The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) released a statement earlier this week that it was the subject of a Department of Justice investigation. A day later, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and FBI Director Kash Patel announced an eleven-count grand jury indictment of the civil rights nonprofit.
The indictment, which is nothing more than an accusation, alleges that unbeknownst to its donors, SPLC paid undercover informants to report on the activities of hate groups and concealed those payments by using shell companies. It further alleges that payments to informants, rather than prevent activities by these groups, in essence, paid for them. Veteran investigative reporter Phil Williams with WTVF in Nashville has an excellent piece comparing the actual language of the indictment against the coordinated rhetoric of right-wing influencers and conservative media outlets.
The incident DOJ leans into in making its case is the Unite the Right Rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017. The rally resulted in a white supremacist named James Alex Fields, Jr. ramming his car into a crowd of counter-protestors and killing 32-year old Heather Heyer and injuring 35 others. DOJ alleges that SPLC’s payments to their informant assisted in planning the rally that led to violence. However, an analysis of the events prior to and during the rally should make an objective observer skeptical of this claim.
Role of SPLC Informant
According to the indictment, the SPLC informant:
“F-37 was a member of the online leadership chat group that planned the 2017 ‘Unite the Right’ event in Charlottesville, Virginia, and attended the event at the direction of the SPLC. F-37 made racist postings under the supervision of the SPLC and helped coordinate transportation to the event for several attendees. Between 2015 and 2023, the SPLC secretly paid F-37 more than $270,000.00.”
Note what the language alleges F-37 actually did. He was part of a “leadership chat group,” which seems like good positioning for an informant. The number of individuals in the chat group is not specified. He made “racist postings,” which, while disgusting, would seem necessary to maintain cover. F-37 also “helped coordinate transportation to the event for several attendees.” [Emphasis added] The rally was estimated to have attracted over 600 white supremacists – a lot more than “several.” Some engagement in the planning would also be necessary for an informant to maintain cover. There is no allegation that F-37 promoted or participated in violence. It seems these necessary activities for F-37 to protect himself are a far cry from SPLC “funding the leaders and organizers” of extremist groups.
SPLC Warning
On August 7th, SPLC issued a public warning in its Hate Watch publication titled “Extremists’ ‘Unite the Right’ Rally: A Possible Historic Alt-Right Showcase?” The article says the gathering is “shaping up to be the largest hate-gathering of its kind in decades in the United States.” The piece names specific groups planning to attend, alt-right guest speakers, and references the previous rallies and the likelihood of violence. It is not unreasonable to believe that the detail in this lengthy article was informed by F-37, but it is beyond clear that the warning was consistent with the SPLC's mission of “dismantling of white supremacy and confronting hate across the country,” as referenced in the indictment.
Rhetoric of the Right
Since the indictment dropped, voices on the right have strained to contain their glee. SPLC has been a target of the right for what some believe is unfair labeling of many right-leaning organizations as hate groups. Following the rally and the death of Heather Heyer, President Trump said there was hatred, bigotry, and violence, “on many sides.” After criticism from some in the GOP, he made a formal statement condemning racism and naming the KKK, neo-Nazis, and white supremacists. Then just 24 hours later, Trump backtracked and infamously said that “there are very fine people on both sides,” and appeared to give equal weight to the actions of both groups of protestors.
The relevance to the SPLC indictment is in the irony that the President of the United States can offer support to extremist protestors, but his Department of Justice can indict a civil rights organization for allegedly unintentionally and indirectly supporting the activities of the same groups.