at the infamous Unite the Right rally in August of 2017 in Charlottesville as some kind of indictment of the SPLC. But didn't that SPLC informant create the information that allowed the SPLC to send three different FBI field offices a 45-page memorandum warning of planned violence and the potential for violence at this extremist confab?
Jamie Raskin
Mr. Fair is it true that the SPLC sent a memo based on that informant's work to three different FBI field offices?
Yes it is.
Jamie Raskin
Okay. The chairman spoke with some indignation about the fact that there were three million or four million dollars spent giving to undercover informants to try to expose the work of the extremist groups as in Charlottesville in 2017 where Heather Heyer was killed by a fanatic racist. How does I'm just curious how the members of the panel feel about this proposed 1.776 billion dollar political slush fund set up for the Proud Boys the Oath Keepers and other convicted criminals and rioters from January 6th? Do you think that that fund should be shut down and any other similar fund Mr. Fair?
Yes. Yes I do.
Dr. King do you agree that that should be shut down?
Alveda King
I will not speak on whether that particular fund should be shut down. I think some of these slush funds that SPLC is using.
Speaker 22
Okay about my question is about the one proposed by Todd Blanche. It's a yes or no.
Alveda King
I will not answer on it. I think they need to stop killing the babies and cutting the penises off and so any slush fund money in that is a problem.
Jamie Raskin
Okay I have limited time. Mr. Banger do you believe that the 1.776 billion dollar political slush fund should be shut down and any similar fund?
Jamie Raskin
Okay and Professor McCord what do you think should that political slush fund be shut down and any similar slush fund?
Yes it should.
Jamie Raskin
Yes it should. Okay. So the the conceit of the prosecution this whole hearing the whole attack on the SPLC is that there's some contradiction between fighting against extremist hate and racism for decades and then sending people undercover as informants to find out what these groups are doing. Do you agree that there's a contradiction Professor McCord?
Mary McCord
I I agree that it is a very useful law enforcement tool to use informants and cooperators to learn more not just about hate groups and potential domestic violent extremism but also as a tool to dismantle drug trafficking groups and human trafficking groups.
Jamie Raskin
So if the FBI sent someone undercover to expose a mafia organization narco traffickers international human traffickers that wouldn't mean that the FBI is supporting those groups would it?
That's correct.
Jamie Raskin
Okay. As a matter of law and as a matter of fact can you have a criminal fraud if there are no victims of the fraud?
Mary McCord
To have a criminal fraud you have to have made statements fraudulently to induce some activity and if it did not induce some sort of activity like a gift or donation then there is no fraud.
Jamie Raskin
But what I don't understand is that suddenly out of the blue there's a claim that the Southern Poverty Law Center's engaged in fraud because it's been extremely effective.
I wish it had been even more effective, for example, in stopping the Oklahoma City bombing where nearly 200 people were killed in an act of fanatical white nationalism, but it's been quite effective. I don't know of any group that's been more effective other than potentially the FBI itself in stopping extremist white violence. Well, um, do you believe that, um, it is an act of fraud when the donors to the group understand perfectly well that people are being sent undercover to try to get information on what these groups are doing?
Mary McCord
Uh, if donors were not defrauded, um, and no donors have come forward to my knowledge suggesting that they were unaware of what the SPLC doing, that program's been known for a long time, um, and so that creates a problem.
Jamie Raskin
I mean, it just seems to me amazing to be alleging a fraud when there are no victims. When I just looked up the Trump University case, there were hundreds and hundreds of people coming forward screaming to high heaven about how they'd been ripped off and exploited by this fake university and they won 25 million dollars.
Alveda King
So do you pay the same people to do the bomb and then go and comfort the people from being bombed? You pay the same people to do both jobs? That's kind of fraud to me. That's weird and chaotic and confusing.
Jamie Raskin
Well, Dr. King, I don't think there's any allegation that anybody who was working with the Southern Poverty Law Center bombed anyone. Do you have information to that effect?
Alveda King
Because outside agitators did bomb our house in '63 and then ran back and took off the Ku Klux Klan sheets and put on police things and ran up in the yard. It was the same people. It was crazy.
Jamie Raskin
I'm with you, and that's a statement about the racism of that police force working with the Ku Klux Klan.
Speaker 27
Hey, y'all pay both of them to do the double jobs. SPLC does. Really. You hire them to do the bombing, then you hire them to fix the bombing. That's weird.
Jamie Raskin
Now you're asserting a lot of things, Dr. King, you're asserting a lot of things under oath and you haven't brought the evidence with you, so I think... I'll get some for you. Okay, please, bring us the evidence. And I yield back to you, Mr. Chairman.
Jim Jordan
I yield back. Mr. Fair, did the Southern Poverty Law Center use donor money to have field sources attend extremist rallies across the country?
Margaret Huang
We used donor money to pay confidential informants to infiltrate extremist organizations.
Jim Jordan
Did the Southern Poverty Law Center use donor dollars to have field sources host extremist rallies throughout the country?
Jim Jordan
It's not what the indictment says. Did the Southern Poverty Law Center use donor dollars to have field sources grow existing chapters of extremist groups?
Jim Jordan
It's a simple question, Mr. Fair. Did you use donor money for the purpose I just read? This is, I'm reading straight from the superseding indictment.
Margaret Huang
And Mr. Chairman, the indictment will be managed and responded to by counsel in the criminal case that's pending.
Jim Jordan
Well, you just answered a question for Mr. Raskin concerning the indictment. He asked you did field sources send information to the FBI that helped with things. You answered that question.
Speaker 29
I'm asking... That's a matter of public knowledge that's in our public filing.
Jim Jordan
Did the Southern Poverty Law Center use donor money to have field sources create new chapters of extremist groups?
Again, Mr. Chairman...
Jim Jordan
Did the Southern Poverty Law Center use donor money to recruit new individuals into those extremist groups?
Margaret Huang
I assume you don't want me to answer since you're not giving me time to answer.
Jim Jordan
No, I'm giving you time to answer because that's a yes or no. Did you use your donors' money for that purpose, yes or no?
Margaret Huang
Again, those issues will be resolved in the pending allegations against the SPLC.
Well, excuse me, if the answer is no, you could say no.
Jim Jordan
Did the Southern Poverty Law Center use donor money to have field sources make donations to extremist group leaders and purchase materials for cross burnings? It's alleged in the indictment. Did that happen?
Jim Jordan
Did Southern Poverty Law Center use donor dollars to have field sources create racist paraphernalia that extremist groups sold at rallies?
We've alleged that those allegations are false.
Margaret Huang
Mr. Chairman, what I've learned about Fox Photography, I've learned from counsel in conversations with counsel.
How about Northwest Technologies?
Jim Jordan
No, I'm not, these are, these are, well, did the Southern Poverty Law Center establish shell companies to pay, to run the money through to then pay the field sources?
Margaret Huang
Again, all of the allegations that you are referring to, Chairman Jordan, will be responded to by our counsel in the Middle District of Alabama.
Jim Jordan
Did you pay the field sources directly or did you pay them through an intermediary?
Margaret Huang
Mr. Chairman Jordan, our counsel will respond to all the allegations in the indictment in the case pending in the Middle District of Alabama.
Jim Jordan
Well, there's all these companies that you sent money to: Center Investigative Agency, not the CIA, but your CIA, Fox Photography, Northwest Technologies, Tech Writers Group, Rare Books Warehouses, Imagery Link, J and J Electronics, and Kelly's Marine. And I'm just wondering to know if that was the intermediary shell companies that you guys set up to pay the field sources. Is that true?
Speaker 32
Mr. Jordan, counsel will respond to all the allegations in the Middle District of Alabama as the process allows.
Jim Jordan
Did you do it all for the money? I mean, you've said now, I think the Southern Poverty Law Center said you're no longer going to use these field sources, you're going to stop the program, but you did it for multiple years and according to the indictment, it was four million dollars that you shelled out to these various field sources to engage in all the activities I just read. I'm just wondering, was it all about the money?
Margaret Huang
As we said in our public statement, Chairman Jordan, we did it to protect our staff and to protect the public.
Jim Jordan
Did fundraising increase after paying people to stay in these groups who actually wanted out of them? Did your fundraising increase? Did the donations coming in increase?
Margaret Huang
Chairman Jordan, I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to when you say...
Jim Jordan
How about this, after the, after the crazy Charlottesville rally, did fundraising go up?
Speaker 31
Fundraising where one of your field sources helped coordinate transportation to that event.
Margaret Huang
Our fundraising went up when President Donald Trump was elected in 2016.
Jim Jordan
Fundraising go up? That's what I'm asking. Did it go up? Because according to what we know, you went from 51 million to 133 million in one year.
Jim Jordan
Who's the president of the National Socialist Party? You know? You paid him 70,000 dollars. He was field source number 30. I just want to know who he is.
Do you know who he is?
Margaret Huang
Mr. Chairman, that's an allegation in the indictment that will be responded to by counsel in the Middle District of Alabama.
Speaker 34
My time is expired. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Jerrold Nadler
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, a Justice Department that has lost more than 10,000 attorneys since the start of President Trump's second term, it's not surprising that the indictment of SPLC are replete with mistakes of fact and law.
In the words of one former prosecutor, DOJ's indictment of SPLC, quote, falls egregiously short of alleging a crime, close quote. At its core, the indictment claims that SPLC defrauded its donors and betrayed its stated mission to dismantle hate groups by paying informants who, quote, were either associated with violent extremist organizations or had infiltrated such organizations at the SPLC's direction, close quote. But this is directly contradicted by the fact that SPLC's donors have said that they knew about and liked the informant program. The truth is that SPLC's use of paid informants has been public knowledge for decades. Mr. Fair, has information provided by informants to SPLC been used to prevent politically and racially motivated violence?
Jerrold Nadler
Has information provided by informants to SPLC been used to prevent political and racially motivated violence?
Margaret Huang
Yes, Congressman Nadler, we shared information that we learned through our confidential informant program with local, state, and federal law enforcement to prevent racial violence against the public at large and to protect our staff.
Jerrold Nadler
Thank you. SPLC proactively shared information obtained from its informants with law enforcement agencies in order to prevent the activities of extremist groups, in other words. Mr. Fair, can you explain what actions the SPLC took before the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville in an attempt to help law enforcement?
Margaret Huang
Congressman Nadler, again, I must say that counsel will respond to all allegations in the indictment in the Middle District of Alabama.
That's not an allegation.
Jerrold Nadler
Okay, Mr. Fair, can you explain how the SPLC's informant program helped thwart a terrorist attack in Las Vegas in 2019?
Margaret Huang
Yes, Congressman Nadler, in our public filings, we have already stated that SPLC shared information about a particular white nationalist group, Atomwaffen, to prevent a terrorist attack in Las Vegas in 2019.
Jerrold Nadler
Thank you. And what about Philadelphia's Navy Yard? Can you tell us briefly about that?
Margaret Huang
Again, in 2018, the SPLC shared information with the FBI and with law enforcement about potential criminal activity by a member of the Vanguard America. We shared that information with law enforcement.
Jerrold Nadler
Thank you. It sounds to me like SPLC's informant program has been essential and that SPLC has worked with law enforcement to keep our communities safe. And yet, shortly after the indictment was announced, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche falsely claimed on Fox News that the DOJ had, quote, no information, unquote, that suggests SPLC shared information collected through its informant program with federal law enforcement. This was obviously a lie. In fact, DOJ was forced to walk back Blanche's false claim after SPLC filed a motion to address the government's, quote, materially false statements.
Ms. McCord, the Acting Attorney General, the chief law enforcement official in this country, made a patently false statement publicly about a material fact in an ongoing prosecution. Can you explain why a false statement made by an Acting Attorney General directly related to an ongoing prosecution would be concerning?
Mary McCord
Well, this is something, first of all, given that Mr. Blanche has now rescinded that statement, it begs a question of whether he knew what he said was false at the time. And if he did, it's a terrible thing to try to prejudice the American public against the SPLC in these criminal charges by making a statement like that, which is really core to the indictment, whether they were sharing information with law enforcement.
Jerrold Nadler
Thank you. DOJ's case against SPLC, much like the investigations into James Comey, Letitia James, Jerome Powell, Lisa Cook, and so many others is yet another example of the Trump administration's total weaponization of the Department of Justice. And this committee's hearing today is an example of slander against one of the greatest civil rights organizations we've had. I yield back.
Chip Roy
Thank the chairman and thank the witnesses. I'd like to observe Mr. Banger, who both served in the office of the Attorney General of the state of Texas. I want to thank you for your service there. Mr. Fayer, in 2012, the Family Research Council was attacked and the guard in the front of the building was shot. The head of the Family Research Council, Tony Perkins, made quite note at the time of Southern Poverty Law Center's involvement in that, in putting Family Research Council on their so-called hate map.
Has the SPLC ever acknowledged that its designation contributed to that attack?
Yes or no.
Margaret Huang
I can't answer that question with a yes or no. You asked me if I heard.
Chip Roy
Did they retract, correct, or reconsider the listing of the Family Research Council on its hate map?
Margaret Huang
The Family Research Council is listed on our hate map because it meets the criteria.
Chip Roy
To this day, you continue to keep the Family Research Council on its hate map, is that true?
Margaret Huang
The Family Research Council remains on the hate map because it meets the criteria that we use.
Which criteria?
Chip Roy
Okay, so on your website, you used to have language on there defending your position on the Family Research Council, and you had language saying that other groups like Focus on the Family are not included, and you used that as your defense. Well, that language is now gone and Focus on the Family is now noted as a hate group.
Mr. Roy.
Can you explain that?
Margaret Huang
Congressman Roy, we take no pleasure in listing any group, and we wish the list was empty. But we have the constitutional right to express our opinion.
Chip Roy
How many leftist, how many leftist anti-Jewish groups do you have listed on your website?
Name them.
Margaret Huang
Anyone listening to this can go to our website and see our, again, our Year in Hate and Extremism report was released this morning.
Chip Roy
How many extremist Islamic groups do you have of the 1500 or so organizations you have on your hate map?
Chip Roy
You think SPLC could provide us a list of the Islamic-oriented groups you have on your hate map?
Margaret Huang
Mr. Roy, we don't target any group because of its religion. I want to be clear about that.
Really?
Margaret Huang
Really? Yes, that's exactly right. We target no group because of its religion. We target groups because they express statements and engage in activities that demean and vilify.
Chip Roy
So you brought up LGBTQ groups a second ago. So you think there's a bunch of Islamic groups that are pro-LGBTQ? Is that the position of the SPLC? I just want to make sure the record is reflecting that.
Margaret Huang
Mr. Roy, as I said, we target no group or label no group because of its religion. We target groups and label groups because of what they say about others, and we have a constitutional right to do that, and we will continue to do that.
Mr. Roy.
Was it immediate?
Margaret Huang
We were clear and loud about our criticism of Hamas attack on Israel on October 7th.
Chip Roy
My research shows that it took you at least three weeks to finally say anything and then you attacked and criticized Israel. Mr. Roy. Do you think the record reflects that or am I incorrect?
Margaret Huang
Mr. Roy, as I said, the SPLC has a 55-year history of fighting antisemitism. It speaks for itself.
Chip Roy
And yet the response to the targeting of the Family Research Council was to defend yourself for having focused on the family and then you immediately and you pulled down from the website that defense. It was your only defense.
Margaret Huang
Well first, Mr. Roy, speakers in the United States don't need to defend their speech. We have free speech. And so everyone should understand that.
Chip Roy
Well you do here on the record have to defend the position of your organization that has now been indicted and has a superseding indictment based on very clear indications of the way the money is flowing in order to target very specific groups and to potentially defraud your donors, not to mention by the way, banks. If I had a little more time I'd like to have a little bit more conversation about debanking and your engagement with debanking. But the last question I'll ask you is with respect to Charlie Kirk. Have you all taken any position since Charlie Kirk to...
Margaret Huang
Mr. Roy, we unequivocally condemned the murder of Charlie Kirk.
What about the listing of Charlie Kirk?
Speaker 51
It is our position that TPUSA expresses views and vilifies other people based on immutable characteristics, exposing them to our listing.
Chip Roy
Mr. Chairman, I have a couple unanimous consent requests. I have several documents here, November 2025 Hatewatch from the Southern Poverty Law Center in which a hearing or the work that I've done on Sharia law was included in Hatewatch without objection. Another one here, anti-Muslim bigotry in which work we did in this very room and this in the subcommittee on the Constitution highlighting concerns with Sharia law were included in the Hatewatch and I'd like to insert those to the record.
Without objection. Gentleman yields back.
Gentleman's recognized.
Jerrold Nadler
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I move to enter into the record a letter from the Jewish Council of Public Affairs.
Without objection.
Speaker 52
Dozens of rabbis praising the role of the SPLC in opposing antisemitism.
Speaker 49
Without objection. Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California.
Zoe Lofgren
So during a September 2020 presidential debate when he was asked to condemn white supremacists and tell their militia groups to stand down, Donald Trump told the Proud Boys to quote, stand back and stand by. That was a message that elated white supremacists online. Months later, President Trump had lost the election and spent months spreading the big lie about widespread fraud and the Proud Boys were no longer standing by. On January 6th, they were on the Ellipse. They were in the streets and as we all know, we were here, they made it into our Capitol.
Now as a member of the January 6th Select Committee, I saw firsthand how organized extremist groups helped transform political grievances into coordinated action, hate, and then violence. Before January 6th, the Southern Poverty Law Center spent years warning about organizations like the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, and other extremist movements.
Professor McCord, can you explain what SPLC must have seen in those groups that caused them to raise concerns about them long before their attack on the Capitol?
Mary McCord
Yes, Congressman, like other research organizations that study the groups with ideologies that espouse things like white supremacy and the Great Replacement Theory and tend to, in some cases, not all cases, but advocate for violence on behalf of those ideologies and in furtherance of those ideologies, these are things that lead SPLC, as other research organizations do, to give warnings about violence that may be coming. And certainly before January 6th, the red flags and the warning signs were there and were communicated by SPLC as well as other organizations.
Zoe Lofgren
How did the prosecution of anti-government actors who participated in the storming of the Capitol on January 6th affect groups like Oath Keepers and the activities of anti-government militias? And what happened after the Trump administration issued its pardons to January 6th insurrection participants? And did the pardons of the January 6th insurrectionists help or hurt the fight against white supremacist violence and extremism in this country? Three questions for you, Professor McCord.
Mary McCord
Right after January 6th, we saw groups like the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, the National Three Percenters dismantle their nationwide organizations. We saw the Oath Keepers pretty much dissolve. But of course, with the pardons and the clemency and the commutations, we've seen a resurgence of these groups. We've seen them monetizing things, and we've seen also, unfortunately, members not just of those groups, but people who were pardoned committing additional crimes.
Zoe Lofgren
Additionally, we have a list of the crimes they've committed, some really disgusting and serious measures. Mr. Fair, if Congress tries to diminish SPLC and dismiss its warnings about groups like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, what lessons would we miss about the threat posed by organized domestic extremism to our American democracy?
Margaret Huang
Thank you, Congressman. The lessons we would miss is that all of us are less safe with the threat of domestic terrorism. That these groups that both express hate, that express white supremacy, that terrorize various groups are a danger to all of us. And we need to know about them, we need to know about what they say, and we need to know about the actions that they take. That's what we'll miss.
Zoe Lofgren
I thank you for those answers. I think it's really quite telling that the Republican majority on this committee has now had a second hearing to scrutinize SPLC rather than discuss their findings and figure out how to prevent another such attack on our democracy. These lunatics that Donald Trump unleashed back onto America's streets are prepared to go to war for him again. They're violent, they're hate-filled, and they have a president who will not hold them accountable for violating the law. He's pardoned them.
He says he wants to give them taxpayer money to reward them.
Jim Jordan
That's the threat we need to be discussing, not the folks at SPLC who are pointing out this threat. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Gentlelady yields back. I would just remind Mr. Fere that the Family Research Council doesn't terrorize anyone. And shortly after you put them on the hate list, an individual came into their facility and shot the security guard. I now recognize the gentleman from—
Chip Roy
Mr. Chair, a quick unanimous consent request, just in response to the timeframe on with respect to the SPLC's response to October 7th, an article here from Fox that shows that that statement was in fact three weeks later on October 28th. I'd like to insert that in the record. And subsequent reports in response to their response saying it's an international incident, there are several reports here showing that they've previously responded to other international incidents in Europe and in Australia and others. I'd like to insert those in the record.
Without objection. Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Speaker 56
Thank you. Mr. Fere, does any of the money that the SPLC raises come from foreign sources, whether foreign nationals, organizations, foreign governments?
Not to my knowledge.
Tom McClintock
How does your organization consult or communicate with foreign sources?
Not to my knowledge.
Speaker 59
During the Biden administration, did the Department of Justice seek your organization's guidance on determining political groups to target?
Margaret Huang
The SPLC, over its 55-year history, has met with members of every administration since its founding.
So the answer is yes?
Speaker 62
Did the Department of Justice seek your guidance on organizations or individuals to target for investigation?
Margaret Huang
The SPLC identifies groups based on the criteria that we've set out. One is—
So the answer is yes?
Margaret Huang
No, the answer is not yes. I maybe I don't understand your question.
So the answer under oath is no?
Tom McClintock
Let me try again. During the Biden administration, did the Department of Justice seek your organization's guidance on determining political groups to target?
Not to my knowledge.
Tom McClintock
We're told an investigation into your organization's activities was initiated by the Biden administration but then mysteriously dropped. Did SPLC have any discussions with Biden administration officials regarding about this investigation?
Margaret Huang
Mr. McClintock, Congressman McClintock, it's my understanding that the initial investigation was opened during the Trump administration. It continued into the Biden administration and—
Tom McClintock
Did you— did SPLC have any discussions with the Biden administration regarding that investigation?
Not to my knowledge.
Speaker 58
Did SPLC suggest political groups like Turning Point USA, traditional Catholic groups, Family Research Council for investigation by the Department of Justice?
Margaret Huang
Congressman McClintock, again, as I said, we identify groups based on the statements that they make, the activities that they engage in. Those are the criteria that we use and we do—
Speaker 53
Did you suggest that these groups be investigated by the Department of Justice?
Tom McClintock
And you had no conversations with Justice Department officials regarding this matter, these matters?
Which matters?
Speaker 57
The targeting of Turning Point USA, Catholic groups, Family Research Council for investigation by the Department of Justice.
Not to my knowledge.
Speaker 60
All right. Did the SPLC arrange for the break-in and theft of documents from an extremist group?
Margaret Huang
Congressman McClintock, I believe that is an allegation in the indictment that will be discussed and responded to in the Middle District of Alabama in the criminal case pending.
Speaker 61
Well, it's my understanding the charges are wire fraud, bank fraud, false statements, and conspiracy to commit money laundering. How does that deal with the break-in?
Margaret Huang
All of the allegations in the indictment involving the confidential informant program are connected to the wire fraud, the bank fraud, and the conspiracy claims.
Speaker 59
You said that your activities are constitutionally protected. Does the SPLC assert the right to file false statements with banks as a constitutionally protected right?
Tom McClintock
I didn't ask that. You said these are constitutionally protected. Is that a constitutionally protected right?
Margaret Huang
When I was speaking to Congressman Roy, I was speaking about our right to express our opinions about the various groups that we identify on our list. That is a constitutionally protected First Amendment right. You're asking something else, I believe, and my response is that all of the allegations that are raised in the indictment will be responded to in the Middle District of Alabama in our filings and pleading.
Speaker 58
Okay, well explain to me the reasoning behind targeting groups like Turning Point USA, the Family Research Council, traditional Catholic groups as hate groups, but not groups like Antifa, Jane's Revenge, Youth Liberation Front.
Margaret Huang
We list groups that demonize or vilify people based on immutable characteristics or that express anti-government conspiracy theories.
Ben Cline
Do you believe that Antifa and Jane's Revenge and Youth Liberation Front have committed violent acts?
Margaret Huang
Congressman Cline, it's my understanding that the FBI has said Antifa is an ideology, not a group. So a group, if it's not a group, it wouldn't be identified on our list.
You don't recognize it as a group?
Mr. Chairman, the time has expired.
Time of the gentleman has expired.
Jamie Raskin
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent to introduce the SPLC's hate map, which lists a half a dozen different chapters of the Nation of Islam as anti-Semitic hate groups.
Jim Jordan
Without objection. The chair will now recognize, and I should have mentioned this earlier, I apologize. If you need a break, just let us know and we'll be happy to give you a break. I understand because this is, as you know, going to go on for a while here. And I think it's the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Cohen.
Steve Cohen
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Fere, why was the Southern Poverty Law Center called the Southern Poverty Law Center?
Margaret Huang
We were founded to defend the poor, to assist the poor, to resist racial terror against poor people across the South. So anti-poverty work has been in our DNA. We continue to do work on behalf of the unhoused, the hungry, the poor.
Speaker 68
And your founders, I know, I knew Morris Dees, I know Morris Dees, haven't seen him in a bit for a while, and Julian Bond was my dear friend of mine. They were two of your founders, were they not?
That's correct.
Margaret Huang
The three founders, Morris Dees and Joe Levin, came together and named Julian Bond the first president.
Pretty good crew.
Outstanding crew.
Speaker 69
Yeah, they all should have gotten presidential medals. I tried to get Julian one, but for some reason our president, two of our presidents failed.
Why, I do not know. So the Southern Poverty Law Center was not formed to go after international discrimination and hate. There's plenty of hate in the South. South's abundant with hate.
Margaret Huang
Our initial work was primarily focused in the South, but that work has expanded to cover the entire country.
Speaker 65
I don't understand the questioning of some of the people on the panel about suggesting the Southern Poverty Law Center is not concerned about antisemitism and Jewish hate. As a person who's been exposed to Jewish hate and antisemitism since my birth, I guess, and could get a ton of it on the X, Mr. Musk's hate-filled organization, a lot of it, a lot of antisemitism, which has increased lately. Why would they be asking such questions? You go after antisemitism, do you not?
Margaret Huang
Absolutely. We've, as I said in my earlier response, for 55 years, we've been resisting antisemitism. I mentioned that Tanya Gersh is here today. We've also recently filed two lawsuits against the Goyim Defense League in Tennessee for attacks on a Jewish center and on Jewish and African American people in Nashville. This is work that we've done, that we will continue to do.
Again, antisemitism is hateful, and groups that traffic in it, whatever their political ideology, would be identified.
Speaker 65
Have you had any Jewish people contact you or Jewish organizations and complain?
No, we have not.
Speaker 65
As a Jewish person, I welcome all faiths to come to our aid and support, and many have. Many, many have. But it's usually when there's antisemitism, the Anti-Defamation League is on it. Jewish groups are not afraid to stand up and speak out against antisemitism. But none of them have contacted you.
Speaker 73
Nor are we afraid to stand up and speak out against antisemitism, Congressman Cohen.
Speaker 65
What's going on in our country is really scary, and what Ms. Lofgren said was true. We're looking at a president who said stand, stand, stand by. Stand up and stand by, or stand down and stand by. And he has pardoned the people who committed treason against our country, violence against police people, and desecrated our Capitol. They were convicted or pled guilty, and he pardoned them.
And now he wants to give them money. And I, he may not want to leave come January 20, 2029. And he's got his army prepared. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people in ICE aren't J6ers. And that's why they wear their masks.
They're not worried about COVID. Not really, no. They're hiding themselves from the public. And there's a reason for it. I value your work.
When one of my best friends died about eight years ago, Irvin Salky, who was also a friend of Julian Bond's, an outstanding member of the Ratner Sugarmon Lucas Law Firm, the first African American integrated law firm in Memphis, I asked that people give memorials to the Southern Poverty Law Center in his honor. I'm proud of every memorial that's been given, and I'm proud of every donation I've made. I thank you for your work, and I thank you for continuing the work of Julian Bond and Morris Dees and Mr. Levin. You are a blessing. Thank you.
Speaker 72
The time of the gentleman's expired. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. Chairman, I've got a unanimous consent request.
Henry Johnson
A statement from Kristen Clarke, General Counsel for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, that unequivocally opposes the targeting of the Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization dedicated to combating hate violence in America.
Speaker 76
Without objection. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin for five minutes.
Thomas Tiffany
Thank you, Chairman. On page 14 of the Year in Hate report, the SPLC criticizes the Alliance Defending Freedom for its Viewpoint Diversity Score initiative. Specifically, they state that the Viewpoint Diversity Score, quote, mimics white supremacist narratives. Mr. Bangert, my understanding of the Viewpoint Diversity Score is that it seeks to hold companies accountable for respecting all religious and ideological diversity in the workplace. Is that white extremism to you?
Matt Bangert
Thank you for your question, Congressman. Absolutely not, and that allegation is preposterous. ADF works through its Viewpoint Diversity Score initiative, as well as through all the work that we do, to defeat censorship by preserving freedom of speech. And the objection we have to what the SPLC has done with its hate map, especially when it comes to groups, conservative pro-family groups like Family Research Council, TPUSA, Moms for Liberty, ADF, is that they work to defeat free speech by eliminating those groups from the public square entirely. And that's the distinction between the hate map and the work that ADF does.
Thomas Tiffany
Well, I think I know the answer to this, but I'm going to ask you to maybe elaborate. Is it fair to say you disagree with the SPLC's designation of ADF as a hate group?
Thomas Tiffany
Very good. Thank you. Dr. King, do you think conservative groups advocating for viewpoint diversity is racist?
Alveda King
Racism is socially engineered in the first place. And if you think you're a different race when we all bleed the same and we are one blood and one human race, then you are socially engineering racism. What I'm trying to understand is SPLC is funding the far right and the far left with informants that they send in to report back. So the informants, to not blow their cover, are doing heinous things on the far right and the far left. I don't think the donors understand that SPLC is using money to stir up racism, to have people fight against each other based on skin color on the far right and the far left, some adjacent funding coming in there.
So they're manufacturing this racism, causing people to be hated, hatred and fear. You know, some informants, I have been on the domestic terrorist list. Some informant must have told them I said something hateful. I'm not a racist. So how did I end up on a domestic terrorist list?
So how did the guard get shot at FRC? How did that happen? So I don't think that the question is donors are being defrauded and money is being spent on the far right and the far left by SPLC with the informants, I think, with some adjacent funding. So the donors think they're trying to clear up the mess. It's confusing to me.
So maybe I didn't answer your question. You want to ask me again? I don't quite get it because...
Do you think the SPLC's hate map, as we've seen many times, is antithetical to the peaceful advancement of civil rights in America? No, well, let me just ask you this.
Alveda King
It is. It makes people afraid. I've been on it. I've been on a domestic terrorist list when I'm for peace and love, one blood, one human race, stop fighting, stop chopping off penises and killing babies. They, hey, some of the money, go investigate it yourself, is being used to, in the name of LGBTQ, cutting baby parts off.
That is happening with the money of donors, and the donors are shocked.
Thomas Tiffany
Right, right. Thank you very much. Mr. Fair, in SPLC's motion to dismiss the DOJ lawsuit, you briefly discussed the organization's hate map designations. On page six of the lawsuit, the SPLC states, "These are not mainstream groups or their espousing traditional conservative political views. Rather, as defined in the year the hate report, these are groups that through their rhetoric and activities traffic in extreme and sometimes violent ideologies."
And if you have the hate report in front of you, it's mentioned in the motion that there are many different, let me just ask you the question. So do you think, do you think that the hate map was designed to identify specific organizations or to just create this ideology that there's hate everywhere across the United States of America?
Margaret Huang
The hate map was created to expose the statements and activities of groups across the country that vilify and demonize others on the basis of immutable characteristics.
I yield back.
Speaker 77
Gentleman yields back, chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Johnson.
Henry Johnson
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This hearing takes me back to the fifties, the time of McCarthyism, the time of demonic and demonizing attacks against political enemies that was in vogue by the notorious and infamous Joe McCarthy, the House Un-American Activities Committee. This is what this reminds me of. And when I go back to the fifties, I also think about how mainstreamed during that time was white supremacy. It was mainstreamed, it was so mainstreamed that presidents had to call out the troops to maintain order or to bring order.
I'm reminded of the racist governor of Arkansas denying entry for the Little Rock Nine into the all-white Central High School. I'm sure you remember too, Dr. King, back in fifty-seven, the little girls trying to get into the building and being spat upon and, and taunted and threatened. And I'm sure you remember, Dr. King, in 1962 in Mississippi when James Meredith was to enroll at the University of Mississippi and President Kennedy had to call out the troops to guarantee that they stop the riots so that this man could enroll. And then again in sixty-three when the troops were called out by the president as George Wallace stood in the, in the door of the school and said, "Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever." I mean, that's mainstream white supremacy.
Same thing when the troops had to be called out by President Johnson in 1965 to protect the civil rights marchers from Selma to Montgomery marching for voting rights. And today, the clock has turned back.
White supremacy extremism is again mainstreamed. Uh, this president came into office and revoked a 60-year-old executive order banning racial discrimination in federal government hiring practices, saying that it was now unnecessary. We've had, uh, the stripping of employment protections from employees of the federal government. We've seen the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice gutted and diverted, uh, from its, uh, mainstream activities. And, and at the same time, we have experienced wealthy, we've, we've experienced attacks on the rule of law, uh, the top wealthy, most powerful law firms, some of which bent the knee to this president because he threatened them.
He's, we've seen him go after the mainstream media because they would not renounce diversity, equity, and inclusion. We've seen him go after top universities trying to get at, uh, their research funding, uh, threatening to cut it off and actually cutting it off unless they rooted out diversity, equity, inclusion. It's, it's mainstream. White supremacy is mainstreamed, extremism. Nonprofit corporations have been attacked, like the SPLC, organizations that offer legal assistance and provide advocacy for victims of white supremacy and racial discrimination, organizations which advance the cause of civil rights and voting rights for black people like the SPLC does.
Uh, Southern Poverty Law Center is under attack because they're standing up against the erosion of our democracy. Professor, uh, Fair... America may not realize that election workers have recently faced bomb threats, harassment, and targeted intimidation simply for doing their job, and you've issued reports about that. Uh, how are these threats part of the larger racial-based suppression tactics, and is this a reason why your organization has come under attack by this administration and by this committee?
Margaret Huang
Gentleman's time has expired, but you may answer.
Thank you. Uh, Congressman Johnson, yes, we, we believe that, uh, there is a direct threat to free and fair elections, uh, and we believe that we are a target of this administration because of the effective work we've done for 55 years.
Speaker 78
Gentleman's time has expired. Recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Cline.
Ben Cline
Thank you. Mr. Fair, as the only Virginian sitting on this committee, I'm very concerned about the allegations in the indictment about your organization's role in the planning of the Unite the Right rally. According to the indictment, one of your paid source F37 maintained an active online presence making racist posts under the supervision of the SPLC, and the SPLC paid this informant over $300,000 during this period. The informant was involved with the rally. Now, I would ask you questions about that, but I know from your past answers you're not going to answer anything related to this indictment.
But I want to know how exactly this individual aided in the planning of the rally.
I want to know whether this individual attended the rally because an individual was tragically murdered at this rally. Two law enforcement officers were also tragically killed in an accident while surveying the scene. I want to know why the SPLC forced individuals, other sources, to stay in the extremist organization that they wanted to leave. But let me ask you this, because this is public record and you may be able to answer it. Following the Unite the Right rally, the SPLC reported an annual revenue increase of 80 million dollars between 2015 and 2016.
Is that correct?
Margaret Huang
Congressman Cline, as I said earlier, a number of national civil rights groups saw their fundraising donations surge after the election of Donald Trump. That is correct.
Margaret Huang
The Unite the Right rally was in 2017. You referred to 2015 and 16. I'm sorry.
Margaret Huang
The largest increase to my knowledge occurred after the election of Donald Trump.
Ben Cline
I want to shift to your partnership with the Biden-Harris administration's DOJ and FBI. Were you aware at the time that the SPLC received special treatment such as direct access to high-ranking officials in the Civil Rights Division, early access to FBI hate crime data, and invitations to exclusive events with DOJ leadership during the Biden-Harris administration?
Margaret Huang
As I said to Chairman Jordan, the SPLC has met with every administration since its founding to advance racial justice and equality in this country. I'm not aware of any special treatment for the SPLC during any of those administrations.
Ben Cline
Has the SPLC provided training to federal law enforcement, to federal prosecutors?
Speaker 82
I'm not aware of any training of prosecutors as part of SPLC's work. We did work with law enforcement and sponsor trainings for law enforcement, if that's what you mean.
Matt Bangert
Thank you. Mr. Banger, how does collusion between law enforcement and partisan groups like the SPLC undermine civil rights protections for Americans?
Thank you, Congressman. The problem with the SPLC is that it's trying to shut down debate in the public square. And there are numerous examples of the SPLC colluding not just with law enforcement, but also major corporate actors to do exactly that. Of course, we all witnessed what happened with the malicious prosecutions by the Biden administration's DOJ under the FACE Act. But it goes beyond that.
We've seen major corporations consistently canceling, debanking, refusing service to organizations that simply have a political disagreement with the SPLC, oftentimes on issues that the vast majority of the American public disagree with the SPLC on. And yet they're pressuring both the government and large corporations to take adverse action against those corporations simply to grind a political axe. That's not right.
Ben Cline
Well, you've discussed how the labeling of a domestic, of an organization as a domestic terrorist organization weaponizes this type of activity against Christian groups. What is the problem with nonprofit organizations receiving special treatment from and maintaining a special relationship with a law enforcement agency like the DOJ or the FBI?
Matt Bangert
Well, Congressman, nonprofit groups are not politically accountable to anyone. They're not politically accountable under the First Amendment. And of course, they have the right to freely speak. Of course they do. But when they use that right to persuade government actors, powerful corporations, to refuse the public square to their political opponents, that's a problem.
Speaker 85
Gentleman yields back. Mr. Chairman. Gentleman from Georgia is recognized.
Henry Johnson
I've got a unanimous consent request to introduce for the record an article from the Columbus Dispatch titled, quote, "50 white extremist groups thrive in Ohio's heart, period, SPLC indictment helps them," end quote.
Jim Jordan
Without objection. Gentlelady, I'm sorry, Mr. Garcia's unanimous consent.
Chuy Garcia
Thank you, Chairman. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record this letter from the Christian faith leaders expressing their deep and abiding support for the people and the vital work of the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Speaker 87
Without objection. Gentlelady, and the committee wishes to express our condolences, I know you had a tough situation with your family, I'm sorry to hear about that, but welcome you back and you're recognized for five minutes.
Summer Lee
Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, really appreciate that. Well, here we are again for a third hearing in six months about the Southern Poverty Law Center. And I wanted to point out that voter confidence in the economy has plummeted to a four-year low. 76% of Americans think that the economy is getting worse. The average price for a gallon of gas has almost doubled since Trump began his unconstitutional war of choice against Iran.
And the top concerns of Americans across political party are gas prices, the cost of groceries, and rising healthcare costs. So perhaps it's a surprise to my Republican colleagues that the Southern Poverty Law Center is nowhere on the top list of concerns of Americans across this country. And the fact is that the factual falsehoods and ideological grievances that Republicans keep pushing in these endless hearings is all about fulfilling Donald Trump's mission of punishing perceived political enemies. So I want to be very clear, this hearing is allegedly about SPLC, quote, "spreading hate," which is even more ironic given that it's Donald Trump himself who has used extreme rhetoric and gone out of his way to stoke racism, fear, and xenophobia. He has denounced Mexican immigrants as rapists.
He's railed against immigration from, quote, "shithole countries," his words not mine. He has enacted travel bans against dozens of countries, which a federal court just ruled unlawfully targeted people from 39 African, Asian, Latin American, and Middle Eastern countries. And he and Republicans have tried to end birthright citizenship and have given hundreds of billions of dollars to rogue ICE and CBP agents to kidnap and disappear immigrants of all immigration statuses, including, by the way, United States citizens. But it isn't just the denigrating of black and brown communities that's so dangerous. It is the praising, the pardoning, the condoning of extreme white nationalists directly from the White House.
In Trump's America, white supremacists at the Charlottesville rally are, quote, "very fine people," even after images and video showed participants making Nazi salutes and cheering on the former Grand Wizard of the KKK. Trump then urged the same network of extremists to storm the Capitol and is still trying to implement his $1.8 billion slush fund of US taxpayer dollars to pardon convicted insurrectionists, at least 89 of whom have gone on to commit all kinds of serious crimes from child sexual abuse to reckless homicide.
But I want to dive in a little bit to set the record straight about exactly who we are talking about here. Many of these individuals and groups espouse something called the Great Replacement Theory, which argues that elites are trying to actively replace white Americans and Europeans with non-white immigrants. So Professor McCord, is the Great Replacement Theory an extreme and hateful fringe theory?
Mary McCord
It is a fringe extreme theory, Congressmember. It is not something that is adhered to by the majority of the American public or even a large percentage.
Summer Lee
And it's true, is it not, that the Great Replacement Theory has stimulated violent reactionary responses in multiple cases, including mass murders, mass shootings?
Mary McCord
There have been numerous mass shootings, including in Buffalo, New York, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, El Paso, Texas, and many others where the writings and work of the people who have committed those heinous crimes reflected that they adhered to the Great Replacement Theory as an ideology.
Summer Lee
Now one of the groups that espouses these views is the Center for Immigration Studies, or CIS. And it's an anti-immigrant think tank that SPLC has designated as a hate group. These are some of the statements behind me that CIS's leaders and writers have said, including advocating for the need to maintain a European-American majority, claiming that blacks and Hispanics have lower IQ than white people. And I guess I want to ask you, Mr. Farrell, why was it important for Southern Poverty Law Center to designate CIS as a hate group?
Margaret Huang
It was important, Congresswoman Jayapal, because it is one of these go-to think tank organizations that many people rely on. And our goal is to expose the statements of these groups and to let the people decide. We don't stop speech. We don't stop anyone's speech. There's plenty of speech in the public square from these groups.
We expose their statements in the words of what they said and their activities and let the people decide what they think about it.
So that they don't lead to violent actions that follow that.
Speaker 88
I thank the gentlelady. The gentlelady's time has expired. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for unanimous consent.
Andy Biggs
Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you. This is from SPLC's Learning for Justice curriculum and how it influences international terrorism debate with a specific reference that the terrorism in Israel is worse than that of the Palestinians.
Jefferson Van Drew
Without objection. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
Thank you, Chairman. I'm going to start off by saying the SPLC used to be a good thing. It started out doing the right thing. So many of the good examples that have been brought up of what it's about and ending racism and fighting for us all to be on an equal front are in the past. But I want to speak about the present, where we are now.
I want to speak about how money was used to fund and create racism, and it was for money. I want to talk about how real Americans don't know the real deal and what actually is going on. It's a great name. You know, people look at a name, Southern Poverty Law Center. What could be better?
Stands for doing the right thing. But instead of healing, it open wounds. Instead of dampening racism, it created more racism, more hate. And that's why we're here today. What happened?
What went wrong? All the other stuff we can talk about, but let's talk about this issue today. And the reason that every, that not everybody, but that some folks want to keep straying away from it into other organizations or into the economy or into Donald Trump or the price of gas. It's not what the hearing's about. All important things.
I want to talk about those things, but not at the hearing. It's become clear how this organization that was existing to dismantle white supremacy was actually trying to create it in order to get more money. This is all about money. It's all about politics. It's all about changing the political scene and bringing money in to do that.
And it was all in the shadows. And if you look in the shadows, you see that the money it was receiving from donors wasn't going towards dismantling hate. Honest to God, if some of the donors really knew where the money was going, they would be upset. In the shadows, they allegedly paid more than 4.1 million to individuals associated, that's a lot of money by the way, with hate groups like the Ku Klux Klan, the National Alliance, and the Aryan Nations. Why would you give them money?
You're trying to fight them. You're trying to stop that. You're trying to make it better. And I could go on and on where the money was spent, all the way that it allegedly it was spent for neo-Nazi figures, it was spent to get money for wooden crosses and and uniforms of the Ku Klux Klan and the very gasoline to burn the crosses. My God, the only thing more immoral than racism itself is to pretend you're trying to end it and you're actually funding it for personal gain and political gain.
That's God-awful. That's hateful. So, with that being said, let me ask Mr. Fear, let me ask you some questions. Let me be plain about it. Your organization started good, wanted to dismantle hate, yet you actually increased it.
You promised to confront extremists, instead your indictment alleges you recruited extremists, you bankrolled extremists, you funded extremists. Your organization has strayed from its goal of bringing the country together and healing and now it's just trying to drive us apart. So tell me, what, why? If I'm not right, I mean, why is there the indictment? Why are all those charges there?
I know you're going to say they're not true, but you told the donors that their donations would go towards dismantling these groups. Did you also tell your donors that their money would go directly, directly into the pockets of members whose groups you pledged to destroy? I'm a donor, I give you money to stop all this hate and you're taking the money and you're putting it in the hater's pocket. Do you tell them that?
Margaret Huang
Sorry, Congressman Van Drew, as I said earlier, all the allegations in the indictment will be addressed in the Middle District of Alabama. We have said publicly, I'm sorry, we have said publicly that the Department of Justice knew that we did not give money to any organizations in the statement you suggested we did. We did not. The Department of Justice knew that we were working with law enforcement including the FBI. So we've in public documents and filings have addressed some of the things you said.
We will address others in the criminal case pending in the Middle District of Alabama.
Jefferson Van Drew
I thank you for your answer. I'm telling you, it's going to be shocking because I think it's going to be surprising to good Americans where that money went and how it increased hate. And I'm asking you this question, but again you're not going to answer it. You don't tell donors, I bet, if you can answer just yes or no, that the money they gave would buy wood and fuel for a cross burning. Do you tell them that?
Did you tell them what it was used for?
Congressman Van Drew.
Jefferson Van Drew
I know, it's going to be addressed. It is going to be addressed. And you guys are going to be in trouble. And you're going to have a real problem on your hands.
I yield back to the chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I have a UC actually.
Gentlelady can state her request.
Speaker 92
Yes, this is an article from ProPublica, Members of Several Well-Known Hate Groups Identified at Capitol Riot.
Without objection.
Speaker 91
And the next one is from Salon and it says SPLC Indictments Lend Support to Hate Groups For Decades, the Southern Poverty Law Center Has Fought Hate, Now the Justice Department Wants to Stop It.
Without objection. Chair now recognizes...
Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous consent as well.
Gentleman from Texas recognized.
Lance Gooden
My colleague Ms. Jasmine Crockett said she was unaware that children's genitalia was being cut off. I'd like to submit this article that says Trump Administration Lauds Plastic Surgeon's Statement on Trans Surgery for Minors. I'll send you a copy, Ms. Crockett, so you can learn more about this heinous practice.
Speaker 97
I know that that side doesn't have too many women, so we may all look alike, but that was actually my colleague.
I take full credit.
Gentleman.
Jefferson Van Drew
I apologize, I just assumed it was you, Ms. Crockett. Please forgive me.
Mr. Chairman, gentleman from New Jersey for UC. Unanimous consent from YouTube, DOJ Indictment Alleges SPLC Funded Clan Activities Including Reimbursements for Cross Burnings.
Speaker 99
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all of our witnesses for being here today and for your testimony. Reviewed all of your written testimony and appreciate the opportunity to ask you a couple of questions about it. Mr. Binger, you work for Alliance Defending Freedom, correct?
Yes, sir.
Speaker 100
Okay, I reviewed your written testimony. Safe to say you disagree with Southern Poverty Law Center's designation of your group, right?
We do.
Joe Neguse
Okay, and based on your written testimony and based off some of what I found on your website, some deep resentment about that designation, fair to say?
Sir, we don't resent them, we disagree with them.
Speaker 96
Disagree with them. Okay, well, as I look at your testimony and as I review your website, it is pretty clear that you view Southern Poverty Law Center as an adversary, is that a fair characterization?
Matt Bangert
We have disagreements with them on a number of issues, including policy and otherwise.
Joe Neguse
That's how you would describe them, disagreements? I mean, the words that you use to describe the Southern Poverty Law Center do not strike me as a simple matter of disagreement. It seems pretty clear to me, based on your website, based on your testimony, I don't know why you'd be walking away from that now, that you vehemently disagree with the Southern Poverty Law Center, that you are pleased that they have been indicted. You have called, I mean, this is from your recommendations for congressional action, direct banking regulators to investigate ECOA and Regulation B compliance at institutions using SPLC-linked vetting tools, right? So you are calling for investigations into the Southern Poverty Law Center.
That doesn't sound like something that you would do with someone you disagree with. Am I wrong?
Matt Bangert
Congressman, anytime that a designation by a nonprofit that's politically unaccountable is being used by federally regulated banks to discriminate based on religious belief, that's something that the government should be aware of.
Joe Neguse
Okay, and so I'm simply saying that I didn't expect to have this much of an extended back and forth on the premise of the question. I think that your bosses at Alliance Defending Freedom, if they were testifying here, would say we vehemently disagree with Southern Poverty Law Center, they're an adversary, they're an enemy, we are glad that they have been indicted, and we are calling for more investigations of them, which you did in the written testimony that you provided to this committee. Do you think it would be inappropriate to harness a criminal prosecution of an entity to pursue the enemies of your organization? Would that be an inappropriate thing to do?
Congressman...
Speaker 93
No, that's a yes or no question. I can ask if it's— if you don't think it's inappropriate, you can say no.
Matt Bangert
If there's true criminal activity, then of course the government has the right to investigate.
Speaker 95
Sure, but if there's no criminal activity, it would be wrong to do that, right?
Joe Neguse
Mr. Bangert, this is why I ask the question. You are a former Attorney General— I think you know why I'm asking you the question. You're a former Deputy Attorney General within the Texas Office of Attorney General. You went to the FBI and gave a whistleblower complaint about Ken Paxton, the Attorney General of Texas. You did so because you believed that there was criminal wrongdoing.
Let me read this quote. "In my view, the criminal process has been— had been harnessed to pursue the business enemies of an individual who also happened to be under intensive investigation by law enforcement." That's your quote from an article a few years ago after you went to the FBI about Mr. Paxton. It is very clear that Alliance Defending Freedom and a wide variety of other organizations that have been designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center resent it, vehemently disagree with it, have been demanding a criminal investigation and indictment of SPLC, and they have now gotten their wishes from the President's personal lawyer, who of course, as we know, now serves as the interim Attorney General of the United States. And I just think it's important for us to be candid about that.
I don't know if the Chairman agrees with you going to the FBI about Ken Paxton. I'm not sure if Mr. Gill or Mr. Roy or some of my colleagues here— maybe they'll ask you a question or two about the Republican Attorney General of Texas and why it was appropriate for you to go to the FBI with allegations of wrongdoing. I'm certainly glad that you did that. I would tell you that, like you, the SPLC, as I understand it, has gone to the FBI on many occasions to provide the FBI with information about suspected criminal activity. And in fact, that criminal activity, the reported criminal activity, has ultimately been prosecuted.
By the way, not by President Biden's Justice Department, but by Donald Trump's Justice Department. And the best example of this, which was brought up earlier, was the potential mass terror attack at a synagogue in Las Vegas. And Mr. Fere, I think you've already attested to this, but just to be clear, your organization gave information from a paid informant to the FBI when Donald Trump was President, and Donald Trump's FBI used that information to prosecute someone to prevent them from having— engaged in this mass terror attack. Is that true?
That is correct.
Speaker 106
Time of the gentleman has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gooden.
Lance Gooden
Mr. Fere, during the Biden-Harris administration, the SPLC included many mainstream conservative groups in their hate map, including Alliance Defending Freedom, Charlie Kirk's Turning Point USA, and Family Research Council. To your knowledge, did the SPLC include Antifa, which is an actual domestic terrorist organization, in its hate group?
Margaret Huang
Congressman Gooden, just for the record, the SPLC does not have a domestic terrorist list. I'm not sure what Dr. King was referring to, what list she's referring to. As I understand, she's on none of our lists. We have a list that identifies groups based on the statements that they and their leaders make.
Is Antifa on your hate map?
Margaret Huang
Again, as I said earlier, Congressman Gooden, it's my understanding that the FBI has said—
Lance Gooden
So they're not. Let me ask you this: has SPLC labeled the radical left group Jane's Revenge as a hate group?
This group has publicly taken responsibility for vandalizing and destroying pregnancy resource centers and Catholic churches since May 2022. Have you all designated that on your hate map?
Margaret Huang
Congressman Gooden, if you've looked at our hate map, you know the criteria we set for designating groups. One designation is when a group expresses, vilifies, demonizes individuals based on immutable characteristics. The second is a group that expresses anti-government conspiracy theories.
Lance Gooden
So destroying pregnancy resource centers and Catholic churches would not qualify as hate under your definition. You guys are okay with that. But God forbid Turning Point holds a rally. That's considered hate, but destroying a Catholic church or a pregnancy resource is not. Just to be clear, help me understand.
Margaret Huang
No, Congressman Gooden, the SPLC establishes its own criteria, and any other group can create its own list. Under our criteria, we've designated those groups based on what they've said.
Lance Gooden
Under your criteria, Turning Point USA, Family Research Council, and other conservative Christian groups are considered hate groups, but Antifa and Jane's Revenge that burns down Catholic churches and pregnancy resource centers, those are not hate groups. It sounds like you're really proud of that process. I'll move on because I frankly think it's disgusting. And you know what, I'd actually ask for you to add me to your hate map. I'd be honored to be on it.
It sounds like I'd be in great company. During the Biden-Harris administration, the FBI's Richmond field office relied on information from the SPLC when creating its memorandum that categorized certain Catholics as racially motivated violent extremists. Do you believe that Americans practicing their Christian faith and exercising their First Amendment rights are violent extremists?
Margaret Huang
Congressman Gooden, the SPLC doesn't identify any group based on religion. We too believe in religious liberty. We identify groups based on the statements they make, that their leaders make, based on their activities that target various groups based on...
Lance Gooden
Well, many of these statements are based on religious beliefs. So I take issue with that. Let me ask you, were your donors informed of your partnership with federal agencies under Biden-Harris administration? Did you let them know that you all were working with them?
Margaret Huang
Congressman Gooden, the SPLC has worked with every administration since our founding to advance racial justice and equality in this country. We believe our donors and supporters support all of the work that we do.
Lance Gooden
So funding radical racist groups is something that your donors are on board with. I have a hard time believing that. Mr. Jordan, I'll yield the balance to you.
Jim Jordan
I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Fair, if you're trying to stop hate, why would you encourage people to attend a hate rally?
Margaret Huang
The SPLC doesn't encourage people to attend hate rallies, Chairman Jordan. And if you're referring to any allegations in the indictment...
Jim Jordan
Well, I'm just asking in general. I'm not saying... it's one thing, you've said you've had informants, you had field sources. If you have informants and field sources there, that's one thing, but the indictment says that these informants and field sources were encouraging other people to attend these hate rallies. And I'm saying, okay, so you don't have to answer that specifically, but is that a good thing in general?
Margaret Huang
Again, all the allegations in the indictment, Chairman Jordan, will be addressed.
Jim Jordan
Okay. Do you wish you hadn't done the program? You said the program was successful, helpful, but now you're stopping it.
Margaret Huang
We stopped the program because we believe hate and extremism has migrated significantly online and into government agencies.
Speaker 111
Wow, wow, that's, that's, that's big. That makes no sense. The chair now recognizes... Mr. Chairman, I've got a UC request, if that's alright. Gentleman concedes UC request.
Speaker 108
Okay, first, I ask unanimous consent to introduce this article about whether in fact people have been driven from the public square. 2025 was a banner year for Alliance Defending Freedom in, in their newsletter. And I ask unanimous consent to introduce for the record a report by the DOJ's Office of the Inspector General, which found no evidence of anti-Catholic bias or malicious intent on the part of the FBI personnel who prepared the Richmond domain perspective.
Jim Jordan
Well, we have the apology from Director Wray, so you typically don't apologize for something if you didn't do anything wrong.
Jim Jordan
Yeah, okay. We'll have to submit Director Wray's statement as well. Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from North Carolina.
Deborah Ross
Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. It is beyond ridiculous that we are having yet a second hearing on this topic, something that is in active litigation and that the courts should sort out. It's especially ridiculous because we've had no oversight hearings of what the DOJ is doing under Mr. Blanche when he is about to be in front of the Senate for confirmation for Attorney General, and he has had so many incidents that are worthy of investigation, including his handling of the Epstein files and Ghislaine Maxwell's transfer to Club Fed. But that's not why we're here today. My colleagues on the other side have continued to cite the indictment as if it is some kind of proof, proof, it's just an indictment, that SPLC has engaged in wrongdoing.
This indictment essentially states that making payments to a confidential informant to infiltrate violent extremist organizations is the exact same thing as supporting those organizations. That also is ridiculous. The FBI pays informants all the time. Are they supporting the groups that they're trying to undermine? This is a bizarre Alice in Wonderland theory, and if allowed to stand, it would call into question decades of intelligence and law enforcement practices used to prevent violence and dismantle criminal networks.
Mr. Phare, how does the intelligence and extremist monitoring program within SPLC support, support your work to combat violent hate groups in America?
Margaret Huang
Thank you, Congresswoman Ross. Our confidential informant program helps save lives. We shared information with law enforcement. It helped protect the public, it helped protect our staff. We were able to gather intelligence and dismantle some of these groups.
Deborah Ross
Thank you. It is astounding that our own Department of Justice, which benefited from this intelligence gathering, seems not to understand how this process works. But that's the current Department of Justice. Ms. McCord, you were a federal prosecutor for two decades and led the National Security Division of the DOJ, which prosecutes crimes like domestic terrorism.
Did your work ever involve or rely on paid confidential informants?
Mary McCord
Yes, it is a practice, an investigative technique, tactic, strategy that is used by law enforcement, paid informants, cooperators, not only to investigate potential crimes of terrorism, but also drug trafficking rings, human trafficking rings, child pedophilia.
Deborah Ross
And can you give us an example of when information from an informant was used to build a federal case against a criminal network?
Mary McCord
There are many examples, Congressmember Ross, and certainly oftentimes this results in allegations in indictments, including the information provided by paid informants, and oftentimes testimony at trial that also comes directly from informants.
Deborah Ross
Great. Thank you, Ms. McCord. This is essential work. And of course we know that SPLC donors have absolutely no problem with this practice. As one of them stated in the wake of this indictment, "We knew they were paying informants."
The indictment is a laughingstock. It is on specious legal grounds. Veteran prosecutors have called this indictment frail and deficient and particularly weak. One federal civil rights prosecutor and FBI agent even stated, and I quote, "I don't think any prosecutor with white-collar experience would look at this indictment and believe it makes out the elements of a crime. It is not a valid indictment."
We know why this indictment was brought. It's just one of the many weaponized moves that Todd Blanch and the DOJ has taken at the President's behest to silence dissent for his month-long audition for Attorney General. And he's going to get his time in front of the cameras. This is proving loyalty to Donald Trump, but it's clearly not loyalty to the law. I yield back.
Speaker 117
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you everyone for being here today. Mr. Fair, are you familiar with J&J Electronics?
Margaret Huang
Are you familiar with Kelly's Marine? Congressman Biggs, I'm sorry, Congressman Biggs, I'm not sure that I'm familiar with them. If they are...
Margaret Huang
If these are names of companies in the indictment, they will be addressed in the criminal case pending against...
Speaker 116
You seem puzzled, the look on your face indicates that maybe you weren't familiar with them, but I don't know, isn't it true that those fictitious companies, the nine of them, were set up by SPLC employees?
Margaret Huang
Congressman Biggs, all of those allegations in the indictment will be addressed in the Middle District of Alabama by SPLC's counsel.
Andy Biggs
Isn't it true that SPLC created bank accounts in the names of those nine companies that actually did not exist?
Margaret Huang
Congressman Biggs, all of those allegations in the indictment will be addressed...
Speaker 115
Same answer. Isn't it true that one bank investigated and found that the accounts were fake? That the accounts were all fake.
Same answer, Congressman.
Speaker 119
And isn't it true that SPLC admitted in writing that those entities were, quote, "opened for the benefit of Southern Poverty Law Center operations," close quote?
Margaret Huang
There are allegations in the indictment that will be addressed in the Middle District of Alabama by SPLC's counsel.
Andy Biggs
And isn't it true that executing bank documents claiming to own a company that does not exist is lying to federally insured bank? And I'll assume that you're going to give me the same answer. Right? Probably.
All the indict-
Andy Biggs
The superseding indictment describes a field source referred to as F9, if you go to page six of that indictment. F9 fundraised for the neo-Nazi National Alliance while receiving SPLC funds. He received at least 1.2 million dollars. He was in a romantic relationship with the SPLC employee who oversaw all payments to field sources. Isn't that true?
Margaret Huang
That's an allegation in the indictment that will be addressed in the Middle District of Alabama.
Andy Biggs
Well, I hope they address it because your employee shared a home with F9 and two bank accounts. Isn't that true?
Andy Biggs
So you didn't know that the person who's in charge of overseeing payments to field sources, which you claim is a big important program, you didn't know that that individual was living with and sharing bank accounts with one of your clandestine sources?
Margaret Huang
That's an allegation in the indictment, Congressman Biggs, that will be addressed.
Speaker 124
That individual, you didn't know that, basically is what the look on your face says. But here's the deal.
Margaret Huang
The look on my face says that all of those allegations in the indictment, Congressman-
Andy Biggs
That's what your mouth says, but your look on your face says you had no idea because the individual later became a director of your intelligence project. Did you approve that promotion?
Margaret Huang
Congressman Biggs, I've been serving as the interim president of the SPLC since July. I don't know what time frame you're referring to, first of all. And second, all the allegations in the indictment will be addressed in a criminal proceeding where they belong.
Andy Biggs
It began in 2014. Okay, you keep saying that, and that's interesting. But there is a due process clause. You were the one, you were the one that approved the promotion of that individual to become director of intelligence project, did you not?
Andy Biggs
That's not an indictment question. So when did you learn about the nature of their relationship?
Andy Biggs
Well, in 2014, F9 broke into the headquarters of an organization, stole 25 boxes of documents, transported those across state lines, and he was paid money by that individual and continued to receive money for 20 years, in total receiving allegedly 1.2 million dollars. And he's the one, F9 is the one that was involved in the romantic relationship with your employee. And I want to know, are you telling us that you never knew about that relationship even as you sit here today?
Margaret Huang
I'm telling you first that all the allegations in the indictment will be addressed in the Middle District of Alabama in the criminal case pending before that court. And I'm telling you second, I don't know what period you were referring to. Did you take any personnel action after you learned it?
Oh, it's eight seconds. Oh boy, that's way up, Mr. Raskin.
Speaker 121
Well, I'm glad you conceded that. Yeah, yeah, that's way up. You're great at badgering the witnesses, but just obey the rules. It's way up. We've been listening to you guys go 30, 45 seconds.
Speaker 123
The time belongs to the gentleman from Arizona and his time has expired. The chair will note that the ranking member got I think 13 minutes in an opening statement, so we're pretty lenient on the time around here. The gentlelady from Vermont is recognized for five minutes.
Becca Balint
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank the witnesses for being here. We are now enduring yet another hearing of this committee regarding Republicans' absurd allegations against the Southern Poverty Law Center. And we already know about the battle between hateful extremist groups and the civil rights litigators at SPLC. And we know that President Trump, Acting Attorney General Blanche, and many other members of this administration have sided with extremists over and over again. This third hearing is clearly part of a broader effort built on a pathetic, blind loyalty to one man, Donald Trump.
President Trump prizes loyalty over principles, loyalty over values, loyalty over competence, and that is why he wants to elevate his personal lawyer to serve as our Attorney General. Acting Attorney General Blanche has quickly earned President Trump's trust by using the Justice Department to attack people and groups like SPLC that have stood up to this administration and its lawlessness. Mr. Blanche has overseen the creation of perhaps the most corrupt scheme in our nation's history, the DOJ weaponization slush fund. Blanche signed off on an unconstitutional agreement to give taxpayers' money to criminals and insurrectionists, people who beat cops in this building. But that's not all.
Acting Attorney General has also initiated a criminal fraud investigation of E. Jean Carroll, the woman who successfully sued Donald Trump for sexual assault. He has indicted former FBI Director James Comey for an Instagram post with seashells, ladies and gentlemen, seashells. He has installed a Trump loyalist to replace a career prosecutor who would not indict former CIA Director John Brennan on ridiculous charges. That's what we're doing here. Mr. Blanche is clear about his role.
He knows he is auditioning to be the President's lawyer, his personal lawyer, the job that he's had before. He has said in his own words that the President has a "right and duty" to use the Justice Department to investigate his political enemies. That absurd idea, of course, conflicts with the entire concept of an independent DOJ. Professor McCord, is the role of Attorney General different from being the President's personal attorney?
Mary McCord
Yes, it is, Congressmember. The role of the Attorney General is to take an oath to the Constitution, as every single prosecutor in the Department of Justice does. It is not an oath to a person, and certainly not an oath to the President.
That's absolutely right. And why should the Justice Department be independent from the office of the President, regardless of which party is in power?
Since Watergate, it has been important to Attorneys General of both parties that the American public not believe that the Department of Justice will be used for political purposes. And so the policies have been for more than 50 years until now that it will not be directed by the White House when it comes to prosecutions and investigations.
And what are those dangers? You know, the dangers of a system where politically driven prosecutions become the norm?
Well, certainly one of those dangers is the infringement on First Amendment rights. Among many other dangers, there's the legitimacy of the Department of Justice, there's the integrity of the prosecutors when they go into court. But on the First Amendment, when we see targeting of organizations and individuals based upon their speech, and that includes a number of the individuals you mentioned in your opening remarks, that infringes on constitutional rights.
Becca Balint
I agree with you.
And now he wants to make him permanent. And I need much more than five minutes to touch on all the ways in which Mr. Blanch's conduct is disqualifying. In this case alone that we're here once again discussing, in this case alone he has misled Americans by stating on television that he did not know that SPLC was giving informant information to law enforcement. And of course, as my colleague from North Carolina has said, Mr. Blanch is a central figure in the Epstein files cover-up. He was the person who met with Ghislaine Maxwell before she was transferred to a Club Fed facility.
The accusations against SPLC are ridiculous. Legal experts are clear that the indictment being offered by Mr. Blanch is invalid. But like all things with this president, it is both ridiculous and completely serious. We have to make clear that his nomination is nothing more than a stamp of approval for scandal after corrupt scandal. I yield back.
Speaker 127
The gentleman yields back. The gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Lee is recognized.
Jim Jordan
Oh, thank you. Thank you, representative. Mr. Bangert, a government-paid informant and a law enforcement-paid informant is different than a private sector-paid informant, wouldn't you agree?
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Jim Jordan
I mean, Ms. McCourt said, oh, she went this long thing, I forget who was asking the question, all this, this paid informants happens all the time. Doesn't happen in the private sector like that, right?
They're very different.
Jim Jordan
Yeah, very different. Now, for all we know, it could be the same people. I mean, maybe the government was paying the same people they're paying. I don't know. Maybe these guys were double-dipping.
That's a question I think worth exploring. But the idea that, oh, this is just fine, particularly when the private sector, the private entity doesn't tell their donors what they're doing. Would you agree with that? That doesn't make, that's not the same as the FBI paying an informant for valuable information or local law enforcement paying informants, different animals, right?
Jim Jordan
Yeah, exactly. And particularly, I don't know, maybe it's happened over time, but, you know, when you add to it that the private entity is paying an informant or a field source millions of dollars that they're not telling their donors, that's different than the FBI or local law enforcement paying some informant, wouldn't you agree?
I do agree, chairman.
Jim Jordan
Okay, let's get to this issue that the ranking member raised early on regarding the First Amendment. I agree, they can say whatever they darn well want. Of course we got a First Amendment. I mean, we did a big investigation on when censorship, First Amendment. But what is happening, and this I think was where you were going, Mr. Bangert, is when the organization colludes with corporations, colludes with banks, and worse yet, colludes with the government to silence and go after people for political reasons or other groups for political reasons, like the Alliance Defending Freedom or the Family Research Council, that's where the rub comes in.
Isn't that accurate?
Matt Bangert
Yes, Mr. Chairman, it's entirely accurate. I mean, it's sort of like the old Sesame Street skit of one of these things is not like the other. I mean, on the one hand, you have violent extremist groups. On the other hand, you have peaceful, pro-family, Christian conservative organizations. And what the SPLC has done over time is it has expanded this hate map to include the latter.
And then what it's done after that is it's launched this organization called Change the Terms, gone to corporate America, and embedded itself in the decision-making architecture of corporate America, including key institutions like financial firms, technology firms, online social media platforms, and demanded that they deplatform, debank, and deny services to every single organization on that hate map, including the ones that aren't like the other.
Jim Jordan
And again, that's all bad. We disagree with it. Lumping y'all together and going to these entities and doing that. But what's really wrong is when they go to government and get the government's stamp of approval, which is what I think happened. This is why there was this cozy relationship between the Biden-Garland Justice Department and the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Do you agree with that?
Jim Jordan
Yeah. Because when the government, when the Justice Department is making them out to be the end-all-be-all standard objective source out there, bringing them into quarterly meetings, using their material, having them train their prosecutors, that's when we get into the problem. And so much so that the FBI director sat in the same seat you're sitting in and said that memorandum written by the Richmond field office was wrong, it was, I was aghast, I can't remember all the terms he used. That's where it leads to an actual document from the government saying if you're a pro-life Catholic, you're an extremist.
Matt Bangert
The government, especially when it's engaging in prosecution, relies on evidence. The hate map, as courts have found, is not evidence of anything. In fact, it's a sham and a fraud.
Jim Jordan
Yeah. So all that went on, and now we learn, now we learn that they had field sources, that's what they called them, that they were paying four million dollars over a period of years, and these field sources were engaged in all kinds of ridiculous, hateful, racist things, all while telling their donors, we're doing the great stuff. That's the story. And that's why the Justice Department's investigating and has indicted them. Anything I get wrong in that there, Mr. Banger?
It is a tale of hypocrisy.
Jim Jordan
Yeah. Yeah. I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I will give you back thirty seconds. God bless you for yielding me four minutes and thirty.
Speaker 130
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I think you just said it. You know, what we're seeing here is an organization that held itself out to be doing good work in the country, and what we're hearing today is that in fact, it was colluding to fund and support and conspire with some of the very organizations it claims to want to defeat. It is discouraging, and it is so critical that we have brought transparency to this issue here today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Sara Jacobs
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So on May 18th of this year, two teenage gunmen opened fire on a mosque in San Diego, California, and they murdered three people. Then they turned their weapons on themselves before law enforcement could apprehend them. These assailants, they were teenagers. They were children.
And children are not born with hate. They are taught hate. President Fayer, is that a fair assessment?
Margaret Huang
Sorry, Congresswoman, it's our position that hate is never peaceful for its victims.
Sara Jacobs
Right. Ever. And you know, these assailants, they learned this hate somewhere, and they shared it actually in their very long, detailed, hate-filled manifesto, referencing a number of extremist organizations by name, like the Terrorgram Collective, the Base, and the Atomwaffen Division. So President Fayer, are you familiar with some of these groups?
Margaret Huang
Yes, the Atomwaffen Division is one of the groups that we shared intelligence on and was behind the threatened massacre in Las Vegas.
Speaker 131
That's right. It's a neo-Nazi extremist group, and in 2019, SPLC actually gave information, it was good enough for law enforcement, that they were able to thwart a terrorist attack that was planned by one of the members of this Atomwaffen Division. And in fact, he said he was planning a terrorist attack, and he had explosives, and he was targeting a synagogue and a bar that was patronized by the LGBT community. So by the way, for everybody, Happy Pride Month.
And Ms. King, I say that in honor of your uncle's dear friend, Bayard Rustin. So we are talking about accelerationist neo-Nazi networks and two teenagers in San Diego who were inspired by them. And this is a hate-filled pipeline getting to our children. It's a pathway by which teenage boys and young men are drawn from mainstream platforms into these increasingly radicalized spaces where they are encountering content that glorifies hate, violence, and criminal activity. And to be fair, what happened at that mosque was a criminal act.
I think it's curious that Republicans haven't had any of these groups come before this committee and prove that they are not spreading hate. Where are those hearings? But maybe my Republican colleagues are okay with having neo-Nazi extremist groups teaching your children or their children. But I'm not. We've also heard today that those with traditional Christian beliefs are being treated as threats and terrorists.
We've heard a lot today about how the SPLC is anti-Christian. We're being told that the organization worked with the Biden administration to target traditional Catholics for their political and religious beliefs and that the org discriminates against anyone with traditional or Christian views. I think those are lies. So speaking of lies, for the record, President Fere, do you maintain a domestic terrorist list?
We do not.
Speaker 131
Okay. So Dr. King, for example, is not on this non-existent list. Is that true?
Speaker 131
Okay. So per usual, the facts are being twisted to attack the SPLC and the work it does across this country to tackle hate groups and violent extremists because SPLC actually dares to dissent against this administration and therefore you all have a target on your back. But don't take my word for it. I have a video.
Speaker 136
I've been hearing that there are people who think the SPLC is anti-Christian. And I really don't know what Bible they're reading because my experience of the SPLC is that they help churches feed hungry families, they help struggling communities.
Speaker 138
They informed me personally about need in our state, about a decrease of SNAP benefits, about hospital shortages.
Speaker 139
And the work that we do in our community, and without SPLC and the knowledge that they bring, it would limit us to be able to serve and understand what our community needs are.
Speaker 134
And certainly the values of SPLC in these more than four and five decades exemplify the values of the gospel: inclusion, solidarity, concern for the least among us, and a zeal for justice.
Speaker 140
So I fully support and want the SPLC to be known for who they are in real time and real life because of what they do for others.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Barry Gardiner
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to the witnesses for being here today. Ms. King, great to see you again. I think you've done more to unite, I know in my region of the country, people than to divide them. And I know you've done it with a much smaller budget than some of the people you battle against.
So thank you for your kind work. You've always got a wonderful heart and an amazing testimony. And your family's been a blessing to Alabama, and you've been a blessing to our family. So thank you for being here. The Southern Poverty Law Center is headquartered in Montgomery, Alabama, one of the most important cities in the history of civil rights movement.
But Montgomery is not a shield. The civil rights movement is not a fundraising costume. And Alabama donors are not an ATM. That history belongs to the men and women who marched, who prayed, who suffered, and changed this country. Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall has opened a civil investigation into the Southern Poverty Law Center under the Alabama Consumer Protection Act.
The subpoena asks a straightforward question. When Alabama donors gave money to fight hate, were they told the truth about where that money could go? Southern Poverty Law Center has spent years putting labels on other people. It has even used Hatewatch to target me. As a matter of fact, I think the reason I'm on the list, and there's 11 congressmen on this list, is because we simply put a flag in front of our office that encouraged the people to pray for this nation.
It's called the Appeal to Heaven flag. Somehow or another, I became a hateful person and I was put on a Hatewatch list simply because I put a flag up that encouraged one of the founding flags of this nation to encourage our country to pray for our leaders. And then those leaders are put on a hate list and it's published. So my name's on a list along with 10 others, courtesy of some Hatewatch group. I don't know, Dr. King, if we're on the same list, but I'm honored to be on a list with you any time of the day, any week, any month that we're in a fight together for this country.
So I encourage you to tell your people to keep on praying and we'll keep flying our flag. How about that? So, question, Mr. Fair. Southern Poverty Law Center, as we know, is headquartered in Montgomery, Alabama. Is that correct?
Yes, it is.
I don't know if your mic's on.
Yes, it is.
Speaker 151
Are you here today as the interim president and CEO of Southern Poverty Law Center?
Yes, I am.
Took over when?
I'm sorry?
When did you take that job?
In July.
Any idea why?
Margaret Huang
Because I've supported the SPLC and its mission for my entire life.
Speaker 146
You don't think it had anything to do with the investigation that's going on?
I'm sorry?
Speaker 145
You think maybe because of the investigation you were moved as interim CEO or...
That I was removed?
Margaret Huang
No, I joined as interim CEO because there was a vacancy and the board asked if I would be willing to step in. And I said yes.
Speaker 149
Fair enough. Okay, so you received an actual subpoena from the Attorney General Steve Marshall. You're aware of that, correct?
Have you provided the documents that the Attorney General has requested? Okay.
Barry Moore
What do you think the SPLC is withholding from the Attorney General? It seems like they're slow-walking the information, at least that's what I've been told.
Barry Moore
Did the SPLC tell Alabama donors that donated funds could be used to pay informants tied to groups like the Ku Klux Klan, Aryan Nations, or the National Socialist Movement?
Barry Gardiner
Congressman Moore, all the allegations in the indictment will be addressed in the Middle District of Alabama in the criminal case pending against the SPLC.
Margaret Huang
Okay, did the SPLC donation page tell Alabama donors that their money could be paid directly or indirectly to sources inside extremist groups? Did y'all notify your donors of that?
Barry Gardiner
Did the SPLC's fundraiser emails to Alabama donors use the word informant?
Speaker 144
Congressman Moore, as I said, counsel will address all the allegations. We believe our donors support all of our programs and all the work that we do.
Barry Moore
In closing, SPLC has spent years accusing other Americans of hate. Accountability has come home to Montgomery. The issue is transparency. The issue is donor honesty. The issue is whether an Alabama-based organization can raise money off accusations of hate while refusing to answer basic questions about where that money went.
Barry Gardiner
Southern Poverty Law Center does not get to use Alabama as its headquarters, as a brand. We deserve better. The civil rights movement is not a fundraising costume, and Alabama donors are not an ATM. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Barry Moore
Southern Poverty Law Center does not get to use Alabama as its headquarters as a brand. We deserve better. The civil rights movement is not a fundraising costume.
Jim Jordan
Gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from, is it gentleman from Illinois? Gentleman from Illinois.
Chuy Garcia
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's astonishing to see Republicans choose to humiliate themselves for a third time with this hearing, which is more of an indictment of them than anyone else. Everyone knows that the SPLC indictment is a joke, a bad one at that. Everyone knows that the legal arguments are nonsense, and everyone knows that Todd Blanche's corrupt henchmen ordered the US attorney to do this pathetic hack job, even though it'll never hold up in court. So why are Republicans putting us through this absurd gaslighting Olympics for a third time?
Because their assault on the SPLC is a crucial part of the assault on democracy itself. The Republican Party used to be the party of Lincoln, from Illinois. That's where I'm from. Today, it's nothing more than a death cult and a political front for the white supremacist movement, tragically. That's as old as our country itself.
As my Democratic colleagues have pointed out, there's a reason why Republicans are targeting the SPLC. No organization has been more effective in dismantling the Klan and other white nationalist groups, including through the use of informants. This is a nonprofit organization. It has a board of directors. They govern organizations, in case you don't know.
So the Republican Party protects these groups because they have the same goals: erase reconstruction, erase the civil rights movement, destroy multiracial democracy, and restore Jim Crow in America. That's what this is all about, and it's right in front of us. They tried to violently overthrow an election, then got pardons from their ringleader, President Trump. They tried to embezzle billions of tax dollar, tax dollars to create a white nationalist slush fund at DOJ, but it ran into problems, didn't it? They divert law enforcement resources from combating white nationalism to low-level immigration enforcement.
They accuse the SPLC of being anti-Christian for opposing anti-abortion, anti-LGBT bigotry, even though Christian leaders, as we saw in the prior video, nationwide support the SPLC overwhelmingly. Their morality, bankrupt, co-conspirators on the Supreme Court and in state legislatures are dismantling reconstruction amendments and rigging elections to strip black and brown people of political representation.
Let's be clear. The President and his enablers are carrying out the vision of the Klan, the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, and every other hate group because they exist and they act. They are courageous patriots and they have fought for decades. It's the same old playbook on DEI and mass incarceration and the Voting Rights Act and immigration enforcement. The racial profiling, the mass detentions, the stripping of due process, the undermining of birthright citizenship, everything that's happening in communities like mine, it's all the same playbook.
And it's rooted in the same conspiracy theory, the Great Replacement Theory. Mr. Fair, thank you for being here today and for all that SPLC does. Would you agree that this administration's anti-immigrant agenda is part of the broader support of white nationalist movement and how does the Great Replacement Theory underpin that movement?
Margaret Huang
Yes, Congressman Garcia. The Great Replacement Theory suggests that whites in this country are being replaced by immigrants. And many of the groups that we identify as hate groups target immigrants, label them as criminals, as rapists in the words of this administration and otherwise. There are any number of groups that express white supremacist views that this country should be a majority white nation. Those views are antithetical to the views of the SPLC.
Thank you for sharing that. I yield back.
Speaker 155
Gentleman yields back. Gentlelady from California is recognized for unanimous consent.
Speaker 131
San Diego mosque shooters left document revealing racist neo-Nazi beliefs. Without objection. Vance praises YouTuber Nick Shirley reporting on Minnesota fraud. Without objection. Undocumented immigrant offending rate lower than US-born citizen rate.
Without objection. Okay. Anti-Muslim bigotry surges ahead of International Day to Combat Islamophobia. The annual report 2025, the Council on, I'm sorry, American-Islamic Relations 2025 annual report. Without objection.
Anti-Islamic rhetoric from GOP politicians sparks concern over religious hatred. Without objection. The SPLC's Year in Hate and Extremism 2024. Without objection. And once again, the SPLC's hate map to establish clearly for the record who is and who is not on it.
Harriet Baldwin
Without objection. I want to thank you all for your patience. We have about a half an hour based on the number of members yet to testify, so we'll move through it as quick as we can. And the gentlelady from Wyoming is recognized.
Thank you. For any business to remain profitable, there must be both supply and demand. As for the Southern Poverty Law Center's business model, it needs to convince people that there exist certain types of discrimination and hatred in the United States and that it alone has the expertise to identify, target, and eradicate it. A lack of such discrimination and hatred would render the SPLC's existence obsolete. And that is largely what has happened in America.
So what is a business to do when its very existence is threatened by a dramatic decrease in the scourge that it exists to combat? What happens when racism, for example, is largely a thing of the past? The brain trust at SPLC came up with their own unique solution to this conundrum. They decided to fund the very hatred that they claim to be fighting against and like magic, the money has continued to roll in. In fact, advancing hatred has become quite profitable for the SPLC as in 2024 the organization had over 829 million dollars in assets and endowment of approximately 738 million and 129 million in revenue.
The bulk of this money comes from the contributions of the SPLC's donors, contributions that the donors thought were made to, quote, confront hate, stand up to injustice, and defend our civil and human rights, end quote.
But that isn't the case at all. Instead of confronting hate, standing up for justice, or defending civil and human rights, the SPLC has been funding the exact opposite, with the added bonus of then using their donations to target right-leaning organizations such as the Family Research Council and Turning Point USA simply because they believe in traditional marriage and the sanctity of the family unit while also opposing abortion. Stated another way, SPLC has been using its funds to attack those very organizations that actually do confront hate, stand for justice, and defend civil and human rights, and the SPLC funded actual Nazis and white supremacists in order to do so. In order to get away with this scam, the SPLC knew that it had to hide what it was doing. I mean, who was going to donate to an organization that has actual Nazis on the payroll to organize astroturf rallies to try to smear conservatives?
The DOJ's superseding indictment filed on June 2nd approximates that between 2010 and 2023, the SPLC funneled 4.1 million in tax-exempt donor funds to various violent extremist organizations including the Aryan Nations, the National Socialist Movement, and the KKK via a series of fictitious accounts and then committed bank fraud to cover it all up. The indictment goes on to say that these donor funds were ultimately used for the growth and recruitment of these organizations, the purchase of materials for cross burnings—that's despicable—and group attire and the production of racist paraphernalia sold at rallies. That's really despicable, that's gross. Mr. Fare, does the SPLC have any written policies to ensure that the payments you made to these organizations were not used to incite violence or engage in other activities that contradicts SPLC's public representations?
Margaret Huang
Congresswoman Hageman, as I said earlier, all of the allegations that you've—
Harriet Baldwin
Do you have written policies to make sure that you're not funding the KKK?
We don't fund the KKK.
Well you do, actually, that's what's in the indictment.
Speaker 161
Well that's an allegation, Congresswoman, and we will discuss all of those allegations—
Harriet Baldwin
Sure, have you produced any of these materials? Have you produced those materials to this committee?
What materials?
Harriet Baldwin
Any materials, any written materials to show that you have a policy in place to not fund hate groups such as the KKK.
Margaret Huang
SPLC's counsel is working with this committee's counsel to respond to your—
Harriet Baldwin
Did anyone at the SPLC ever raise any concerns about your practice of funding hate groups?
We don't fund hate groups.
Harriet Baldwin
Why wasn't the SPLC—now you're under oath, remember that, you are under oath here today.
Harriet Baldwin
Okay, except the 4.1 million dollars that you gave to the KKK, the National Socialist Movement, and the Aryan Nations.
Margaret Huang
Congresswoman Hageman, those are allegations that will be addressed in the criminal case pending against the SPLC.
Harriet Baldwin
The SPLC also played a part in funding the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville and you paid an organizer who drafted racist posts under the SPLC's supervision. You fomented the hate and then you made bank off of it, about 80 million dollars in the following months after that rally. But you didn't just make a ton of money that day, three people actually died, two police officers and a woman named Heather Danielle Heyer. So from the standpoint of your business model, making money off of hatred, you must say that that was actually a very successful day for the SPLC, would you agree with that?
Speaker 160
Well, that day you did. I guess that I'm out of time. With that I yield back.
Lucy McBath
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to each of our witnesses. I have read all of your testimonies. Most Americans now believe that political violence will increase in the next few years. With the attempted kidnapping of Gretchen Whitmer, the anti-Semitic firebombing of Josh Shapiro's home, and the recent attempted assassination of Donald Trump, there's no doubt that extremism is on the rise.
Just a simple answer, does everyone agree that this is a serious concern for our democracy, Ms. McCord?
Mr. Van Gendt?
All political violence is of great concern.
Mr. Fair?
Yes, Congresswoman McBath.
Lucy McBath
Thank you. Last year, someone tried to firebomb a Republican Party headquarters in Arizona, and someone else fired gunshots at a Democratic Party office building in New Mexico. There have been politically and racially motivated mass shootings in Charleston, El Paso, and beyond. Yes or no for each of you, do you think it should be a priority of the Department of Justice and the FBI to combat extremism and political violence?
Yes, regardless of ideology. Thank you.
Lucy McBath
Yes, Congresswoman, I believe the department should be pursuing criminal acts of political violence.
Thank you.
Yes, Congresswoman.
Lucy McBath
Thank you. Our priority should be eliminating and deterring violence, a view that is not shared by the Trump administration. Last March, the Department of Homeland Security defunded the database at the University of Maryland that tracked domestic terrorism, hate crimes, and targeted violence, the only publicly available database of its kind in this country. Shut down at the very moment that its data showed a 25 percent increase in terrorism and targeted violence over the prior year. By summer 2025, the administration went on to dismantle DHS's Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships, the primary federal unit for proactively stopping extremist violence, credited with disrupting over a thousand violent plots.
Last fall, the Justice Department quietly removed from its website a study showing far-right extremists were responsible for the bulk of ideologically motivated deaths, a fact that has been shown numerous times in multiple studies. Professor McCord, why is the Trump administration shutting down these tools and burying studies on violence at a moment when extremism is on the rise?
Mary McCord
Well, I can't get into the heads of every person in this administration, but it is certainly consistent with their mass deportation plans and the vilifying of people of color and immigrants into the United States.
Lucy McBath
Thank you. Americans expect their government to keep them safe. Yet the administration seems determined to do so only when it fits their ideological narrative. There's no better example than the reckless pardon of the January 6th rioters, nearly 100 of whom have reoffended since the attack. One was arrested after threatening a person with a gun in a church parking lot.
Another plotted to assassinate FBI agents, and yet another one in a plot to assassinate an elected official. Dr. King, in a letter from a Birmingham jail, your uncle writes to fellow clergymen about the dangers of turning a blind eye to those who do wrong to your neighbors. How do you reconcile that with the presidential pardons of 1,200 violent extremists?
Alveda King
May I answer in this manner? Manufactured hate, socially engineered racism, because we are one blood and we are one human race. All of this is generating unwarranted fear and chaos. George Wallace, who was mentioned earlier, was one of the most racist people on the planet, and he repented. He admitted that he had been racist.
He regretted it, and much healing came forth.
Speaker 172
And I understand that, Dr. King, but I'm asking you a question as well as how do you reconcile with 1,200 pardons that have taken place?
Alveda King
I'm answering you. And so in a letter from the Birmingham jail, injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. Everything you just mentioned was terrible. But what about the guard that was shot right at the Family Research Council? I'm trying to answer.
You know, injustice, violence is wrong.
Violence, all violence is wrong.
Speaker 168
We've been very generous with the time. We'll give her a few seconds more.
Lucy McBath
Okay. Professor McCord, does issuing blanket pardons to violent extremists who assault police officers help address this problem of rising extremism in America?
Lucy McBath
Okay. Thank you. We still need organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center. Just ask the communities in San Diego, Buffalo, and Jacksonville. You can ask me, a mother who lost her son to gun violence because a man made assumptions about him based on the color of his skin.
Hate-driven violence and policy still exist, and we should dare to be bold as Dr. King was to fight against it. And I yield.
Mr. Chairman, could I do a UC?
Harriet Baldwin
I have a UC request. An article from LifeSite, "The 'Both Sides' Political Violence Narrative Completely Debunked: They Cooked the Books, as Typical." Another one, a letter from Andrew Klovet to Chairman Jordan and the committee about SPLC putting the Turning Point USA on its fraudulent hate map in the spring of 2025. And a September 1, 2020, letter from the Coalition for Jewish Values related to the SPLC hate map and what it does to the Jewish community and the risk that it places the Jewish community in.
Without objection. Gentleman from Maryland.
Speaker 108
Yes, just two, Mr. Chairman. The 2017 Trump administration FBI document listing the SPLC as its partner in fighting hate.
Without objection.
Speaker 108
And then this is from National Public Radio, "Author Details the Spy Network That Took on America's Post-World War II Nazi Groups: The Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee Went Undercover."
Speaker 175
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. King, Mr. Fair is saying that SPLC does not fund hate groups. Is the KKK a hate group?
Alveda King
The KKK is a hate group. And what I'm very concerned about is that whether it's for informants or whatever, manufacturing all this fear and hate is not effective. And I do know somebody said that the SPLC donors don't have any problems. Well, some of the donors have said, "I didn't know that's what they was spending the money for." "I didn't know what they're doing."
So it's not effective to pay the KKK or an informant to pretend they're KKK or whatever, and then they do KKK stuff and people get hurt.
Thomas Tiffany
So what we've also been hearing from the other side here is that you must be a white nationalist if you oppose SPLC.
Are you, Dr. King, a white nationalist?
Alveda King
I'm not a white nationalist and I am on the SPLC watch list. I have been and I am. I may call it the wrong thing, but they have been watching.
Thomas Tiffany
Let's call it whatever it is, watch list, map, whatever. Mr. Fare, there's a group Moms for Liberty that was added to the hate map. Why was it important for your organization to put the Moms for Liberty on a hate map or whatever designation that you did?
Margaret Huang
Moms for Liberty, Congressman Tiffany, is an organization that advocates against school curricular inclusion. It mentions, it opposes LGBTQ rights. It expresses...
Thomas Tiffany
Is inclusion, when you use the term inclusion, does that include gender mutilation? Because that's part of what they oppose is when you have minors as young as kindergarten, and I'll let you answer, as young as kindergarten where they're teaching them that gender mutilation is okay. Is that inclusion in your book?
Margaret Huang
They oppose the teaching about race, about sexual identity. They seek to ban books. They have been critical...
Thomas Tiffany
So if that book included gender mutilation is a good thing that we should allow minors to be able to do that, you're saying that...
Margaret Huang
What I'm saying, I'm saying that Moms for Liberty is listed on our hate map because it demeans and vilifies people based on their immutable characteristics. It engages in various kinds of conspiracy theories. It seeks to whitewash our history, to exclude certain subjects from our public schools.
Thomas Tiffany
Are family values and parental rights, are those conspiracy theories?
Margaret Huang
Congressman Tiffany, Moms for Liberty says that it's for parental rights, but then it interferes with parental rights. It interferes with parental rights. I'm a parent too, and I want my children to learn about the history of this country. I want them to learn about racism. I want them to learn about hate and the expression of hate in this country.
So as a parent, Moms for Liberty says it gets to decide for me and for millions of other parents in this country. That's not liberty.
Thomas Tiffany
I can assure you, Mr. Fare, that Moms for Liberty is not a racist organization. They may differ with you in regards to gender mutilation for children eight, ten years old or whatever, but I think that's a fair debate to be having. But to say that they're a race...
What I said is that they seek...
Thomas Tiffany
I'm going to make the statement here. To say that they are a racist organization...
Margaret Huang
They seek to exclude teaching about race in this country is what I said.
Thomas Tiffany
They are not a racist organization because I have been around them to teach family values and parental rights. I think is a good thing here in America. There are a couple organizations in Wisconsin, the public library system and the Department of Public Instruction that house SPLC documents. Will you go back to them and tell them after the trial is done and all of this has been exposed of what SPLC did? Are you going to go back and tell them we are sorry that we misled the good people of the state of Wisconsin?
Margaret Huang
All of the allegations in the indictment will be addressed in the Middle District of Alabama.
Thomas Tiffany
And when it is deemed that you did fund these hateful organizations like the KKK, will you come back and apologize to those organizations like the public library system and the Department of Public Instruction in Wisconsin that you did the wrong thing?
Margaret Huang
We've already asserted in our filings that we did not lie to our donors, that we did not fund any hate group. The Department of Justice knew that we were working with them, that we shared information.
Chip Roy
Mr. Chairman, unanimous consent request, just an article with respect to Moms for Liberty and focusing specifically on critical race theory and DEI, not specifically talking about or teaching race and their positions on that, I'd like to insert that in the record.
Speaker 91
You know what, I hate that we have spent this much time, you know, on SPLC and we've not addressed the elephant in the room, the literal elephant in the room. The vast majority of the people on that side of the aisle, and for those of you that are at home, let me tell you, when I say that side of the aisle, I'm talking about the Republicans, the ones that brought this hearing, and again, you've heard that this is not the first hearing, but the vast majority of them are white men. White men are lecturing people of color because the vast majority, actually any semblance of diversity, comes from this side of the aisle. You want to tell people of color who is fighting for who? People of color do not feel comfortable or welcomed within your party.
That's why you have to parade someone who has the name Dr. King attached to them so that people can be confused, because I have been reading the comments online and people are like, who is this Dr. King? Because you want them to believe that somehow she espouses who Dr. King was, yet you've yet to have MLK III come in here, you've yet to have Dr. Bernice King, the ones that were actually raised by Dr. King, the ones that actually probably understand the teachings of Dr. King. And I just want to be clear, because I want to talk to y'all about what the Dr. King had to say about racism so that y'all don't get it twisted and don't get it confused just because you see the name sitting in this room. Our nation was born in genocide when it embraced the doctrine that the original American, the Indian, was an inferior race. That was from his 1963 book, Why We Can't Wait.
He also said, in the final analysis, racism is evil because its ultimate logic is genocide. If one says that I am not good enough to live next door to him or to have a good decent job or to go to school with him merely because of my race, he is saying consciously or unconsciously that I do not deserve to exist. This was from his 1967 speech, The Other America. So just to be clear, y'all don't seem like y'all even understand what a hate organization is, so I went to Google to help you out. A hate group is an organized group whose beliefs, practices, and primary purpose are centered on advocating malice, hostility, or violence towards people based on their immutable characteristics such as race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or disability.
So I know some of y'all are, you know, caping for Charlie Kirk, because I've heard y'all talk about his organization over and over and over. So I'm not finna play with anybody who's gonna play with my time, so I'm going directly to Ms. McCord, Professor, let me put some respect on your name. All right, if I see a black pilot, I'm going to be like, boy, I hope he's qualified. Does that sound like a hater or no?
Speaker 179
Okay, sounds good to me. We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the mid-1960s.
Speaker 91
Okay. America has freedom of religion, of course, but we should be frank: large, dedicated Islamic areas are a threat to America.
Speaker 181
That is someone who can't accept that America is a multiracial, multireligious place.
Speaker 91
Okay, these all just happen to be comments from the fearless leader of Turning Point USA, so I could see where SPLC was going. I also think that it's so interesting that right now, just for those sitting at home, you may not know that Oversight is not having any hearings right now because the Republicans don't want to deal with the Epstein files, so they have shut down all of Oversight Committee hearings, right? So we've got an indictment for SPLC. I have still yet to see an indictment on any Epstein defendant, not, not a one, but okay. And we want to talk about what happened in Charlottesville, and we are so upset about Charlottesville all of a sudden.
I, I would be interested to know which one of you had something to say about Charlottesville when it happened, 'cause I don't think that y'all were saying those same things. In fact, your fearless leader at the time said that there were pretty fine people on both sides. You were okay with the tiki torches. You were okay with it. But I digress.
I'm gonna move on to Texas in my last 24 seconds. In your testimony before the Texas House of Representatives, you read aloud a series of messages between you and other whistleblowers basically explaining the corruption happening directed by Attorney General Ken Paxton. On page 82, lines 5 through 11, you list all the corruption that Ken Paxton directed you and others to carry out, to quote, "demanding that we investigate facially bogus charges, refusing to take our advice that there is no prosecutable offense, demanding that we hire outside counsel and authorizing an improper fishing expedition." Is that correct?
Speaker 186
The gentlelady's time has expired. The gentleman can respond if he wants.
So just to clarify...
Jim Jordan
The gentlelady's time has expired. I understand. Our next person's going to give you time, Dr. King, to respond, so we will now recognize the gentleman from South Carolina.
I'm be gone.
Speaker 184
Dr. King, thank you for being here. I know that there was a monologue earlier in which you wanted to respond. I think you were kind of ready to do that, but were not given that opportunity. Would you like to briefly respond to that?
Alveda King
Very briefly. Congresswoman, I am a bit emotional. I'm going to watch what I say. But it seems as though you have suggested that I am a bastard to the King family legacy. I am legitimately the daughter of Reverend Alfred Daniel Williams King and Dr. Naomi Ruth Barber King.
We are a family who loves God, and I love you. God bless you.
Russell Fry
Ms. King, let the record reflect that the gentlelady from Texas left the room. Thank you for responding to that. Mr. Fare, the SPLC website, you have a section called the "Extremist Files" with profiles of groups and individuals that, according to your frequently asked questions, are key figures on the hard right. How do you... you don't have any criteria listed, but just for education purposes, how does somebody become part of the Extremist Files?
Margaret Huang
Our... thank you, Congressman Fry. Our team in the Intelligence Project uses various criteria to identify folks on Extremist Files because...
Like what? Like what is the criteria?
Speaker 185
There's... I'm sorry, I was... their statements and their activities are the criterion.
Russell Fry
All right, so I'm gonna get... like, so for example, if, if, if an individual is the leader of a KKK chapter, that person is overtly out in the public as the leader of a KKK chapter, they're probably apt to be on the Extremist Files based on their position, their statement, their association with the KKK.
Does that fair to say?
Margaret Huang
That determinate, that determination, Congressman Fry, would be made by the experts at the SPLC.
Russell Fry
Right, but I mean, that would be an overt person, somebody that is out in front of this, they would be more likely than not to be included on that file. Is that correct?
Russell Fry
Is it truly objective or is it very subjective? I mean, it sounds like it's like this committee, this mysterious committee decides who's a hater and who's not.
Speaker 195
But I don't, but your testimony hasn't shown anything. You haven't talked about what that criteria is. So what the heck is the criteria?
Margaret Huang
Well, earlier, before you were in the room, I believe, Congressman Fry, I said the criteria is we identify people for the hate map, the hate list, I'm sorry, who through their statements, the statements of their leaders, the principles of the organization, demonize and vilify various groups.
Russell Fry
All right, so let me, so collective body of evidence then. How about that? Let's just, let's just cut to the chase. What, what, so if somebody poses with a Nazi flag or KKK memorabilia, that might be a factor, right, in whether or not they should be on the extremist file? Correct, it could be a factor, not the determining factor, but a factor.
Is that fair to say?
Russell Fry
Like the answer is yes, dude, like this is not a trap question. I'm giving you like softballs here. If somebody does a Nazi salute in a public, a public forum or public, in public view, would that be a factor in to be...
It could be.
Russell Fry
Okay, what about, what about if the individual had knowledge of what the Nazi symbol was when they put the tattoo on their body or at least learned about it?
Russell Fry
Well, I think it would show intent, right? Like intent would be that the person knew that they're, the tattoo that they placed on their body was a Nazi tattoo.
Russell Fry
Well, I think your own website talks about this, so this is an easy yes. What if, what if this individual referred to their tattoo as a Totenkopf?
I'm not sure I know what...
No, I don't.
Russell Fry
I think you do, actually. That's Graham Plattner from Maine. Like this is, like he was probably the best thing that y'all had coming because it actually distracted the media narrative away from the SPLC for like two days while they focused on this. But why would a Graham Plattner not be included on your extremist files? If he was a Republican, he probably would be, right?
Margaret Huang
We don't use political ideology or political party to identify who is on our list.
Russell Fry
Well, I think you say you go after the members of the right, but I think as Dr. King was talking about before she stepped out, that this, this racism knows no ideology or political party. In fact, the Democrat Party has a very long and troubled history since its inception in the 1820s and 30s of supporting slavery, of supporting segregation, of continuing to perpetuate racism in our country. And so the fraud that you have perpetuated on your donors and the American people at the expense of eviscerating hate, you're only targeting one sect of people. It makes absolutely no sense. Your organization should be ashamed of itself and you should be ashamed for being a part of it.
Eric Burlison
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this very important hearing today. It's clear that the SPLC has strayed from its original mission and used questionable and frankly illegal tactics to drive donations and manufacture political relevance. Mr. Fair, the SPLC labeled Charlie Kirk and his organization dangerous extremists in its Hatewatch newsletter, and Charlie Kirk was assassinated the very next day. Do you regret signing off on that newsletter?
Speaker 202
Congressman Odner, what I regret is the political violence in this country on any side of the aisle.
Speaker 203
Do you regret naming Turning Point USA a hate group several months earlier?
Eric Burlison
What I regret again is the political violence in this country and—
Are you willing to take any responsibility for the assassination of Charlie Kirk? I'll take that as a no. How about the designation of the Family Research Council as a hate group? The gunman told the FBI he was inspired by the SPLC's list. Does SPLC accept any responsibility for that violent 2012 attack on the Family Research Council?
Margaret Huang
Congressman Odner, again, political violence in this country is despicable. We oppose unequivocally all political violence and we're not responsible—
Eric Burlison
Has the SPLC ever apologized to Leo Johnson, the building manager who was grievously wounded in the terrorist attack on FRC, the same attack that the gunman said he was inspired by your hate list?
We don't incite political violence.
Let's move on.
We condemn it always.
Eric Burlison
Mr. Fair, the SPLC's latest hate map includes 20 hate and anti-government groups in my home state of Missouri. That list includes Gays Against Groomers, and your website seems to be—the main beef with Gays Against Groomers seems to be that they oppose the chemical and surgical mutilation of children. But a few months ago, the American College of Plastic Surgeons updated their guidelines to no longer recommend transgender surgery on minors. Is the American College of Plastic Surgeons also a hate group? They oppose chemically and surgically mutilating minors.
Is the American Society of Plastic Surgeons a hate group? I know it sounds like an absurd question, but that's how absurd your hate map has gotten.
Margaret Huang
Our reporting on hate and extremism uses the statements—may I finish? Uses the statements and activities of various groups, and based on those statements, we expose and share with the public what they say.
Eric Burlison
It seems like one of one thing that many of the groups that we've—you've labeled hate groups that we've talked about this morning have in common is that they oppose the chemical and surgical mutilation of minor children, as does the United Kingdom, as does Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark, and the United States Department of Health and Human Services. Are the seven groups I just mentioned hate groups, the public health authorities in the UK and Finland and Denmark and so on, are those hate groups?
Eric Burlison
Okay, how about a group you've identified that just happens to have won 18 cases before the United States Supreme Court and been instrumental in 85 other cases, Alliance Defending Freedom? Are they a hate group? Are you going to double down on that today? ADF is a hate group, yes or no?
Yes or no.
Margaret Huang
ADF is listed because of statements it has made against persons in the LGBTQ community.
Speaker 199
Well, if you don't want me to respond, obviously, but you're cutting me off.
Eric Burlison
Because of statements they made according to criteria that you couldn't clearly articulate to Congressman Fry. Okay, I'll ask you, Mr. Bangert. Mr. Bangert, why do you think the Alliance Defending Freedom, a group that's won 18 cases before the United States Supreme Court, is on this defamation machine's hate map?
Matt Bangert
Well, it's a great question, Congressman. I went and looked at their website this morning, and the reasons, one of the reasons they give for ADF being listed is because, according to the SPLC, we support the state-sponsored mutilation of adults and children, basically rendering them sterile. The odd thing about that is, in the state of Alabama, we came alongside the Attorney General to defend a statute that would have prohibited medical professionals from performing procedures on children that would have sterilized them. And interestingly, on the other side of the V in that case, one of the law firms was the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Eric Burlison
Well, there you go. I think that's why you're a hate group. Thank you. I yield back.
Wesley Hunt
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What I find truly ironic is how this is the second hearing in just a few weeks where we have to confront the hatred festering inside the very organization that claims that it is fighting for, fighting against, of course, the hatred, that being, according to a superseding indictment, the SPLC paid more than 4.1 million dollars to informants tied to extremist groups, including the KKK, from 2010 to 2023. In two cases, informants who were active members of the local KKK chapter reportedly told the SPLC that they wanted out because they feared for their safety. Instead of supporting their exit, the SPLC employee allegedly encouraged them to remain involved and offered them a monthly salary of 1,200 dollars to do so. As a result, one informant rose into a leadership role within the KKK, recruited other new members, purchased KKK materials, and were even reimbursed for expenses related to cross-burning events.
I can't make this up. This is not just ironic, sir, it's quite outrageous. Sir, as you highlighted in your testimony, these organizations have survived for 55 years taking donations from generous donors. During this time, were these donors ever informed where and whom their money was being passed on to?
Margaret Huang
Congressman Hunt, all the allegations in the indictment will be addressed in the Middle District of Alabama in the case pending against the SPLC.
Speaker 210
But you were taking money from people, and were they informed that this was actually funding members of the KKK?
Speaker 208
Like, so if a donor says, hey, I'm going to give y'all a million dollars, did you then say, well, actually, we're going to have a covert operation that's going to secretly give money to KKK to fund the organization? And then did the donor then say, well, that sounds like a good idea, please take more of my money? Did that ever happen?
Margaret Huang
Congressman Hunt, all of the allegations in the indictment will be addressed in the Middle District of Alabama in the criminal proceeding.
Wesley Hunt
So, you know, here in politics, we take money from donors, and we have a lot of donor meetings, and the first thing they want to do is they want to understand the platform that they are giving to. And my guess is that if you have a donor that's giving to your organization, you didn't tell them that they were giving money to KKK, that's fair to say. And if they did know that they were giving money to the KKK, I would call that nefarious intent, and we have a bigger problem in this country and with your organization. So I will say this. My Democrat colleagues sit here and they defend your organization, and I will use the rest of my time to reiterate what I have said many a day sitting in this chair.
The Democrat Party has built an entire political machine on grievance. They don't want to solve problems. They want to reopen wounds of the past. They don't offer vision, they offer victimhood. Racism, white supremacy, Jim Crow, democracy is dying.
Why? Because fear is the currency of the Democrat Party.
Division is their strategy. Outrage is their oxygen. I had a previous colleague that talked about, you know, seeing a black pilot and what that would mean to Charlie Kirk's comments. And funny, black pilot here, by the way. I actually went to flight school, West Point graduate, learned how to fly the Apache helicopter, went to flight school in 2005.
You see, there was no DEI. We just simply competed with everyone else and I was selected, fought in combat, went on to fly 55 combat air missions, and nobody gave a damn what I looked like because I got there on merit. What DEI does is it lowers standards based on race and based on gender. Ma'am, you are nodding your head. First of all, thank you for your legacy, thank you for your family's legacy.
What was what was your uncle's dream, if you don't mind me asking?
Alveda King
Martin Luther King said he had a dream, it was rooted in the American dream, that one day there would be no black power, no white power, only God power and human power. He wanted us to learn to live together as brothers and sisters and not perish as fools. Why would we only get 10% set-asides when we are entitled to the same percentage as every American out of the 100%? I'm going to yield back to you because I would talk too long. God bless you, sir.
Wesley Hunt
God bless you, ma'am. And what I understand is as Democrats would have it, they would think every single black person should be a Democrat, which would make us the only demographic in the entire world that would think that their entire race should belong to one party. And what your uncle was referring to is this: being judged not by the color of your skin but by the content of your character and having representation from all people from all walks of life on both side of the party. And I would argue that I am living, we are living your uncle's dream. Are we perfect?
No, we're not.
One blood, one race.
Wesley Hunt
Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. I sit before you today as United States Congressman. My brother, sister, and I all went to West Point, we're all West Point graduates, we all served our country, and I am here to tell you that I am living that dream every single day. And I am so proud of you and proud of what you stand for because I know it's not easy.
But I'm so glad that people like you are fighting the good fight for the great future of this country because we are here living Dr. Martin Luther King's dream. It's why I am sitting here today, being judged not by the color of my skin but by the content of my character from a white majority district in Houston, Texas, and I've been black for my entire life. Stop listening to the crap of the left and realize that we are all in the we are all in one boat rowing in the same direction because of people like you. We must fight against organizations that want to give a dime to organizations like the KKK for whatever reason. I yield back the remainder of my time.
Andy Harris
If you're willing to grant us equal time, I'm fine let them go as long as they want.
Speaker 214
That was that was good. My apologies. Gentleman from gentleman from North Carolina is recognized.
Andy Harris
Mr. Fair, I want to talk to you for just a moment. Thank you for your incredible words and admonition to all of us today. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and that was tremendously passionate to my colleague, Mr. Hunt. It's been referenced several times today about the shooting that took place at Family Research Council's headquarters in 2012. As I've stated before, I actually have worked for and been a part of Family Research Council and it is frankly a pro-family, pro-life group that promotes the Christian values that are held by many Americans in this country.
But when you place groups like FRC on a so-called hate map with groups like we've heard today, KKK and the Aryan Brotherhood, it places a target on the back of those groups and can lead to tragic incidents, such as one August 15th, 2012, when Floyd Lee Corkins II entered FRC's headquarters in Washington, opened fire in an attempt to murder FRC employees. Thankfully, the heroic security guard Leo Johnson tackled Corkins to the ground and wrestled the gun out of his hand and got shot in the arm in the process. No one was killed. Corkins was sent to prison. But we all know it could have easily been far, far worse.
I just want to bring to your attention real quickly, if I may, what Corkins told police, which I just want you to see a video for a moment if we can, right here this afternoon.
Speaker 217
This building, this organization, did you, did you, how did you find it? Did you like look it up online or how did you know about it?
Andy Harris
Yeah, Southern Poverty Law lists anti-gay groups, I found them online. Okay, I went to research stuff on their website and stuff like that.
Okay.
Andy Harris
So for those of you who could not hear the video, the convicted shooter explicitly stated the SPLC was his source for finding out about Family Research Council. So Mr. Fere, I just got to ask you, first of all, were you aware that Mr. Corkins had cited SPLC as his source for finding out about FRC?
Margaret Huang
Congressman Harris, the SPLC condemns all political violence in all circumstances. We are not responsible for Corkins' actions. We never want anyone to use our material to advance political violence.
Andy Harris
First time you'd ever seen it. What's your reaction to hearing in that video that the only reason he found out about Family Research Council and decided to go and try to execute employees in that building, what's your reaction to that?
Margaret Huang
My reaction is that we condemn political violence, that we don't want anyone ever to use our material to advance political violence. We share material and inform the public about what other groups are saying and the activities they take.
Andy Harris
And yet as of this morning, FRC is still listed on the hate map. Why is it still up there and do you have any plans to take it down?
Margaret Huang
FRC continues to be on our hate map because of the expressions it makes vilifying and demonizing people within the LGBTQ+ community.
Andy Harris
Well, I think it's despicable that FRC was placed on the hate list in the first place and that it still remains on that list over 10 years after the attack on those individuals. I also want to bring to the attention quickly someone in this room this morning who has been personally impacted by your so-called hate map. Rosalind Hansen, who serves as the chapter chair of Moms for Liberty, Montgomery County, Maryland chapter, in a 2023 child custody case, going through the difficulty of the challenge of that, her ex-husband specifically cited the SPLC to accuse her of being involved in a hate group. So I just want to see if it's sinking in to anybody here that the SPLC's defamation is causing real-world harm to everyday Americans like Ms. Hansen and it needs to stop. I would also like to enter into the record today for Mrs. Hansen, the letter from Mrs. Hansen to the US Department of Justice Civil Rights Division dated May 17th, 2026.
I'd also like to enter into the record a letter from North Carolina mom Kim Petit to the US Department of Justice Civil Rights Division dated May 15th, 2026.
Without objection. Gentleman yields.
Mr. Chairman.
Andy Harris
I yield. Gentleman yields back. Gentleman from Maryland is recognized.
Speaker 216
You see, this is from Philadelphia Inquirer, the faith-based leader for Philly's Moms for Liberty chapter is a registered sex offender.
Jim Jordan
Without objection. The, we have 10 minutes. We have two more to go, then the gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for his five minutes.
Speaker 218
Okay. First of all, maybe not the most recent developments are in, have come out publicly, but for years, due to financial shenanigans, um, the Southern Poverty Law Center is, has been, to my, in my mind, totally discredited. But I'm going to ask you a question, Dr. King, and I talked about this before. One of the things that bothers me is given SPLC's long-documented pattern of partisan activity and even more, financial misconduct, how do you explain the continued willingness of major press organs to cite SPLC as an authoritative source? Why do we get this again and again, things like the Milwaukee Journal, the, the New York Times?
If you were not familiar with the background, you'd think, holy cow, we have an authoritative source here. Why do you think they do this?
Uh, yeah, to Dr. King.
Speaker 218
I'm sorry. SPLC has been exposed for years. There's always new things coming out, but just in general, financial misconduct. Nevertheless, you pick up papers like in my area, the Milwaukee Journal, the New York Times, the Washington Post. You pick up papers and they cite SPLC as this great, wonderful organization.
Why do you think, despite the fact that it's been in the public record for, has to be over a dozen years, that this is a sleazy organization, do what used to be mainstream news outlets still cite it?
Alveda King
I believe we are at a monumental time in history. For instance, George Wallace did repent of racism. Planned Parenthood has, has admitted that they are racist. SPLC right now has a time in history right now to look at the things that it has not gotten right. And we can all benefit from that.
There have been decades of this kind of thing. In the 1960s, the, uh, the informants and all of that were doing their work, ended up hurting rather than helping. When you manufacture hate, when you manufacture and socially engineer racism as if we were separate races and we are only one race, you're going to keep getting unwarranted fear and chaos. Somebody said earlier that there have been decades of these types of practices. These practices have not worked, they are not working.
You can't keep playing, paying informants to do stuff and then they end up helping to do terrible stuff, not tell the donors that's what they're paying for. I'm not sure if I actually answered your question correctly, but it is wrong. These practices are not working. We've got to do something that will heal us. We must come together, but some transparency needs to come out of SPLC.
They can't act like they're angels and haven't done anything. That's just not right.
Speaker 218
Okay. I, I will point out there's a good book out there, America's Cultural Revolution, which talks about the degree to which a goal of the hard left is to divide America by race. And they obsess about calling people, you know, Hispanic American, North African, Pacific Islander, whatever. I mean, this is not a coincidence. This is an effort to destroy America.
Mr. Bangert, do you believe the mainstream press has failed to adequately scrutinize SPLC's influence on public discourse, particularly given the organization's controversial labeling practices and concerns raised by former employees?
Matt Bangert
Thank you, Congressman. I believe the SPLC has been mostly ignored in terms of the way that it has defrauded the American public.
And here's what I mean by that. The SPLC presents itself as a neutral arbiter of what counts as hate. However, the way that it defines hate very frequently excludes from the public discourse their political opponents who disagree with them on matters of freedom of religion. We've already talked extensively today about this question of gender-mutilating surgeries. So there's a number of ways in which there's not been even a shred of adequate attention paid.
Speaker 218
Yeah, and we're running out of time. I'm going to ask you this. When I read an article on whatever under the sun, they will cite SPLC as the arbiter of whether it is a hate group or not, despite the fact that everybody would say it's not a hate group. Why does the mainstream media, and they have to know better, intentionally keep citing SPLC as some, you know, all-knowing organization? Why would the New York Times, if you cared at all about your reputation, why would you continue to cite them?
Matt Bangert
The mainstream media, Congressman, has a well-known leftward bias. I suspect it's because they agree with the SPLC's political agenda.
Jim Jordan
Yeah, it's all about politics. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from Texas is recognized.
Dan Crenshaw
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for letting us stay a little late so that I can go here. I appreciate it. And thank you to the witnesses for taking the time, Professor McCord, Mr. Banger, Dr. King, and Mr. Fair. Really appreciate y'all taking the time to be here. Mr. Fair, do you recognize the tattoo on this man's chest?
This is Secretary Hegseth.
Speaker 223
It's a tattoo of the Jerusalem Cross. Your organization has referred to it as essentially a hate image. Do you agree with that assessment?
Margaret Huang
I'd have to see the assessment in our material to determine what it referred to as a hate image. I'm not familiar with the symbol.
Speaker 226
You're not familiar? Do you have any thoughts on that symbol, on that tattoo?
No, I don't.
No, I don't.
Aron Gill
Okay. I can give you a little bit of background. This is a tattoo on Maine Democrat Senate candidate Grand Platner's chest. That's the Nazi SS death head tattoo. Do you have any opinions on that?
Speaker 227
We oppose Nazis. I agree we do oppose Nazis. Do you think if somebody got a Nazi tattoo on their chest, that's indicative that they might be a Nazi?
Margaret Huang
You'd have to ask Mr. Platner why he has that symbol. I've already said that if it is a symbol of Nazism, we oppose Nazis.
Speaker 229
You don't think that that's indicative that perhaps he holds Nazi sentiment?
It may well be.
Speaker 224
It may well be. I think, do people who aren't Nazis normally get Nazi tattoos on their chest?
Speaker 226
You assume they don't. I would assume so too. I don't know anybody who's not a Nazi. I don't know anybody who has a Nazi tattoo on their chest but is not a Nazi. Do you?
Aron Gill
Do you think that somebody who has a Nazi tattoo on their chest should serve in the United States Senate?
I wouldn't vote for that person.
Speaker 230
I certainly wouldn't either. Do you think that this should disqualify him politically from serving in the Senate?
Margaret Huang
Again, I'm not sure where the line of questions is going. The SPLC, if you're asking me, I'm sorry.
Go ahead.
Margaret Huang
If you're asking me if the SPLC opposes Nazis and Nazi symbols, the answer is yes.
Aron Gill
Yep. The SPLC has referred to this same tattoo as a racist skinhead symbol and tattoo. You can see the resemblance there. You wouldn't want somebody with a tattoo like that in the Senate.
Aron Gill
No, I wouldn't either. I appreciate your candor there. Got a couple other questions, shifting gears a little bit. Your organization said that restricting and banning abortion is a tool that the far right uses to maintain white supremacy. Do you believe that pro-lifers are white supremacists?
I will tell you what I believe if you're asking.
Just yes or no.
I can't answer that question yes or no.
Margaret Huang
What I think is that reproductive liberty is a right that every woman should enjoy.
Aron Gill
How many babies in the United States that are aborted are black? About 40% of abortions nationwide are of black babies. Blacks represent about 13% of the population. Does that sound like something a white supremacist would oppose?
Aron Gill
Calling somebody a white supremacist is a pretty serious charge, isn't it? I mean, I would think you'd be able to defend that if your organization says that. You clearly seem unable to do so.
Margaret Huang
Mr. Gill, I'm not sure why you would think I'm unable to do anything.
Aron Gill
Because you're the president of the SPLC, which labels pro-lifers as racists.
Well, what...
Aron Gill
Does your organization just hurl around epithets like that without any justification?
Mr. Gill, what we do is...
I'm giving you the opportunity to justify it.
You're not giving me...
Speaker 233
Mr. Chairman, what's he referring to and can he let the witness answer the question? This is outrageous.
No, it's not. Allow him to speak.
I know you don't like my question.
What are you referring to, Mr. Gill?
Speaker 231
Time belongs to the gentleman from Texas. It's now expired, but he will be able to ask his last question and we'll give the witness a chance to respond.
Aron Gill
All right, I'll give my last question to Dr. King. Dr. King, are pro-lifers white supremacists?
Alveda King
Pro-lifers cannot be white supremacists. Pro-lifers believe in life from the womb to the tomb and beyond. Pro-lifers fight for every baby in the womb regardless of skin color. We have been aborted as blacks in America disproportionately. And so the white supremacists are Planned Parenthood, who admitted that they do have racist underpinning with an agenda to reduce the black population by abortion.
That's right. Thank you, Dr. King.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Jim Jordan
Thank you all. We appreciate you being here. We appreciate the long time you've been here, but thank you for participating and that... let me read something here. We thank our witness... yeah, without objection, all members will have five legislative days to submit additional written questions for the witnesses or additional materials for the record. Without objection, the hearing is adjourned.
Speaker 108
Mr. Chairman, could I just introduce one last UC? This is from The Nation, "The Long History of the Anti-Abortion Movement's Links to White Supremacists."
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.