[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER:
MANUFACTURING HATE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
WEDNESDAY, MAY 20, 2026
__________
Serial No. 119-69
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
63-799 WASHINGTON : 2026
=======================================================================
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair
DARRELL ISSA, California JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland, Ranking
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona Member
TOM McCLINTOCK, California JERROLD NADLER, New York
THOMAS P. TIFFANY, Wisconsin ZOE LOFGREN, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
CHIP ROY, Texas HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin Georgia
BEN CLINE, Virginia TED LIEU, California
LANCE GOODEN, Texas PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey J. LUIS CORREA, California
TROY E. NEHLS, Texas MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
BARRY MOORE, Alabama JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
HARRIET M. HAGEMAN, Wyoming LUCY McBATH, Georgia
LAUREL M. LEE, Florida DEBORAH K. ROSS, North Carolina
WESLEY HUNT, Texas BECCA BALINT, Vermont
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
KEVIN KILEY, California SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
BRAD KNOTT, North Carolina DANIEL S. GOLDMAN, New York
MARK HARRIS, North Carolina JASMINE CROCKETT, Texas
ROBERT F. ONDER, Jr., Missouri Vacancy
DEREK SCHMIDT, Kansas
BRANDON GILL, Texas
MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington
CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director
ARTHUR EWENCZYK, Minority Staff Director
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Wednesday, May 20, 2026
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
The Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary
from the State of Ohio......................................... 1
The Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the Committee on
the Judiciary from the State of Maryland....................... 3
WITNESSES
Dr. Carol M. Swain, Author, Commentator, Former Professor,
Vanderbilt University, President, Family Research Council
Oral Testimony................................................. 8
Prepared Testimony............................................. 11
Tony Perkins, President, Family Research Council
Oral Testimony................................................. 15
Prepared Testimony............................................. 17
Tyler O'Neil, Author and Senior Editor, The Daily Signal
Oral Testimony................................................. 25
Prepared Testimony............................................. 27
Maya Wiley, President, CEO, The Leadership Conference on Civil
and Human Rights
Oral Testimony................................................. 36
Prepared Testimony............................................. 38
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
All materials submitted by the Committee on the Judiciary, for
the record..................................................... 100
Materials submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Member of the
Committee on the Judiciary from the State of California, for
the record
An article entitled, ``The Jan 6th Rioters Who Were Pardoned
by Trump Only to Offend Again,'' May 18, 2026, Byline
Times
A staff report entitled, ``One Year Later: Assessing the
Public Safety Implications of President Trump's Mass
pardons of 1,600 January 6th Rioters and
Insurrectionists,'' Jan. 2026, House Judiciary Committee
Democrats
Materials submitted by the Honorable Andy Biggs, a Member of the
Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Arizona, for the
record
A series of letters from various members entitled, ``Personal
Impact Statement Regarding the Southern Poverty Law
Center's Designation of Moms for Liberty,'' May 15, 2026,
Moms for Liberty
An article entitled, ``Southern Poverty Law Center education
materials surprisingly common in red states, probe
finds,'' May 16, 2026, Just the News
An article entitled, ``SPLC Curriculum in K-12: Learning for
Justice/Teaching Tolerance tracker,'' May 12, 2026,
Defending Education
Not provided at the time of publication
An article entitled, ``Arizona School Resource Pushed SPLC
`Hate Map': Audit,'' May 9, 2026, The Daily Signal
A press release entitled, ``Federal Grand Jury Charges
Southern Poverty Law Center for Wire Fraud, False
Statements, and Conspiracy to Commit Money Laundering,''
Apr. 21, 2026, U.S. Department of Justice
An article entitled, ``Southern Poverty Law Center is a scam,
not an arbiter of justice,'' Aug. 18, 2019, USA Today
An article entitled, ``The SPLC Is a Hedge Fund with a Dumb
Anti-Racist Newsletter,'' Apr. 23, 2026, The Federalist
An article entitled, ``Exposing the SPLC, and Celebrating
Their Future Demise,'' May 18, 2026, AM Greatness
An article entitled, ``Biden DOJ Was In Cahoots With SPLC As
It Funded Extremist Groups, Former Official Admits,'' May
7, 2026, The Federalist
Not provided at the time of publication
An article entitled, ``SPLC's wealth raises questions despite
controversial activities,'' Sept. 4, 2025, The Hill
A 990 filed in October 2024, by SPLC
Not provided at the time of publication
An article entitled, ``America First Legal Reveals Explosive
Documents Exposing Biden Department of Justice's
Partnership and Coordinated Campaign with the Southern
Poverty Law Center to Weaponize Civil Rights
Enforcement,'' Oct. 3, 2025, America First Legal
A statement from Awake Illinois, May 20, 2026, submitted by the
Honorable Mark Harris, a Member of the Committee on the
Judiciary from the State of North Carolina, for the record
Materials submitted by the Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member
of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Maryland,
for the record
An article entitled, `` `We Knew They were Paying
Informants'': SPLC Donors Reject Trump DOJ Fraud
Claims,'' Apr. 24, 2026, The Intercept
A letter to Members of Congress, from The Leadership
Conference on Civil and Human Rights and coalition of
other organizations, May 20, 2026
A statement entitled, ``Campaign Legal Center Responds to
Attacks on Civil Rights Organization'' from Trevor
Potter, Campaign Legal Center, May 20, 2026
An article entitled, ``US lawmakers say DOJ rushed Southern
Poverty Law Center indictment, citing whistleblower,''
May 1, 2026, The Guardian
A letter to Aakash Singh, Associate Deputy Attorney General,
U.S. Department of Justice, from the Honorable Jamie
Raskin, Ranking Member of the Committee on the Judiciary
from the State of Maryland, and the Honorable Mary Gay
Scanlon, a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from
the State of Pennsylvania, Apr. 30, 2026
An article entitled, ``Massacre at Pittsburgh Synagogue Tied
to Anti-Refugee Sentiment,'' Oct. 29, 2018, American
Immigration Council
An article entitled, ``Buffalo Shooter's Manifesto Promotes
`Great Replacement,' Theory, Antisemitism and Previous
Mass Shooters,'' May 14, 2022, Anti-Defamation League
(ADL)
An article entitled, ``What's a `Black Job'? Trump's Anti-
Immigration Remarks Are Met With Derision,'' Jun. 28,
2024, The New York Times
An article entitled, ``Walmart gunman attacked El Paso
`because that's what his president was telling him,'
defense attorney says,'' El Paso Matters
Materials submitted by the Honorable Lucy McBath, a Member of the
Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Georgia, for the
record
An article entitled, ``Justice Department moves to toss
seditious conspiracy convictions of Oath Keepers and
Proud Boys,'' Apr. 15, 2026, AP News
An article entitled, ``Several TN House Democrats stripped
from committees after last week's special session,'' May
13, 2026, Local 3 News
Materials submitted by the Honorable Jefferson Van Drew, a Member
of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of New Jersey,
for the record
An article entitled, ``SPLC Exposed: After years of targeting
Moms for Liberty, and many others, justice could be on
the way,'' Moms for Liberty
An article entitled, ``Opinion | Democrats Beclown Themselves
by Defending SPLC Amid KKK Funding Scandal,'' Apr. 23,
2026, Daily Signal
An article entitled, ``Opinion | However Bad You Think
Biden's DOJ Was, New Documents Show It Was Even Worse,''
Oct. 12, 2025, Daily Signal
Materials submitted by the Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, a Member
of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of
Pennsylvania, for the record
An article entitled, ``Leaked Stephen Miller emails show
Trump's point man on immigration promoted white
nationalism, SPLC reports,'' Nov. 13, 2019, The
Washington Post
A Presidential Memoranda entitled, ``Countering Domestic
Terrorism and Organized Political Violence,'' Sept. 25,
2025, The White House
An article entitled, ``The Justice Department Sides With the
Ku Klux Klan,'' Apr. 23, 2026, The New Republic
An article entitled, ``Big Finance Might Be Dooming the
SPLC--Even Before Its Day in Court,'' May 8, 2026, The
Intercept
Materials submitted by the Honorable Sydney Kamlager-Dove, a
Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of
California, for the record
An article entitled, ``Todd Blanche tells appropriators
payouts for Jan. 6 rioters are possible,'' May 19, 2026,
Politico
An article entitled, ``What we know about the San Diego
shooting victims, suspects, possible motive and more,''
May 19, 2026, NBC News
An article entitled, ``Multiple Republicans in Congress post
openly anti-Muslim statements,'' Mar 13, 2026, NBC News
An article entitled, ``The Second Wave: Return of the
Militias,'' Aug. 1, 2009, Southern Poverty Law Center
(SPLC)
An article entitled, ``Pentagon Tightens Ban on Supremacist
Activity After Years of Denying Problem,'' Apr 13, 2010,
Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)
An article entitled, ``DOJ lawsuit a `wake-up call' to end
Mississippi's school-to-prison pipeline,'' Oct. 25, 2012,
Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)
An article entitled, ``SPLC Report Reveals the High Price of
Florida's Incarceration of Black Children,'' Sept. 30,
2024, Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)
An article entitled, ``Fifth Circuit Rules Against Unlawful
Debt Collections Targeting Hurricane Katrina Survivors,''
Apr. 3, 2024, Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)
A report entitled, ``Overcoming the Unprecedented: Southern
Voters' Battle Against Voter Suppression, Intimidation,
and a Virus,'' Mar. 16, 2021, Southern Poverty Law Center
(SPLC)
An article entitled, ``SPLC Announces New Campaign, Poverty
Is Not a Line, During Poverty Awareness Month,'' Jan 13,
2026, Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)
An article entitled, ``The United States of Political
Violence,'' Nov. 4, 2022, Politico
An article entitled, ``Right-wing extremist violence is more
frequent and more deadly than left-wing violence--what
the data shows,'' Sept. 17, 2025, The Conversation
An article entitled, ``The Black Jobs Deficit Cost Black
America $87 Billion in 2025,'' Jan. 14, 2026, Center for
Economic and Policy Research (CEPR)
An article entitled, ``Black People's Responses To Trump's
Notion Of `Black Jobs,' '' Jun. 29, 2024, Forbes
An article entitled, ``The `Both Sides' Political Violence
Narrative Completely Debunked: They Cooked the Books,'' Apr.
30, 2026, LifeZette, submitted by the Honorable Harriet M.
Hageman, a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the
State of Wyoming, for the record
A letter to Kevin P. Davidson, Acting United States Attorney,
from Addy Schmitt, Kropf Moseley Schmitt, Apr. 17, 2026,
submitted by the Honorable Daniel S. Goldman, a Member of the
Committee on the Judiciary from the State of New York, for the
record
APPENDIX
A grade sheet from Charity Watch regarding the Southern Poverty
Law Center, submitted by the Honorable Andy Biggs, a Member of
the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Arizona, for
the record
An article entitled, ``DOJ quietly removes study showing right
wing attacks `outpace' those by the left,'' The Hill, submitted
by the Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, a Member of the Committee on
the Judiciary from the State of Pennsylvania, for the record
An article entitled, ``The United States of Political Violence,''
Nov. 4, 2022, Time Magazine, submitted by the Honorable Sydney
Kamlager-Dove, a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from
the State of California, for the record
VOTES
RC 1, Motion to table, Ayes: 18; Nays: 17
THE SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER: MANUFACTURING HATE
----------
Wednesday, May 20, 2026
House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room
2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Hon. Jim Jordan [Chair
of the Committee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Jordan, Issa, Biggs,
McClintock, Tiffany, Massie, Roy, Fitzgerald, Cline, Gooden,
Van Drew, Nehls, Moore, Kiley, Hageman, Lee, Hunt, Fry,
Grothman, Knott, Harris, Onder, Schmidt, Gill, Baumgartner,
Raskin, Nadler, Lofgren, Cohen, Johnson, Swalwell, Lieu,
Jayapal, Correa, Scanlon, Neguse, McBath, Ross, Balint, Garcia,
Kamlager-Dove, Moskowitz, Goldman, and Crockett.
Chair Jordan. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Texas, Mr. Nehls, to lead us all into the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. Nehls. Please stand and join me in honoring our
Nation's flag.
All. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States
of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one
Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for
all.
Mr. Nehls. Thank you.
Chair Jordan. I thank you, sir, for leading us. We will
begin with opening statements. The Chair is recognized for an
opening statement.
They call them field sources. Individuals that the Southern
Property Law Center pay to gin up hate, the very hate that they
told their supporters they were fighting. Field source No. 37,
F-37 coordinated transportation and attended the 2017 rally in
Charlottesville. The Southern Property Law Center paid him
$270,000. It is $270,000 to the guy who helped put together the
event where a young lady was killed. Field source No. 9, he got
$1 million over nine years. F-unknown, we don't know what
number this guy was. We do know he was the Imperial Wizard of
the Klan, whatever that means. He was on the Southern Poverty
Law Center payroll. F-27, the Southern Poverty Law Center paid
him $300,000 in six years. What did he do? He ran the Aryan
Nation Motorcycle Club. F-43, he was President of some crazy
group, and he was previously convicted of cross-burning. The
Southern Poverty Law Center thought he was worth $19,000 of
their donor's money.
All told $3 million, $3 million to manufacture hate.
Remember when Rahm Emanuel said, ``never let a crisis go to
waste.'' The SPLC took it a step further. They went one better.
They said, ``we are going to create the crisis. We are going to
manufacture the crisis.'' By so doing, they became the
standard, ``the source'' for determining who is a hate group
and who isn't.
Of course, they labeled good profamily organizations,
conservative organizations, hate groups, like the Family
Research Council, who is with us today, like Moms for Liberty,
like Turning Point USA. Even the Alliance Defending Freedom has
argued numerous cases, won numerous cases in front of the
Supreme Court. They labeled them all hate groups.
Not Jane's Revenge, nope. Even though Jane's Revenge fire-
bombed and vandalized churches, crisis pregnancy centers in the
aftermath of the Dobbs decision, they never made the Southern
Poverty Law Center's list.
The Biden Administration, they helped make the SPLC the
standard. They consulted with the Southern Poverty Law Center.
They had quarterly meetings with them. Lisa Monaco, the Deputy
Attorney General, the lady who runs the Justice Department
during the Biden Administration, had quarterly meetings with
the Southern Poverty Law Center. They gave the SPLC first look
at FBI data, and they used them to train their prosecutors.
It all paid off. It all paid off. Just asked Mark Houck,
what happens when you train the prosecutors? They kicked in his
door at six in the morning in front of him and his seven kids
and arrested him. Of course, the jury found him not guilty.
They couldn't just go talk to him even though his lawyer said,
``he will meet you wherever. Come, we will meet you in the
courtroom.'' Nope. Kick in his door, harass him in front of his
wife and family.
On January 23, 2023, the now famous memorandum from the
Richmond FBI field office. We know how it paid off, because in
that memorandum, they cite the Southern Poverty Law Center as
the source. Of course, that memo says, if you are a prolife
Catholic, well, you are an extremist, you are dangerous.
Yeah, the SPLC became part of the weaponized effort of the
Garland/Biden Justice Department against the American people.
Now, here is what is interesting, the Biden DOJ knew all about
it.
They had opened an investigation. They were looking into
this group. They knew the Southern Poverty Law Center was
running a scam, but they dropped the case. They dropped the
case, because when you meet with them, consult with them, have
them train your prosecutors, well, guess what? You are not
going to prosecute them. Nope, you are not going to prosecute
them. They are too valuable politically. You have got to use
them for your political advantage.
That is exactly what the Biden Administration did. Here is
the scariest part of all, it worked. Field source 37, again, he
was the first one I mentioned. He was part of the planning
group for the Charlottesville rally. He was paid to coordinate
transportation. He was paid to attend.
After the event, again, after the event where a young lady
is killed, the Southern Poverty Law Center almost tripled their
income. It all worked. They went from $51 million annual income
to $133 million. Turned out for them, creating hate was more
profitable than fighting it. That is exactly what they did.
They ran a scam. They became the standard and, they didn't get
prosecuted and they made a ton of money. They made a ton of
money.
They are sitting on $800 million in assets, $700 million
endowment fund, such a deal. Such a deal. Here is the good
news, because there is some good news. Here is the good news.
President Trump got elected. Todd Blanche is Attorney General,
Kash Patel is the FBI Director, and guess what? They are
prosecuting these guys for running a scam, ripping off their
donors, falsely labeling all kinds of good organizations like
the Family Research Council, Moms for Liberty, Alliance
Defending Freedom, falsely labeling them hate groups, but they
got caught. Thank goodness they did.
I want to commend the Attorney General and the work he has
done, the FBI. Most importantly, President Trump for being the
guy who put these guys in those positions. We look forward to
hearing from our witnesses today.
This is something, and we look forward to bringing in the
head of the Southern Private Law Center. We are in discussions
with them about having, we wanted him here today, he couldn't
make it. We are working on it, and we will do whatever it takes
to get him on that witness stand to answer our questions about
the scam that they run, the lies they told, and the things they
did.
With that, I yield to the Ranking Member.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Welcome to all
our witnesses.
For decades, the Southern Poverty Law Center shared
information about racist terror plots with the FBI, gleaned
from their informant program. The FBI was happy to receive it
and this practice frequently led to the disruption of dangerous
conspiracies by the KKK and neo-Nazi groups to commit violence
against synagogues, churches, African Americans, Jews, and
other targeted minorities.
Why is the Department of Justice under Trump and Todd
Blanche now prosecuting the Southern Poverty Law Center? The
DOJ says that the SPLC defrauded its donors by paying
undercover informants to infiltrate and collect intelligence on
these racist groups.
Where are all the donors complaining about having been
defrauded? Where is the evidence of the fraud? Where are the
civil lawsuits that always follow in the wake of a fraud, a
scam, or rip off?
The DOJ has offered no evidence that anyone was actually
deceived or defrauded by this perfectly lawful, well-known, and
accepted practice that the FBI itself approved of for many
years. Using informants and undercover agents was indeed the
basis for the FBI's own efforts to investigate racist extremist
groups when that was a priority, before the targets of the FBI
became instead the perceived political foes of Donald Trump.
In fact, what its donors love about the Southern Poverty
Law Center, is how effective it has been getting on the inside
of extremely dangerous racial terrorist groups, to find out
what is going on to try to stop the reign of terror of
bombings, assaults, lynching, and arson, the violent price of
White supremacy that goes back centuries in our country.
Why are there no civil fraud lawsuits? Why has no one sued
the Southern Poverty Law Center? From my experience as a former
State Assistant Attorney General and a Congressman who deals
with constituents who get defrauded frequently, and now I am
the Cochair of the bipartisan Stop the Scams Caucus, I can
assure you that victims of fraud are usually enraged, after a
period of being embarrassed, and they come forward to complain
and to sue the fraudsters.
What does a real fraud case look like? How do the victims
respond? Well, let's take this well-known long-running fraud
case called Trump University, which was shut down by the New
York Attorney General's office when it determined that Trump
University was systematically deceiving and ripping off its
students, and cheating them of a real education they paid for.
Over 8,000 swindled students brought three different class
action lawsuits that were certified by the courts against
Trump. They tried for years to recover the lost tens or
hundreds of thousands of dollars in tuition for a completely
bogus education. They finally won a massive settlement for $25
million. That was more than 8,000 desperate young people who
told their stories to the world.
To my knowledge, there is not a single donor to the
Southern Poverty Law Center who has come forward to say that he
or she was defrauded, much less thousands of them. They have
many thousands of donors.
Everybody can see what is happening with this outrageous,
scandalous prosecution in Alabama, an outrageous scandalous
persecution here on Capitol Hill. If anyone has flipped sides
to join the racist extremists, it is not the SPLC, it is the
FBI itself. If a fraud is being perpetrated on the public right
now, it is not an SPLC fraud. SPLC has been an enemy of the
Klan and neo-Nazi groups for more than a half century. It has
been unswerving and steadfast, which is why their offices were
bombed, and why they get an unending stream of violent death
threats, something which makes this prosecution and persecution
all the more appalling.
No, what we are witnessing, is a Trump Administration fraud
on a vast and shocking scale. President Trump has coddled and
cultivated the extreme right for as long as he has been in
politics. After the infamous Unite the Right rally in
Charlottesville in August 2017, when Neo-Nazis marched on a
synagogue and the University of Virginia chanting, Jews will
not replace us, when a homicidal extremist drove his car into
peaceful counter-protestors and killed Heather Heyer, Trump
could only bring himself to say that there were some very fine
people on both sides.
In 2020, when he was directly asked in a nationally
televised Presidential debate to condemn White supremacists, he
told the Proud Boys to stand back and stand by, which they
immediately adopted as their official motto and emblazoned on
their T-shirts.
In office, the Trump Administration has dismantled the
antidomestic terror infrastructure at the FBI, at DOJ, at the
Department of Homeland Security, constantly shifting resources
away from monitoring racially motivated violent extremism into
immigration enforcement.
He has gutted the Civil Rights Division, which is charged
with prosecuting hate crimes. Defunded the Center for
Prevention Programs and Partnerships, which had helped prevent
more than a thousand violent terror plots since 2020, and
installed a 22-year-old with zero national security experience,
except for model United Nations his junior year of college, to
run what remains of our terrorism prevention office.
He has redirected the Civil Rights Division to focus on so-
called antiwhite discrimination, instead of the actual hate
crimes devastating communities across America. He fired the
Federal prosecutors and FBI agents who investigated and
convicted the extremists who attacked the Capitol on January 6,
2021. Just this month, the Trump Administration released a new
national counterterrorist strategy that literally erases Right-
wing violent extremism from the record. The strategy identifies
drug cartels, Islamist terror, and violent Left-wing extremists
as the Nation's top threats.
Makes no mention whatsoever of far-Right extremism, White
supremacist violence, or domestic neo-Nazi terror. This despite
a decade of data from the nonpartisan Center for Strategic and
International Studies showing that Right-wing extremists
carried out 152 attacks in the United States and killed
Americans, compared with 35 attacks and 13 deaths attributed to
Left-wing extremists.
Again, he just blames his enemies for what his side is
doing. Trump's real relationship to the extreme Right was on
full display January 6, 2021, when the Proud Boys, Oath
Keepers, and Three Percenters, all in Roger Stone's sphere of
influence, led the violent assault on the Capitol and our
police force, as Trump exhorted a crowd of thousands to go out
and fight and fight like hell or you won't have a country
anymore.
That mob not only chanted hang Mike Pence, referring to
Donald Trump's then Vice President, and tried to shutdown the
peaceful transfer of power for the first time in American
history, but brutally assaulted our police, wounding, injuring,
disfiguring, and disabling more than 150 officers, terminating
many careers in the process.
What has President Trump done to support, praise, or even
just thank the police officers who saved Members of the House
and Senate and his own Vice President from the rampaging mob he
had incited? Nothing.
What has he done to help Sergeant Gonnell, whose brutal
injuries forced him to retire from the Capitol Force? Nothing.
What has he done to help Officer Harry Dunn, who was
taunted with racial slurs throughout the day of January 6th?
Nothing.
Officer Michael Fanone, who wasn't even on duty, but came
down to join his brothers and sisters in the blue to defend our
democracy and was nearly ripped to shreds by the mob and had a
heart attack. What has he done for him and his family? Nothing.
No, Trump praises the J6 criminals, calling them heroes,
martyrs, patriots, even hostages. He pardoned and commuted the
sentences of more than 1,500 of them on his first day in
office. Both the violent felons who attacked our officers with
Confederate battle flags, baseball bats, and steel pipes, and
the organizers behind the scenes who were convicted of
seditious conspiracy, the deliberate and coordinated effort to
put down and overthrow the government of the United States.
Trump wasn't interested in the specific criminal
backgrounds of any of the criminals he pardoned, whether they
were child abusers, armed robbers, or drug traffickers. Nor was
he interested in whether they had shown any contrition or
remorse for the worst mob attack on the Capitol and the police
in the history of the Capitol city. Nor was he interested in
whether they paid off their fines or restitution for the
millions of dollars in damages inflicted. He just pardoned them
all en masse, overriding the pardon attorney in the DOJ, and
liberating his private militia from jail.
Many of these pardoned convicts have already gone out to
commit more crimes since Trump let them out. Take, for example,
Andrew Paul Johnson, who Trump let out of jail and then
promptly went out and sexually attacked and molested two 12-
year-old children, one boy and one girl. He is now back in
prison for life. Trump's stupid, blundering decisionmaking,
forever altered the lives of those children.
Oh, by the way, last year Andrew Paul Johnson, in a
desperate bid to get these children not to turn him into the
police, told them that because he had stormed the Capitol on
January 6th, he was going to be ``awarded $10 million for his
work and would be able to split the money with them if they
agreed not to talk to the police.''
Now, that brings us to the real fraud underway this week.
Donald Trump has withdrawn his bogus $10 billion lawsuit
against the IRS, because the Judge in the case, Kathleen
Williams, doubted there was even a case or controversy and
whether Trump had proper standing to bring it.
There was clearly no adverse relationship between Trump and
the IRS. In any event, he withdrew it. He knew he was going to
lose. Now, Trump is claiming that he and IRS have a so-called
settlement, which is not possible, because the case was
dismissed. This fraudulent settlement involves not only an
agreement by the IRS and the DOJ not to investigate or
prosecute him, his family, and his businesses forever for tax
frauds that he may have committed in the past, but the
establishment of a $1.776 billion political slush fund in the
DOJ called the antiweaponization fund that will be used to
reward his friends and foot soldiers.
This is lawless. To begin with, Trump doesn't establish
Federal programs and appropriate money for them. We do that.
That is the power of the purse, which belongs exclusively to
Congress. We never set up this political slush fund to be ran
out of the DOJ, and we never would. We have a judicial system
to hear authentic cases and controversies.
Not a single J6er has had charges thrown out because of a
false, malicious, or retaliatory prosecution. Not a single one
has had their criminal conviction reversed on appeal because of
a false, malicious, or retaliatory prosecution.
The idea that they were falsely or maliciously prosecuted,
has not been found by a single judge, Republican, Democratic,
or independent appointee. This is a defamatory slur on law
enforcement and the serious civil servants at the DOJ who have
been under attack since this nightmare of MAGA weaponization
began in January of last year.
False, malicious, and retaliatory prosecutions are how
Donald Trump and his DOJ operate, not real law enforcement, not
real prosecutors. We would never set up a political slush fund
to compensate the J6ers for their imaginary injuries, because
it is blatantly unconstitutional.
Section IV of the 14th Amendment, which I commend to all my
colleagues, it is in the Constitution, provides that the United
States shall not assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred
in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States.
All such debts, obligations, and claims shall be held illegal
and void.
Everybody who thinks they are getting a big payoff this
week, $1 million per J6er, is the word on the street, should
understand this, this payment is illegal and void. Meaning that
the money belongs only to the taxpayers of America, the people
of the United States. We will get that money back if any
insurrectionist gets any.
My friends, the Southern Poverty Law Center is not
perpetuating fraud. Today the Trump Administration is
perpetuating a fraud against America by taking nearly $1.8
billion of our money from the U.S. Judgment Fund for the
payment of actual court judgments and damages, and without any
legal authorization from Congress, purporting to use it to pay
off his once and future private militia.
No one is fooled by all the counterfeit outrage about the
SPLC and finger pointing at the people who have actually been
combating violent racism in America. Mr. Chair, the threat is
not the SPLC. The real fraud is coming from the White House.
Just yesterday, The New York Times reported that the career
lawyers and the IRS Chief Counsel's office believe that Donald
Trump's lawsuit is deeply flawed and could be easily defeated.
They drafted a memo advising the DOJ to dismiss it. Of
course, instead, the DOJ entered into the $1.8 billion
settlement instead. The General Counsel for the Treasury
Department, Brian Morrissey, the top lawyer, resigned on the
same day this settlement was announced. We have got many
questions for everybody involved in this brazen and corrupt
transaction.
Mr. Chair, pursuant to Clause 2K(6) of Rule 11, I move that
the Committee now immediately subpoena those involved in the
creation or execution of the nearly $1.8 billion slush fund,
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, Associate Attorney
General Stanley Woodward, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, IRS
Chief Executive Officer Frank Bisignano, and Treasury
Department General Counsel Brian Morrissey. Mr. Blanche
orchestrated this outrageous slush fund as part of the
settlement with Donald Trump, which was also signed by Mr.
Woodward. Mr. Bessett will oversee the payout of these funds.
Mr. Bisignano signed off on this settlement for the IRS,
and Brian Morrissey remarkably resigned as this deal was being
announced. These individuals all possess critical insights into
Trump's self-dealing scheme with his own agencies, to create
this fund and reward his supporters and friends.
I move that they be subpoenaed right now.
Ms. Scanlon. I second.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman has not been recognized for
that purpose. We will hold any motions to subpoena in abeyance
until the conclusion of today's hearing.
Without objection, all the opening statements will be
included in the record. We will introduce today's witnesses.
We are pleased to have with us Dr. Carol Swain.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chair, I just want to request a recorded
vote on that, if that is all right.
Chair Jordan. Well, we will do that when it is time for
that. It is not time for that now, and we are holding it in
abeyance.
Dr. Swain is an author and former Professor at Princeton
University and Vanderbilt University. She has served on various
government commissions, including the National Endowment for
the Humanities and the Tennessee Advisory Committee to the U.S.
Civil Rights Commission. She graduated Phi Beta Kappa from
Roanoke College, and received a master's degree from Yale, and
her Ph.D. from North Carolina.
Mr. Tyler O'Neil is a Senior Editor at The Daily Signal,
where his reporting focuses on nonprofit organizations. He
previously was an editor at PJ Media and Fox News and is the
author of two books.
Mr. Tony Perkins is the President of the Family Research
Council, a nonprofit organization that advocates for family
centered policies. He is an ordained minister and previously
served as the Chair and Vice Chair of the U.S. Commission on
International Religious Freedom. Mr. Perkins has also
previously served as a member of the Louisiana House of
Representatives.
Ms. Maya Wiley is the President and CEO of the Leadership
Conference on Civil and Human Rights. She previously served in
the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the
Southern District of New York and worked at the ACLU and the
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
We welcome our today's witnesses and thank them for
appearing today. If you all please stand, we will begin by
swearing you in.
Raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm under penalty
of perjury that the testimony you are about to give is true and
correct to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief
so help you God?
[Affirmative response.]
Chair Jordan. Let the record reflect that the witnesses
have answered in the affirmative. Thank you and you can 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 will start with Dr. Swain. Just make sure you hit the
microphone and hit that button and try to stay as close to five
as you can, although I won't cut you off right at five. After
all, we gave Mr. Raskin 15, so.
TESTIMONY OF DR. CAROL M. SWAIN
Dr. Swain. Good morning. Chair, Ranking Member, and the
distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for giving me
the opportunity to testify today on this very important
subject.
I am Dr. Carol M. Swain, a former tenured Professor of
Political Science and Law at Vanderbilt, and I was also tenured
at Princeton. I am a woman who rose from rural poverty in
Southwest Virginia, earned five degrees, and built a career as
a scholar of race, politics, and representation.
My 1993 book, ``Black Faces, Black Interests,'' won three
national awards and was cited by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Starting in 2009, I became the target of a sustained smear
campaign by the Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization
once respected for fighting real hate, but which, I believe,
has become a weapon against conservatives, Christians, and
dissenting voices.
In September 2009, I found myself in the SPLC's crosshairs
after I published an article in the Huffington Post titled,
``Mission Creep and the Southern Poverty Law Center's Misguided
Focus.''
I argued that the SPLC had drifted from its original
mission of monitoring genuine hate groups such as the KKK and
the Neo-Nazis, toward targeting mainstream conservatives,
immigration reformers, and anyone challenging progressive ideas
on race and immigration.
I specifically criticized the SPLC's attacks on figures
like Lou Dobbs and organizations like the Center for
Immigration Studies. I concluded my article with the line,
``rather than monitoring hate groups, the Southern Poverty Law
Center has become one.''
Within weeks of my article, the Southern Poverty Law Center
retaliated. In October 2009, SPLC spokesman Mark Potok publicly
labeled me as an apologist for White supremacists.
This stemmed from my endorsement of a documentary film, ``A
Conversation About Race,'' directed by Craig Bodeker,'' which I
recommended for classroom use, because it offered perspectives
rarely heard on university campuses.
This attack on me was not an isolated incident. The
Southern Poverty Law Center has used guilt by association,
cherry-picked quotes, and fabrications to damage and destroy
reputations and organizations. There was long-term professional
harm to me. Offers from other universities dried up. Speaking
opportunities declined. I became kryptonite in certain academic
and media circles.
My experiences with the Southern Poverty Law Center exposed
a powerful tax-exempt organization with enormous influence over
media, corporations, law enforcement, and government that can
chill speech and academic freedom without any meaningful
accountability.
The Southern Poverty Law Center's tactics, the mission
creep, because it has lost sight of its original purpose, guilt
by association, weaponized hate labels have broader
consequences. They distort public discourse and equate policy
disagreements with bigotry. They influence tech companies,
public and private schools, and Federal agencies in ways that
marginalize conservative and religious voices. Their smear
tactics undermine individuals and organizations that are
fighting for the public good.
I urge this Committee to examine the Southern Poverty Law
Center's practices, its financial operations, its influence on
government partnerships, and the lack of transparency and
accountability surrounding its hate group designations.
Real civil rights work, real civil rights work, real civil
rights work, require truth telling, not retaliation against
scholars who challenge orthodoxies, and certainly not the
alleged financing of the hate the organization claims to fight.
I hope Congress will deal with the Southern Poverty Law
Center appropriately. Both political parties need to address
this. This is a bipartisan issue. They should use all available
means to hold this organization accountable, as you do, or as
you proclaim to do, with other organizations. Let's hold
everyone to the same standard.
Thank you for your time and I will be ready to answer
questions at the appropriate time.
[The testimony of Dr. Swain follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chair Jordan. Thank you, Doctor. Mr. Perkins, you are now
recognized for five minutes.
TESTIMONY OF TONY PERKINS
Mr. Perkins. Chair Jordan, Ranking Member Raskin, and the
Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify. I am Tony Perkins. I have served as the President of
the Family Research Council here in Washington since 2003.
Americans once associated Southern Poverty Law Center with
fighting the Ku Klux Klan during the civil rights era. That
reputation gave the SPLC enormous moral credibility.
In November 2010, SPLC shifted its focus beyond violent
groups, and began targeting Christian organizations opposing
efforts to redefine marriage and human sexuality. Family
Research Council was among the most prominent of that first
wave.
In August 2012, FRC joined Governor Mike Huckabee in
supporting Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day after the company was
boycotted because its leadership publicly affirmed traditional
marriage.
Two weeks later, on August 15th, LGBT activist Floyd
Corkins entered FRC headquarters, carrying a 9 mm pistol, 50
rounds of ammunition, and 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches.
According to his later confession, his intent was to kill
as many as possible and stuff the sandwiches into our mouths.
As he entered the building and pulled the gun out of his
backpack, our building manager, Leo Johnson, confronted him.
Though seriously wounded, Leo stopped the attacker and
prevented a mass casualty event. After multiple surgeries and
months of rehabilitation, Leo returned to work and remains
today affectionately known as Leo the Hero. He is here with us
today. Leo, thank you.
[Applause.]
Mr. Perkins. The following day, investigators confirmed
Corkins confessed to selecting FRC, because of SPLC's website
and hate map.
Following the attack, FRC appealed publicly, privately to
SPLC to remove mainstream Christian organizations from its
inflammatory classifications. Those requests were rejected. The
attack has cost FRC more than $6 million in security related
costs. The costs extend way beyond one act of violence.
SPLC's intelligence project and associated labels became
deeply influential on banks, payment processors, and technology
companies, increasingly relied on SPLC classifications to
decide which organizations could maintain accounts, process
transactions, and operate online.
Around 2016, the SPLC began pressuring financial
corporations and technology companies to deplatform and defund
organizations that it labeled extremists. Then, came
Charlottesville. According to the recent Federal indictment, a
member of the online leadership that planned Unite the Right
rally in the direction of the SPLC, and helped coordinate
transportation for attendees, was bankrolled by SPLC.
Charlottesville, don't miss this, Charlottesville was a
catalytic event for SPLC. As major corporations like Apple, JP
Morgan Chase aligned with SPLC contributing millions of
dollars.
Shortly afterwards, the coalition known as Change the Terms
was formed led by SPLC and the Center for American Progress,
establishing standards that would encourage companies to deny
digital access and financial infrastructure to organizations
that SPLC labeled.
The timeline of Change the Terms closely parallels the
acceleration of the efforts to debank and deplatform
conservatives. FRC experiences from Truist Financial, B&B,
BB&T, Fidelity Investments, GuideStar, mobile calls, and other
technology related companies.
The SPLC officials openly acknowledged this strategy before
Congress. In January 2020, SPLC official Lecia Brooks stated
this, ``we have lobbied internet companies one by one. A key
part of this strategy has been to target these organization's
funding.'' Brooks continued to describe the coordinated effort
to pressure technology companies and financial institutions to
restrict access for organizations SPLC opposed.
This Committee, the issue before this Committee is larger
than SPLC fraud. SPLC was the hub, but there are many spokes
that made up this wheel designed to crush Christians and
conservatives.
The Congressional inquiry should not stop with SPLC. In
America, citizens should not lose banking services, digital
platforms, public credibility, and a sense of safety, because
they believe in biblical marriage and sexuality.
When government related or regulated institutions can apply
ideological labels in a coordinated fashion to silence,
isolate, and financially cripple opponents, we have political
targeting by proxy, and freedom is at risk.
[The testimony of Mr. Perkins follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Perkins, for that testimony.
Leo the Hero, thank you for your courage. We are now going to
Mr. O'Neil.
TESTIMONY OF TYLER O'NEIL
Mr. O'Neil. Chair Jordan, Ranking Member Raskin, and the
Members of the Committee, I am honored to testify before you
today.
I will argue that the Southern Poverty Law Center does not
merely track hate, it systematically inflates it, profits from
it, and according to a Federal indictment, may even have helped
create it.
The first thing to know about the SPLC is that it has
nothing to do with poverty. The Poverty Palace has an
endowment, has assets of $822 million. That is more than three
times the assets of the national YMCA, and almost twice the sum
of Planned Parenthood. That is why former employees have
suggested mocking mottos for the SPLC, such as making hate pay.
How did the SPLC become so wealthy? Cofounder Morris Dees,
set up a lucrative fundraising engine by suing the Ku Klux Klan
into bankruptcy. When the SPLC ran out of Grand Dragons to
slay, the center needed to find more hate to justify the
fundraising. It has a financial incentive to juice the numbers.
The SPLC began to publish a hate map that plots mainstream
conservative and Christian groups alongside Klan chapters. The
map includes Moms for Liberty, PragerU, Turning Point USA, and
even Focus on the Family.
The SPLC says the map reveals the infrastructure upholding
White supremacy. This hate map kills two birds with one stone.
It silences conservative dissent from the Left and the SPLC's
agenda, and it exaggerates hate to keep the money flowing. The
map also includes groups that barely exist, like a Confederate
memorabilia shop and a convent.
In 2023, I analyzed the map and found that it exaggerated
hate by at least 267 percent, by including mainstream
conservatives, double counting groups, and mentioning defunct
organizations.
Given this track record, is it really so farfetched to
think the SPLC might be propping up some of the very White
supremacist groups it claims it exists to oppose? A Federal
grand jury indicted the SPLC on fraud charges, because it had
funneled $3 million to members of the Klan.
The SPLC didn't deny the payments but said it was funding
informants who had tipped the center off to violent threats
before they happened. That is not what allegedly happened in
Charlottesville in 2017. According to the indictment, the SPLC
paid an organizer and directed this person's racist postings.
The indictment suggests the SPLC's involvement made
Charlottesville larger than it otherwise would have been.
After Charlottesville, the SPLC's annual fundraising
doubled. Social media companies volunteered to start silencing
hate groups. CNN plastered the hate map on its website.
Charlottesville was a payday for the SPLC, and this so-called
informant may have been the SPLC's most cunning investment. Of
course, if it became known that the SPLC had paid a
Charlottesville organizer, that would be a massive scandal. No
wonder the SPLC allegedly lied to a bank, setting up shell
companies to fund these informants. Why does this matter?
The SPLC staff have briefed DOJ prosecutors. Big tech
companies have used the SPLC to blacklist conservative
nonprofits. School districts across the country have adopted
the SPLC's curriculum. Hundreds of companies systematically
exclude conservatives from their charity programs because of
the SPLC.
The SPLC also have offshoots that engage in similar efforts
against conservatives. The Change the Terms Coalition banded
together to pressure big tech to deplatform conservatives, and
former SPLC staff have founded the Global Project Against Hate
and Extremism.
If an organization can inflate threats, influence Federal
policy, and conceal its role in allegedly fueling the very
extremism it condemns, then Congress has a duty to investigate
it and its offshoots.
[The testimony of Mr. O'Neil follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. O'Neil. Ms. Wiley, you are
recognized for five minutes.
TESTIMONY OF MAYA WILEY
Ms. Wiley. Thank you, Chair Jordan, Ranking Member Raskin,
and to the entire Committee for having me here today.
I would like to get right to the point. The attack on SPLC
is nothing more than part of a larger, broader, coordinated
attack on civil rights organizations, not for profits, ones
that work to ensure voters can vote, that children can learn,
and people can live without fear.
Multiracial democracy is something Americans value. As the
Administration has gutted civil rights enforcement and the
Supreme Court has gutted the Voting Rights Act, it is in
danger.
Civil rights organizations like the Southern Poverty Law
Center are fighting to protect all our rights. It has been done
so for more than five decades. It helped bankrupt the violent
White supremacist organizations including the United Klans of
America. It has brought major voting rights cases, including to
secure a fair representation for Black voters in Alabama.
It educates the public on threats from extremist movements
before those threats turn to violence. Sadly, this work is
critical. A San Diego mosque and the families of three brave
fathers are mourning the apparently hate motivated killings
from just Monday. No one should fear violence in a place of
worship or anywhere else.
The SPLC has been targeted by extremists and their
supporters for years, not because it is dangerous, but because
it is effective. Today it is SPLC, but in a sense, we are all
SPLC.
I won't spend much time picking apart the preposterous
criminal charges, because I have complete confidence in SPLC's
ability to do so in court. All Americans, no matter our party
or beliefs, should not sleep on this hearing and what is
happening, because Monday's murders at a mosque appears to be
from two young people apparently espousing neo-Nazi and White
supremacist hate and they took up arms.
We need to discuss hate ideologies and the groups that
spread them, to understand how we can prevent the kind of
violence that happened on Monday. Trying to distort SPLC's use
of informants into some claim that engaged in manufacturing
hate, is not only nonsensical, it is an effort to deny that
hate exists.
Prosecution should never be tolerated as a weapon to
silence disagreement or stop lawful activities that this
Administration dislikes. In the past year, we have seen
countless examples of weaponization against law firms,
universities, media companies, advocates of basic rights
branded as domestic terrorists, important nonprofits that had
their grants cut off, protestors who faced violence.
The use of criminal prosecutions is consistent with this
pattern. Our concern is that no organization seen as dissenting
from any Administration's policy, large or small, should
ultimately face this kind of abuse of power.
We are also concerned that some private financial
companies, namely Schwab, Fidelity, and Vanguard, have joined
in the Administration's efforts to cut off funds that donors
have asked to be sent to the Southern Poverty Law Center.
In this case, it doesn't appear that conviction is the
goal. Starving the SPLC of resources, tarnishing its
reputation, and ultimately bullying it into compliance is more
likely the point. Luckily, SPLC and civil rights organizations
will not be intimidated. SPLC is continuing to fight against
hate and to stand up for people's rights.
It just sued the Goyim Defense League for antisemitic and
racist harassment of Jewish and Black residents in Nashville.
It has sued to ensure that voters in Cobb County, Georgia, are
getting their absentee ballots on time. It continues to educate
us about the growth of hate and extremism in this country,
which even Federal data has shown has doubled since 2015. It is
real. The SPLC is far too busy fighting hate to manufacture it.
You don't have to like or agree with all its strategies.
I wouldn't ask that. The fact that SPLC is being criminally
charged for its work, only shows how much work it has to do.
Thank you.
[The testimony of Ms. Wiley follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chair Jordan. That concludes opening statements.
Before going to five-minute questions, the Chair recognizes
the Ranking Member for some comments.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chair, thank you very much for this. I just
wanted to note the very sad occasion of the passing of a
distinguished former Member of the House of Representatives,
Barney Frank, who succumbed to his illness and died just
moments ago. I wanted to make sure that all Members knew about
the passing of this great champion of civil rights and civil
liberties.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back to you.
Ms. Scanlon. Mr. Chair, if I could just add.
Chair Jordan. Sure.
Ms. Scanlon. Rep. Frank was obviously a huge advocate for
civil rights, particularly LGBTQ rights. A big advocate for
finance reform across our economic structures. His voice will
certainly be missed. Thank you.
Chair Jordan. I will just relate what I remember about, one
of the things I remember about Representative Frank was, when I
first got here, this was back when the motion to recommit was
actually a debate. I may remember, five-minute debate. I was a
freshman and for some reason leadership asked me to do the
motion to recommit, said, ``would I be willing to do the motion
to recommit on a bill sponsored by Barney Frank?'' I said,
``no, are you crazy? I don't know, it was a financial services
advice.'' I said, ``I don't know the subject. Plus, I have seen
the guy debate. I would rather not do that, particularly as a
freshman.''
He was very good at holding his own in any type of
discussion or debate. We all have those memories of the late
Representative.
Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chair?
Chair Jordan. Mr. Nadler is recognized.
Mr. Nadler. Barney was a great champion of all kinds of
civil rights and civil liberties. I particularly remember the
day in 2008, when he became the first Member to offer a motion
to legalize transgender, to recognize transgender people.
Chair Jordan. The Chair now recognizes--
Mr. Issa. Mr. Chair?
Chair Jordan. The gentleman from California.
Mr. Issa. At the risk of piling on, we all have, that
served with Barney, have some fond memories. I will just close
out mine by saying, from the time I was a freshman, he was very
good at coming up to me and saying, ``Darrell, now you are
probably not going to be for this, but you should be.'' Some
similar ones. On occasions it was true. That was the thing
about being incredibly smart, if you will, a happy warrior at
times.
He wasn't always happy, but when he was, and on this
Committee where I served with him, he was happiest when there
was real debate, when he could use his wit to either change
minds or at least embarrass those who had come half prepared.
Yes, he will be missed. I thank the gentleman.
Chair Jordan. We now move to five-minute questions. The
gentleman from Arizona is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ms. Wiley, the SPLC
labeled a brilliant Black conservative, the woman sitting to
your left, Dr. Carol Swain, an ``apologist for White
supremacist,'' simply for daring to disagree with them. Do you
personally think Dr. Swain is a racist?
Ms. Wiley. I don't know, Dr. Swain. What I will say, is
what is important about the Southern Poverty Law Center as far
as--
Mr. Biggs. I am asking you--
Ms. Wiley. Is that it identifies where and how we have
problems.
Mr. Biggs. I am asking you, I am asking you, you are
choosing not to answer. Okay. You don't know her? Have you read
any of her writings?
Ms. Wiley. I have not.
Mr. Biggs. Okay. Dr. Swain, what was the impact of SPLC's
radical, just unnecessary attack on you, what was the result of
that?
Dr. Swain. It actually set in motion a series of events
that led to my retirement in 2017. There are more things that
happened. Once the Southern Poverty Law Center labels a Black
conservative as an apologist for White supremacists, then
people don't know how to process that.
I can tell you that James Taranto of The Wall Street
Journal, wrote a 2,000-word article, ``In Defense of Carol
Swain.'' That is the title of the article, ``In Defense of
Carol Swain,'' Oct 26, 2009. That helped a lot.
That is why it hurt the Southern Poverty Law Center as
well, because people knew that if they went after the author of
a book on White nationalism, I published with Cambridge Press
in 2002 a book, ``The New White Nationalism in America: Its
Challenge to Integration,'' they went after me and so I was--
Mr. Biggs. You were a tenured Professor at Vanderbilt and
Princeton--
Dr. Swain. Yes.
Mr. Biggs. It impacted your career.
Dr. Swain. It definitely impacted my career.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you for that information. Let's just cut
to the chase here, SPLC is closing in on an $800 million nest
egg. I happen to have their 990 employees and how much they get
paid, the President CEO from this filing from 2024, $466,000 is
the base salary. Total with perks, $522,000.
You go on down the list and when the list closed for me, I
didn't see anybody making less than $285,000 per year from
them. There is a reason that Charity Watch gives SPLC an ``F''
as a charity. The organization's recent Federal indictment for
wire fraud alleged that it secretly took some of that money,
for over $3 million in donor funds, to informants tied to
extremist groups like the KKK, Aryan Nations.
It only confirms what Mass Resistance is warned about for
years, that the SPLC was never fighting hate, was manufacturing
it to justify existence.
Mr. O'Neil was talking about Ison, who actually was one of
the founders, who was attacking the KKK and then actually had
to shift when they put them out of business, because they
needed money. Then, it became this mission to attack people and
falsely label them. Basically, gin up the basic money machine
that they were doing.
I want to ask you, Mr. Perkins, your team was specifically
targeted by SPLC, and as a result of their targeting you for
having espousing traditional American and biblical values,
there was actually an attempt at mass violence.
Can you describe that a little bit, and talk about Leo the
Hero just a little bit more?
Mr. Perkins. The gunman who is now serving prison for
domestic terrorism, came into the building with a gun. Leo, who
was the building manager, was actually standing at the front
asking what he needed. He pulled the semiautomatic pistol out
of the backpack. He began shooting. The first-round hit Leo in
the arm shattering his arm. He was still able to take him down.
More shots were fired. The bullet holes remained in the walls
of our building. Leo was able to disarm him and take him down
and even recover the weapon.
Following that, watching the footage with the FBI agents
who were surveilling, it said, ``why did he not, he was
bleeding out,'' why didn't he fire the round into Corkins to
make sure that he could not come back at him?
I didn't know the answer. As a former police officer, I
would have, just as the FBI said, I would have defended myself,
not knowing if I was going to pass out. I asked Leo when he
came out of surgery that night, I went to the hospital about
midnight. He came out of the hospital, and my first question
was, ``Leo, why didn't you shoot him?'' He said, ``because God
told me not to.'' We are not here for revenge. We are here for
justice. What they have inspired, not just to us, but to
thousands of Americans who love this country and happen to
believe the Bible as a definitive way to live, they want to
silence us.
I stood on the street the day after the shooting and I will
say it again, we will not be silent. We will not shrink back.
We will not apologize for biblical truth. We will continue to
stand for it.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Chair Jordan. Thank you. Mr. Nadler, I recognize, the
gentleman from New York, is recognized.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, we have heard
a lot over the last few days about so-called weaponization, as
Donald Trump rolled out his settlement slush fund to reward his
friends and allies, including insurrectionists, White
supremacists, and others within the MAGA faithful.
This hearing is among the worst kinds of weaponization.
Using the power of the Judiciary Committee to further Donald
Trump's personal vendetta against those who seek to hold him
and his allies accountable.
He has weaponized the Department of Justice to stifle
dissent, attacking law firms, universities, and members of
civil society that they are challenging.
Now, this Committee is being pressed into service to join
in his petty campaign of retribution. That is beneath the
dignity of this Committee and which I have been proud to serve
my entire career in Congress.
Since we have been called here, I want to talk about the
important work that the Southern Poverty Law Center does to
take on one of the most maligned forces in our society, and
that is antisemitism. Unfortunately, antisemitism in America is
not a relic of the past. It is a present and growing threat.
The FBI has consistently documented Jewish Americans as the
most targeted religious group for hate crimes year after year.
We have seen it erupt into mass violence, from the massacre
at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, to the attack on
Poway, California.
We have seen it spread through online spaces, and we have
seen it increasingly seep into mainstream Right-wing politics,
in conspiracy theories about Jewish financiers and Holocaust
analogies deployed as political weapons, and in figures with
well-documented ties to White supremacists ascending to
positions of influence.
The Southern Poverty Law Center is on the front lines
fighting antisemitism. In 2019, the SPLC won a $14 million
judgment against the founder of a neo-Nazi website, The Daily
Stormer, who orchestrated a full-blown doxxing and harassment
campaign against a local Jewish woman. She ended up getting
more than 700 gruesome threats online, like being told that she
should have died in a concentration camp and that she was
``easy to find.'' Someone even posted an image of her and her
12-year-old son and their rabbi, imposed on photos of the gates
of Auschwitz.
One of our witnesses, Mr. O'Neil, has accused the SPLC of
exaggerating hate. I wonder if he thinks that the hate against
this woman was exaggerated or manufactured.
Last year, the Southern Poverty Law Center filed suit
against the White supremacist extremist group, Goyim Defense
League, an openly antisemitic group that calls for the return
of the Nazi Party. SPLC sued, because in 2024, the GDL launched
a coordinated campaign against Black and Jewish communities
during a July 2024 ``hate tour'' in Nashville. These neo-Nazis
were marching across the city assaulting people they believed
to be Jewish, harassing groups of young Black children, and
waving swastika flags. Another one of our witnesses, Mr.
Perkins, has called the SPLC ``a partisan smear machine.'' I
certainly hope he does not believe that it is a partisan smear
to call out neo-Nazis and to make them pay for assaulting Jews
and harassing Black children.
Fighting against neo-Nazis, neofascists, and White
supremacists is not a partisan issue. It should be very simple
to reject these tenets. Why is it so hard for Republicans to
call out the antisemitism we see within the current
Administration? President Trump has not only hosted, but also
refused to condemn Nick Fuentes, a Holocaust denier and White
nationalist.
Meanwhile, Republicans have remained silent as the
Administration attempted to implement political litmus tests
for synagogues to be deemed eligible to receive security
grants, hired known antisemites like Kingsley Wilson, Ed
Martin, and Sebastian Gorka, and gutted the agencies charged
with preventing domestic terrorism.
Lip service about fighting antisemitism rings hollow when
you staff your government with people who embrace it, no matter
how many task forces or advisory committees you form. Now, they
are coming after an organization on the front lines of fighting
antisemitism and racism in all its pernicious forms.
Ms. Wiley, in the time we have left, I want to turn to you.
What harm does it do to the Jewish community, or any targeted
community, when Republicans spread false information against
one of the few organizations actively fighting hate crimes and
tracking extremist groups?
Ms. Wiley. Representative Nadler, you actually shared one
of the examples I would share, which is the Goyim Defense
League lawsuit. This is incredibly important for the Jewish
community, because antisemitism and the Great Replacement
Theory that we are seeing in so many of these ideologies that
SPLC is identifying, actually comes for all of us. It comes for
people who are Black, it comes for people who are transgender,
and it comes for people who are Jewish. One of the things in
the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights was
cofounded with Jewish organizations and leaders. It is part of
our roots and history as a civil rights coalition.
We have several of our Jewish groups have signed a letter
that has been released today and sent supporting the Southern
Poverty Law Center, because it even modeled some of the ways
that more elevation of antisemitism could happen. One last
thing I will point out, because the FBI was well aware of this
despite the claim and the indictment.
The Southern Poverty Law Center gave a 45-page event threat
memo to the FBI before the Unite the Right rally, because of
the program we are talking about today, and identifying that
there would be people there who were armed. As we saw in what
turned out in that rally, It was critically important.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you. I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. Mr. O'Neil, they
had an extremist file webpage, didn't they?
Mr. O'Neil. Yes.
Chair Jordan. On this webpage, they would pick out some
crazy hate guy and some bad guy, and it was like the extremist.
Is that right?
Mr. O'Neil. Exactly.
Chair Jordan. The F-42 was one of the field sources, No.
42, the Chair of some crazy hate group. The Southern Property
Law Center highlighted him on their webpage. He is bad, he is
evil, send us money. Is that right?
Mr. O'Neil. Yes.
Chair Jordan. Did they tell their prospective donors they
were paying this guy?
Mr. O'Neil. No.
Chair Jordan. They didn't tell them. Did they tell them
they were paying him $140,000?
Mr. O'Neil. No. Not to my knowledge.
Chair Jordan. They said, let's stop the racist even though
we are paying him to be racist. That was their pitch. They
didn't tell them that, did they?
Mr. O'Neil. No. They did not.
Chair Jordan. Is that appropriate, Ms. Wiley?
Ms. Wiley. I am sorry, which part? Sorry.
Chair Jordan. All of that. Is that appropriate to tell your
donors, this is the extremist of the month? This hateful,
racist guy is really bad. Send us money. Not telling those
donors who you are taking their money from, that we are paying
this guy $140,000. Is that appropriate?
Ms. Wiley. Well, we have public reporting that over a dozen
donors actually said that they--
Chair Jordan. A simple question.
Ms. Wiley. Actually, spent the money as intended.
Chair Jordan. Field source 42 got $140 grand from the
Southern Poverty Law Center, was featured on their webpage as
extremist of the year, or month, or whatever they call these
bad guys. They were paying him and they were getting money. Is
that appropriate? Simple question.
Ms. Wiley. Donors have supported it and they keep trying to
send more money--
Chair Jordan. Was it appropriate?
Ms. Wiley. --to the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Chair Jordan. No, no, no. Answer the question. Is that
technique appropriate? That is what I am asking.
Ms. Wiley. That is not unlawful to say that people have
done X, Y, and Z.
Chair Jordan. I didn't ask if it was lawful or unlawful. As
you said earlier in your testimony, the court is going to
determine when they go to trial. What I am asking you, is it
appropriate?
Ms. Wiley. As I said, the donors have spoken. In fact, they
are trying to send more money now and their financial
institution is refusing to send the money.
Chair Jordan. Is the Alliance Defending Freedom, is that a
hate group?
Ms. Wiley. I don't know. I don't do designations.
Chair Jordan. Well, they have argued 16 cases with the
Supreme Court, won 16 cases before the Supreme Court. They
stand for traditional values. The Southern Poverty Law Center
has labeled them a hate group. Are they a hate group?
Ms. Wiley. I don't know them and I don't work on the
designations.
Chair Jordan. Well, here is one thing.
Ms. Wiley. I am here to talk about--
Chair Jordan. Well, let me ask you this. Is Jane's Revenge,
is that a hate group? Because of the ADF, they didn't firebomb
anybody, but Jane's Revenge did. ADF is labeled a hate group.
Jane's Revenge isn't. I want to know how you would label them?
Ms. Wiley. I am not here as a person who designates groups.
I am here to talk about the impact on civil rights.
Chair Jordan. Okay. Mr. O'Neil, you think any of these
field sources were double dipping?
During the Biden-Wray-Garland Administration, the Justice
Department paid a bunch of confidential human sources, a bunch
of them. We know a bunch of them were at the Capitol on January
6th, four went in the Capitol. I am just wondering if the same
entity, the Justice Department under President Biden paying
these confidential human sources who were working with the
Southern Poverty Law Center, having quarterly meetings with
them, consulting with them, giving them FBI data before anyone
else could see it, having them train their prosecutors. I am
just wondering, do you think it was out of the realm of
possibility that the Justice Department was paying the same
sources the SPLC was paying?
Mr. O'Neil. I don't think it is out of the realm of
possibility. I have no information or knowledge that they were
double dipping. I would say that Steven J. Ross, Bloomsbury
Publishing, who is the author of, ``The Secret War Against
Hate,'' which is about the history of informants that Jewish
groups had placed in some of these violent groups back decades
and decades before the SPLC ever existed, he said that neither
the ADL, nor the American Jewish Committee, nor the Anti-Nazi
League, did anything like highlighting informants online as in
extremist profiles while also funding them.
Chair Jordan. Yeah. Last question. I will come to you, Mr.
Perkins. In your opening statement, you talked about how it was
just worse than the SPLC, because how they put themselves out
there or become the standard, or help from the government in
becoming the source of the standard on evaluating and
determining what groups are hate groups and what groups aren't.
It is bigger and broader, and it has things. The real thing
here is how closely, how closely they worked with the
government to carry out what they were trying to do.
The reason the Biden Administration embraced them so fully
was politics, simple politics. You agree?
Mr. Perkins. Well, there are Members of this Committee that
were endorsed by SPLC. They had a C-4 that was involved in
elections. They were not just an umpire. They were a players on
the field as well. How can they be objective in determining who
is a purveyor of hate and who is not? They had a stake in this,
but to your point about their engagement with government, it
goes much further than the Federal Government, the FBI, the
Department of Justice, and the Department of Defense, which
their material was in briefing to the members of the military.
They also continue to have their Learning for Justice, which is
about 500,000 educators across America and bulletins to local
law enforcement. I happen to know, because the agency I was
with, the sheriff called me and said, hey, we got a bulletin
that says you are a part of a hate group.
Chair Jordan. Yep.
Mr. Perkins. He was laughing.
Chair Jordan. Yep.
Mr. Perkins. That is the reach that they have had. This is
the hub. They are the hub, but there are spokes that go out.
Chair Jordan. No, I think that is an appropriate metaphor.
My time has expired. With that, I recognize the gentleman from
Georgia.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. O'Neil, have you
ever heard the name Michael Donald?
Mr. O'Neil. I have, yes. I am very familiar with the case.
Mr. Johnson. How about you, Mr. Perkins?
Mr. Perkins. No.
Mr. Johnson. You don't know him? You have never heard of
him? How about you, Dr. Swain?
Dr. Swain. No.
Mr. Johnson. You have never heard of Michael Donald before?
Dr. Swain. I am not sure. Why don't you--
Mr. Johnson. You can cut your mic on.
Dr. Swain. I am not sure. Maybe if you give a little more
information.
Mr. Johnson. He was the 19-year-old African American, a
Black boy down in Mobile, Alabama. He is the son of Beulah Mae
and David Donald, the youngest of six children. He was in
community college at the time, while working part-time for a
local newspaper. On March 21, 1981, he was lynched. You have
never heard of that before?
Dr. Swain. No. I have not. I don't recall--
Mr. Johnson. Then, you did not know that the SPLC was
responsible for filing a lawsuit against the United Clans of
America, whose members were responsible for lynching Michael
Donald. You did not know that the SPLC had sued along with
Beulah Mae Donald and received or obtained a judgment that ran
the United Clans of America out of business. You weren't aware
of that?
Dr. Swain. I was totally aware of it. In fact, I used
that--
Mr. Johnson. Okay. Well, let me ask you this then. Let me
ask you this. If you were aware of that they have been
effective since then in running a number of Ku Klux Klan
organizations out of business through lawsuits, correct?
Dr. Swain. In my--
Mr. Johnson. You are aware of it, Mr. O'Neil, aren't you?
Mr. O'Neil. Yes. I am actually very aware of that case.
Mr. Johnson. The SPLC--
Mr. O'Neil. Because the SPLC etched out Michael Donald and
wanted to make a video about it.
Mr. Johnson. Let me ask you this.
Dr. Swain. Well, I was going to respond.
Mr. Johnson. Hold on. Hold on now. You said that
Charlottesville was a catalytic moment or a fundraising moment,
both of you all have said, for the Southern Poverty Law Center.
You are aware of the fact that the Southern Poverty Law
Center actually forwarded to the FBI, information about
Charlottesville before it even happened. Before Donald Trump
said that the Ku Klux Klansman down there and the anti-Jewish
folks, antisemites were good people.
You were aware of the fact that SPLC provided information
to the FBI about that. Isn't that correct, Ms. Wiley?
Ms. Wiley. That is correct.
Mr. Johnson. They have been very effective at suing
organizations, antisemitism, and antiracism. They have been a
thorn in the side of the racists, who I am sure sat up in their
graves.
Robert E. Lee, Nathan Bedford Forrest, the former
Confederate General, founder of the Ku Klux Klan, and others,
Stonewall Jackson, I am sure that they stood up in their graves
and saluted when Trump was elected and when he took office,
because on the first day he eliminated all Federal efforts to
remedy the impact of slavery and racism in America.
They call it DEI, diversity, equity, and inclusion. Trump
has tried to stop that. The United States Supreme Court has
gone along with him in ending enforcement or the ability to
enforce the Voting Rights Act. Which is one of the ways that
you, Dr. Swain, were able to get the right to vote. I don't
understand it.
Dr. Swain. May I respond?
Mr. Johnson. Ms. Wiley, can you tell me why it is that
folks today are claiming that we have no racism in America and
the only extremism we have is through Left-wing groups like the
SPLC, and they are targeting the SPLC? Can you tell us why?
Ms. Wiley. We have just seen an outright attack on all the
gains of the civil rights movement for the past 60 years.
I can only say that I will never be able to explain it. At
a time when hate crimes have doubled in this country, gone up
100 percent since 2015, where the rise in antisemitism, the
rise in hate against transgender people, Black people still
remain the number one largest racial group subject to hate
crimes, that we have to talk about racism, transphobia, all of
the violence that too many of our communities are experiencing.
No one, including many of the groups here, should experience
violence.
Mr. Johnson. Trump, I think--
Mr. Issa. [Presiding.] The gentleman's time has now
expired. Now, we go to the gentleman from California, Mr.
McClintock.
Mr. Johnson. I yield back.
Mr. Issa. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Eric Hoffer famously
observed that every great cause becomes a movement, it becomes
a business, it becomes a racket. That sums up precisely the
matter before us today. SPLC is a private organization. They
have a right to speak and influence the public policy
discussion. No one questions that.
What they do to malign innocent groups like Turning Point
USA and Family Research Council and others is despicable and
hateful. That is freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does not
include the right to defraud donors. It does not include the
right to commit bank fraud.
Those are the allegations in the grand jury indictment. We
have got a legal system that I trust will sort those charges
out. It also doesn't include the right to slander. We have good
laws and civil courts to hold them accountable for defamation.
That leaves two legislative concerns. First, the civil
rights movement, of which SPLC was once a part, had made great
progress in uniting our country and marginalizing racist
ideology, and dramatically reducing racial strife between the
1950s and the 1990s. Over the past several decades, that
progress seems to have reversed. In recent years, we have
watched our country torn apart by growing racial strife.
The allegation at the heart of this matter, is that the
SPLC was covertly fanning these flames for their own financial
gain. A significant flashpoint, of course, was the
Charlottesville riots, which had fatal results. I do need to
call out the Ranking Member for deliberately perpetuating the
Democrats' dishonest claim that Donald Trump praised the Nazis
at Charlottesville, when he said there were ``very fine people
on both sides.'' What the Ranking Member knows, but chose to
leave out, is that Trump then said, ``I'm not talking about the
neo-Nazis and the White nationalists, because they should be
condemned totally.'' The Ranking Member knows this. The fact
that he perpetuated that today speaks for itself.
Mr. Johnson. Mr. Chair, I take--
Mr. McClintock. Now, we have--
[Simultaneous speaking.]
Mr. Issa. The gentleman will suspend. For what purpose does
the gentleman interrupt?
Mr. Johnson. I ask that the gentleman's words be taken
down.
Mr. McClintock. Which words does--
Mr. Issa. Which words are you referring to?
Mr. Johnson. Well, he mentioned twice that the Ranking
Member misled, deceived, and lied to this Committee. The
gentleman--
Mr. McClintock. I didn't use the word deceived. I didn't
use the word lied.
Mr. Johnson. He implied--
Mr. Issa. Would both gentlemen please suspend? Would the
recording clerk read back verbatim that passage that is being
referred to?
Mr. Johnson. Both times.
Mr. Issa. There is only one Chair here. I will take just
one of them. It will be fine.
Mr. Johnson. I think we need both--
Mr. Issa. The gentleman will suspend.
Mr. Johnson. To put it in context, Mr. Chair. We have got
to have both utterings.
Mr. Issa. The gentleman will suspend.
Recording Clerk. ``I do need to call out the Ranking Member
for''--
Mr. Issa. We can't hear you, sorry.
Recording Clerk. I don't have a microphone.
Mr. Issa. Okay. Just as loud as you could, please.
Recording Clerk. ``I need to call out the Ranking Member
for deliberately perpetuating the Democrats' dishonest claim
that Donald Trump praised the neo-Nazis''--
Mr. Issa. Thank you. Thank you. Is that the passage, or one
of the two times that you are referring to?
Mr. Johnson. That is the first passage.
Mr. Issa. Excellent. Now, just one moment then, please. The
Chair is prepared to rule. Although we would prefer that all
people speak only to the facts and not to the previous
statements of either side, it does not violate the rules of
decorum to have an opinion as to the veracity of the other
person's statement.
With that, I thank the gentleman, but I will not take you
down the line.
Mr. Johnson. Mr. Chair, the second statement is the one
that I asked then that the words be taken down.
Mr. Issa. I have--
Mr. Johnson. I proffer that we hear the second--
Mr. Issa. Okay. If the gentleman will suspend. I will be
patient. Could you please read, or please read the second one
and tell me, is there a difference?
Recording Clerk. ``What the Ranking Member knows, but chose
to leave out, is that Trump then said, `I'm not talking about
the neo-Nazis or White nationalists, because they should be
condemned totally.' ''
Mr. Issa. Thank you.
Mr. Johnson. Mr. Chair the--
Mr. Issa. The gentleman will suspend. Having heard both of
these, and understanding them in context, they meet the
requirement within decorum. Again, the Chair would caution
individuals whenever possible, to refer to the specifics and
not to the testimony or the statements of either side.
However, in context, it was not a violation for which the
words may be taken down. With that, the gentleman from
California may continue.
Mr. Johnson. Mr. Chair, I am making a parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Issa. It is the gentleman's time. I will hear your
parliamentary question after the conclusion of his time.
Mr. Johnson. Point of order, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Issa. The gentleman will--
Mr. Johnson. Point of order, Mr. Chair. Point of order.
Mr. Issa. The gentleman will State his point of order.
Mr. Johnson. Is it within the rules--
Mr. Issa. That is not how you State a point of order.
Please State your point of order.
Mr. Johnson. My point of order is: It is incorrect for the
Chair of the Committee to not hear argument on a motion.
Mr. Issa. The gentleman, if you are considering it ``a
point of order,'' then the answer to the point of order--
Mr. Johnson. It is--
Mr. Issa. In answer to the point of order, a motion to have
words taken down. The words speak for themselves. The gentleman
had them heard. I am aware of what they were, and I have made
my ruling.
The gentleman, I thank him for his point of order. We now
go to the gentleman from California. I would ask that it be
reset back to two minutes. We will conclude with three minutes,
or three minutes remaining, please.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I am reminded of that
old movie line, the gentleman can't handle the truth. Now, we
have the revelation that the SPLC paid the chief organizer of
this Unite the Right riot, $270,000 while he was recruiting
agitators and posting inflammatory rhetoric. To learn that this
was part of more than $3 million in such payments to such
extremist groups, begs the question of whether the SPLC was
financing the very extremist groups it was assuring donors was
fighting with their contributions?
The terrible attack on the mosque in San Diego on Monday
was inspired by neo-Nazi propaganda. Was this surreptitiously
financed by the SPLC, or similar NGOs, or perhaps even foreign
governments? That is a legitimate concern and one that we need
to fully explore. The second legislative concern is that during
the Biden Administration, the Attorney General and the FBI
Director told this Committee that White supremacist groups were
the greatest single threat that our country faced.
The SPLC was one of the primary sources of this testimony.
Was this an attempt to mislead Congress? Were the officials
responsible for this testimony victims of misinformation by the
SPLC or were they active participants in this deception? We
need to get to the bottom of that as well.
Now, Dr. Swain, you detailed the smear campaign against you
that obviously caused you reputational damage and financial
loss. Mr. Perkins, your organization suffered both financial
loss and actual violence. Why haven't you sued the SPLC?
Mr. Perkins. Partly because information was not available
as is now coming forth. We did talk to some attorneys initially
about the violence that was perpetrated. Because of really
there were other suits that were brought against the SPLC.
Their image was so strong until now that it was very difficult.
We had suits that were brought in court that did not succeed.
It is a different day now, and you may see some civil actions.
Mr. McClintock. I would certainly hope so. Mr. O'Neil, is
it possible the SPLC is not the only source of funds going to
these extremist groups? Is it possible they are financed by
other NGOs or even foreign governments? What reforms would you
recommend?
Mr. O'Neil. It is possible. I have no knowledge of that.
What I know are the allegations claimed in the indictment. I
would highly encourage Congress to consider adding to any rider
of financial disbursements, that no taxpayer funds be directed
to an organization that systematically slanders and defames
mainstream conservatives and Christians, or frankly, those on
the other side of the aisle in the way that the SPLC does.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you. Dr. Swain. May I answer the
question about why I haven't sued the Southern Poverty Law
Center?
Mr. Issa. If that is a question, I will allow you to
briefly answer if you would.
Dr. Swain. All right. Because I didn't have any financial
resources. There is no way I could go up against an
organization that had the types of resources as the Southern
Poverty Law Center.
Mr. Issa. The gentleman yields back. We now go to the
Ranking Member of the Full Committee, the gentleman from
Maryland, Mr. Raskin, for his questions.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Just a footnote
to that recent contretemps. I was not remotely offended by what
the gentleman from California said, ``because I am used to
having all of my points misstated by him regularly.''
It was interesting, he said that I had accused the
President of praising the Ku Klux Klan and the neo-Nazis. I
never said that. I said he just made himself perfectly clear
when he said there were very fine people on both sides. The
fact that you can find him contradicting himself immediately
thereafter and in other subsequent statements, is just a
reflection of how Donald Trump speaks.
Sometimes China is his biggest enemy in the world, and when
he was over in China that he loved President Xi, and he adored
him, and they are great friends, and so on. That is Donald
Trump. I can't imagine any other President in American history
finding very fine people on both sides of an antisemitic race
attack like the one that led to the death of Heather Heyer.
I stand completely by what I said before. I reject
completely your insinuation that I have misrepresented the
reality. All I did was quote Donald Trump's own words. Ms.
Wiley--oh, and I will say one other thing. Very fine people on
both sides. To people in Charlottesville, that was a very
painful thing. My sister and her family happen to live in
Charlottesville.
The Ku Klux Klan and the neo-Nazis gathered at the local
synagogue. That is where they kicked off their attack on Jews
and African Americans in Charlottesville. Some people might be
able to roll their eyes at that and say, oh, well, later he
read a statement that his staff wrote for him saying that he
denounces racist violence. He made himself perfectly clear.
Ms. Wiley, have you heard any of these witnesses today cite
any evidence that anybody was deceived or defrauded by the
Southern Poverty Law Center, which is the whole heart of this
attack on them? Did you hear one iota of evidence being offered
that anybody was deceived or defrauded?
Ms. Wiley. I have not. We know as a matter of fact, the
donors continue to try to send money to the Southern Poverty
Law Center and being blocked by--
Mr. Raskin. In fact, haven't dozens of them stood up to
say, no, they weren't defrauded in any way. That is why they
are supporting the Southern Poverty Law Center, because they
have been so effective in going undercover to blow the cover on
these racist antisemitic plots.
Ms. Wiley. Yes. I just want to note that because there was
a representation made about the SPLC, that it worked with the
Donald Trump Department of Justice, providing information from
its informant program in the first Trump Administration. That
is why we were so concerned to hear that denial that they had
knowledge that the acting Attorney General had to retract. This
is something that should concern all Americans, because no
Department of Justice should be behaving this way.
Mr. Raskin. Yeah. Well, you know the not-for-profit sector
very well. It seems like now one of the lines of attack against
the SPLC is that the people who work there make too much money.
I just went online and checked out some of the salaried
executives of the Right-wing groups that we are not having a
hearing about today. Like the NRA, Wayne LaPierre was making
$1.2 million when he was there.
You could look at The Heritage Foundation, which in 2023,
paid its President $953,000. Three times what they are talking
about there.
I imagine being the CEO of the Southern Poverty Law Center
is a lot more dangerous than being the President of The
Heritage Foundation.
Just very quickly on that, is there anything to this, the
idea that the work of the Southern Poverty Law Center should be
trashed, and derided, and dismissed, because the people who go
to work there in Alabama are being paid toomuch money?
Ms. Wiley. Well, certainly not. The point is, the way in
which the Southern Poverty Law Center is providing free legal
services.
For example, to a Black community that has developers
coming for land and they won't benefit from the land. For food
assistance programs, to make sure that a mother who has a
disabled child, five years old, is getting the disability
services the law requires. That is what is happening with
donations as well. We are not talking enough about the work
that civil rights organizations do, including SPLC.
Mr. Raskin. Well, then, let's talk about that. Because to
listen to some of your copanelists there, you would think that
there is no extremist hate violence taking place. What about
the AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina, where Dylann
Roof, who was charged up on White supremacy, went out and
killed nine people?
How about the Tree of Life Synagogue, the worst antisemitic
attack in American history, where Robert Bowers, who was
consumed with White genocide replacement theory, which we hear
from even more mainstream conservative groups, killed 11
people. Is racist violence in fact some kind of myth made up by
the Southern Poverty Law Center?
Ms. Wiley. No. The government's own data demonstrates that.
Also, if you look at--
Mr. Issa. The gentlelady can answer the question, but not
go on beyond that. The gentleman's time has expired.
Ms. Wiley. Thank you.
Mr. Issa. Thank you. We now go to the gentleman from
Virginia, Mr. Cline.
Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate you holding
this hearing.
The information that has come out in this indictment is
truly disturbing. My district is adjacent to the district that
includes Charlottesville. Many of my constituents have family
in Charlottesville. Many of my constituents work in
Charlottesville. To see that, well, let me ask you, Mr. O'Neil,
the SPLC explicitly stated that they sought donations under the
auspices that donor money would be used to help dismantle
violent extremist groups.
By funding F-37, who was a member of the online leadership
chat group that planned the 2017 Unite the Right event in
Charlottesville, and attended the event at the direction of the
SPLC, is that helping to dismantle these organizations?
Mr. O'Neil. No. I would say the SPLC in subsequent filings
did mention two cases where they claim information from these
informants, these field sources led to Federal prosecutions.
That is important context to add.
Mr. Cline. Thank you. I want to continue to inquire about
this funding. Given the SPLC's track record of partisanship and
its direct link to real world violence, why did the FBI and DOJ
during the Biden and Harris Administration maintain a close
relationship with the SPLC?
Mr. O'Neil. Yeah, my understanding is that the SPLC's bias
and targeting of mainstream conservative and Christian groups
aligned very strongly with the Biden DOJ and the Biden White
House's preferences. That is why in my second book, ``The
Woketopus,'' I go through all the ways in which the Biden
Administration solicited information on the domestic terror
threat from the Southern Poverty Law Center. How we have this
alignment with demonizing concerned moms and dads, that
happened consistently.
Of course, when the SPLC released the hate map that
included chapters of Moms for Liberty for the very first time,
putting moms and dads who were concerned about their kids'
education on a map with the Klan, they first gave the embargoed
copy to their allies at the Civil Rights Division in the DOJ.
Mr. Cline. The SPLC got special treatment, 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 and Harris
Administration.
Mr. O'Neil. Correct. In fact, they had one of their
staffers by the name of R.G. Cravens, who spoke before DOJ
prosecutors. This is the same man who when the Southern Poverty
Law Center put Focus on the Family on the hate map last year,
he defended putting Focus on the Family on the hate map by
saying that it is both false and dangerous for conservative
Christians to hold to biblical morality against the claims of
the LGBTQ movement.
Mr. Cline. In October of this year, FBI Director Patel
terminated the FBI's relationship with the SPLC. The nature of
the relationship prior to the termination, you discussed that.
Isn't it true that the FBI relied on the SPLC's hate group
designation when determining which extremist groups to monitor?
Mr. O'Neil. Yes. Specifically in the notorious memo from
the FBI's Richmond office, which was coordinated with other FBI
offices. They cited the SPLC's list of radical traditional
Catholic hate groups.
Interestingly, that is where my anecdote about a convent
comes from. One of those organizations on that list no longer
existed and didn't exist at the time.
Mr. Cline. Can you talk a little bit more about that FBI
memo related to the Catholics in Richmond?
Mr. O'Neil. Yes. This memo was released by whistleblowers.
It was not meant to be publicly disseminated.
Only after a whistleblower released the memo did the FBI,
the national office, publicly come out and say that it didn't
meet the FBI's standards. I would say that is an
understatement.
It just took the SPLC's list of radical traditional
Catholic hate groups verbatim and put it into the FBI's
language in the memo. For background, this is a list of radical
traditional Catholic groups that is extremely outdated
according to my sources.
That was developed by Heidi Beirich, who now is leading the
Global Project Against Hate and Extremism. She is no longer
even at the SPLC.
Mr. Cline. It is truly shocking. Thank you for being here.
I yield back.
Chair Jordan. [Presiding.] The gentleman yields back. The
Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I know there's talk
about the Department of Justice's vindictive prosecutions of
SPLC. I just want to remind all of us something else that the
Trump DOJ just did.
On April 14th, this year, exactly a week before it targeted
SPLC, DOJ asked a Federal court to vacate the convictions--
convictions--of dozens of leaders of the Proud Boys and Oath
Keepers. Now, who are the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers? Both are
far-Right organizations that spout Islamophobic, misogynistic,
and White nationalist ideologies, and both happen to be on
SPLC's watchlist. Both groups, and others like them, took up
arms for Donald Trump and attacked the Capitol on January 6th.
I would like to ask unanimous consent to put into the
record two articles about the January 6th rioters and their
later crimes.
Chair Jordan. Without objection.
Ms. Lofgren. People forget what happened in the weeks
before January 6th, in December 2020, yet another pro-Trump
rally. They rioted in the streets of D.C., vandalized
historically Black churches, White nationalists supporting
Donald Trump vandalizing African American places of worship--
right here in the Capital.
For their crimes leading up to and on January 6th, these
individuals, including Enrique Tarrio, Stewart Rhodes, and many
others, were convicted of seditious conspiracy and other
felonies and sentenced to more than 100 years in prison
collectively.
Now, Donald Trump unleashed over 1,500 criminals on our
streets, some of who have gone on to commit kidnapping, sexual
assault, burglary, and death threats against elected officials.
Now, the Department is trying to erase their guilt permanently
and ensure they cannot be recharged. SPLC has been tracking
these groups for years, long before January 6th, and designated
them and others like them as hate groups. SPLC has continued to
call out these groups for the danger they pose to our
communities and our democracy.
The label has upset these groups, so much that Gavin
McInnes, the founder of Proud Boys, who describes himself as a
Western chauvinist and said Muslims are stupid, sued the SPLC
in 2019 for defamation for designating them as a hate group,
and that lawsuit failed.
Ms. Wiley, you have described the Proud Boys and Oath
Keepers as the foot soldiers of January 6th. In your opinion,
is documenting and naming these groups part of the reason why
SPLC is now being punished by the Trump Administration?
Ms. Wiley. Sadly, because of the pattern of behavior and
weaponization that we have seen, it's hard not to conclude
that, particularly because of exactly the point you just
raised, Representative Lofgren, that we're seeing pardoning of
violence and violent insurrection from January 6th.
Ms. Lofgren. Now, what does it say about this
Administration that it's prosecuting the group that helped end
the Klan, but, apparently, intending to give taxpayer money to
violent White nationalists who vandalized Black churches in the
Capital alike through this so-called settlement fund on a
lawsuit that was bogus and barred by the statute of
limitations?
That is what this Administration is: Donald Trump rewarding
his foot soldiers for assaulting and beating up law enforcement
in his name--to the tunes of billions of dollars--and punishing
their common enemy, the organization that monitors and calls
out their crime.
I would like to note this isn't about just coddling the
criminals who tried to overthrow the government and who
attacked police officers viciously, and I would add, were
convicted in courts of law by juries of their peers, as the
Constitution provides, but also an effort, perhaps, to make
sure that, when a call goes out to violent extremists to
overturn the government, to attack violently the government
again, that those extremists will know a couple of things:
(1) That the President will pardon them for their crimes.
(2) That the President will reward them monetarily with
taxpayer dollars for their violence and for their treason.
With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back. Before
recognizing the gentleman from North Carolina, I do have to
step out for a minute--I wanted to just tell our witnesses
that--but will be back shortly. I do think we have votes at
12:00 p.m. or 12:30 p.m. There may be a little break.
I should have mentioned this at the outset. If any of you
need a break at any time--you have been there almost two hours;
I have stepped out a few times--if you need a break, just
please let us know.
Really quick, a UC?
Mr. Biggs. Yes. Yes, Mr. Chair, I have a series of letters
from the Moms for Liberty, Tina Descovich, Judy Mock, and then,
a whole series of additional letters from Moms for Liberty.
Chair Jordan. Okay. Quickly, yes. Wonderful.
Mr. Biggs. (1) ``Southern Poverty Law Center education
materials surprisingly common in red states, probe finds.''
(2) A school resource directing teachers to condemn Moms
for Liberty, Turning Point USA, in the class.
(3) ``SPLC Curriculum in K-12: Learning for Justice.''
(4) ``SPLC Curriculum in Arizona,'' a document.
(5) ``Federal Grand Jury Charges Southern Poverty Law
Center for Wire Fraud, False Statements, and Conspiracy to
Commit Money Laundering.''
(6) ``Southern Poverty Law Center is a SCAM, not an Arbiter
of Justice.''
(7) ``SPLC is a Hedge Fund with a Dumb Anti-Racist
Newsletter.''
(8) ``Exposing the SPLC and Celebrating their Future
Demise.''
(9) ``The Biden DOJ Was in Cahoots with SPLC as It Funded
Extremist Groups.''
(10) ``SPLC's Wealth Raises Questions, Despite
Controversial Activities.''
(11) A 990 filed in October 2024, by SPLC.
(12) ``America First Legal Reveals Explosive Documents
Exposing Biden Department of Justice's Partnership and
Coordinated Campaign with the Southern Poverty Law Center to
Weaponize Civil Rights Enforcement.''
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr.
Harris, is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Harris. Mr. Chair, I would also like to submit into the
record a letter from Awake Illinois to the House Judiciary
Committee.
Chair Jordan. Without objection.
Mr. Harris. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm so grateful for all
you witnesses for being here today.
I want to take just a few moments to talk about the
shooting that took place at Family Research Council's
headquarters in 2012. That, obviously, hits home for me because
I have followed and admired the great work of FRC, as both a
pastor involved for a number of years, and now, as a Member of
Congress.
In 2010, the SPLC, as we have talked about today,
designated Family Research Council as an anti-LGBTQ hate group
and placed it on its so-called ``Hate Map.'' As I stated in our
hearing last regarding the SPLC, there's nothing hateful about
the Family Research Council.
The Family Research Council is a profamily, prolife group
that promotes the Christian values held by many, many
Americans. That didn't stop the SPLC from placing FRC on this
map. What was, clearly, a politically motivated designation was
intended to harm FRC, and it had dire consequences.
We mentioned it today. On August 15, 2012, Floyd Lee
Corkins, II, entered Family Research Council's headquarters in
Washington, DC, and opened fire. It was FRC's security guard
Leo Johnson who heroically tackled Corkins to the ground and
wrestled the gun out of his hand, despite being shot in the
arm. Thankfully, no one was killed, and Corkins was sent to
prison for a period of time.
However, I want to bring attention today to what Corkins
told the police, which we happen to have on video right here. I
would call your attention to Corkins' video.
[Video played.]
Mr. Harris. I did a little bit of research. Guess where he
landed? There's no speculation here. There's no need for
interpretation at this. The convicted shooter specifically
cited SPLC as his source for finding out about Family Research
Council. It speaks for itself. Mr. Perkins, what was your
immediate reaction when you found out that the shooter learned
about FRC through this SPLC Hate Map?
Mr. Perkins. Congressman Harris, I actually anticipated
that was the case. In fact, the day after, before the FBI
acknowledged it, I stood before dozens of TV cameras on the
street in front of FRC and said that, ``FRC may not have pulled
the trigger, but they inspired the gunman.'' I was mocked by
the media, but then, the testimony and the confession came out.
I asked at that point that SPLC take down Christian groups
from this list. They didn't and the consequences have been in
2017. One of your colleagues, one of my former colleagues,
Steve Scalise, was shot. He was targeted by the SPLC. Then, of
course, last year, Charlie Kirk, who also was targeted by SPLC,
was assassinated.
There is culpability in knowing that this list, this
ideological labeling leads to violence. No doubt. As of
yesterday, when I looked up FRC on SPLC's Hate Map, your
organization is still listed, despite this attack in 2012. What
impact has this continued designation had on the organization
and your staff?
Mr. Perkins. Well, fortunately, we were large enough that
we could sustain SPLC and their blood money that they've been
raising to target conservative groups. It has hurt us. We spent
$6 million just to enhance our security. We've had--it's funny,
they're crying, now that they're getting their own medicine,
that Fidelity is not giving money to them. How about the
thousands of conservative groups that were denied donor-driven
funds because of SPLC's labeling? Is there fairness in that? I
think not.
Mr. Harris. I will say, this may seem like a silly
question, but following the 2012 attack on your headquarters,
did SPLC ever reach out to apologize?
Mr. Perkins. No.
Mr. Harris. Well, it is disgraceful that FRC has put such a
Hate Map to begin within in place. They, SPLC, do not need to
agree with everything that FRC says, does, or stands for.
However, their actions of placing this organization on a Hate
Map is, clearly, an attempt to cripple and socially ostracize a
conservative organization. It cannot be allowed again and
again. With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Issa. [Presiding.] The gentleman yields back. We now go
to the gentlelady from Pennsylvania. I see next--okay, then,
the gentlelady from Washington. I'm looking and seeing you came
back. We are thrilled to have you with us.
Ms. Jayapal. Wonderful.
Mr. Issa. The gentlelady is recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. It is really a
rich irony that Republicans want to argue that Donald Trump or
this DOJ care about stopping hate. That is why they are going
after the Southern Poverty Law Center. Donald Trump just set up
an illegal $1.8 billion slush fund of U.S. taxpayer dollars to
pardon convicted insurrectionists who are tied to White
supremacists from the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, and Nazi
supremacists--oh, yes, and prohibit any action against his own
violations or his family's violations of tax law.
You want to argue that Trump's DOJ is trying to stop hate?
Give me a break. Trump ran his campaigns and these
Administrations on stoking fear and racism against communities
of color and promoting hate--enacted Muslim bans; kidnapped and
disappeared immigrants of all immigration statuses, including
U.S. citizens; forced universities to roll back their
diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts; stripped voting
rights from Black and Brown voters; disenfranchising women and
rural voters with the SAVE Act that he wants to pass.
It is all a shameless plan to return America to single
party control by a Republican Party who, unable to win on any
sort of policy merits, turns to an old racism playbook that
restricts the power of Black, Brown, and working class voters
and goes after any political foes, just to hold onto power.
That is what is happening. For decades, the Southern Poverty
Law Center has sued and won jury verdicts against hate groups
who conspire and facilitate violence against Black and Brown
people.
The Center secured a verdict against the planners of the
2017 Charlottesville rally, the same rally that drew
participants who Donald Trump called ``very fine people on both
sides.'' Yes, I know what he said after that to try and defend
it. The entire rally was organized by White nationalists.
Even after images and videos revealed that these
participants put up their arms in Nazi salutes and violently
injured counter-protestors, and cheered on the former Grand
Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, he stuck by that. SPLC has been
winning. That is why Donald Trump wants to target them. That is
the problem.
Stephen Miller, angry that SPLC called him out back in 2016
for promoting White nationalism and Right-wing extremist ideas,
has decided to take revenge with an outrageous indictment that
is replete with mistakes of fact and law. It is a complete
fabrication that any crime has been committed at all. In the
words of one former prosecutor, DOJ falls, quote, ``egregiously
short on alleging a crime.''
Ms. Wiley, the indictment and this entire hearing is
premised on the theory that SPLC somehow manufactured hate by
paying confidential informants. I want to set the record
straight about these informants.
Based on what we know from public reporting, did one of the
Center's informants produce information that successfully
prevented a White supremacist group's planned terrorist attacks
against a synagogue and gay bar in Las Vegas?
Ms. Wiley. Yes. Atomwaffen Division is the name of the
extremist group.
I should say that, in addition to the work that SPLC did
information it turned onto the Department of Justice during the
Trump Administration. The suggestion that somehow SPLC only
works with an administration based on the party is undermined
by this very important fact.
What the FBI found was that this person had already bought
the supplies for the attack on a synagogue and a bar where a
lot of LGBTQ people frequently.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you. I'm going to go through a series of
these. Just a yes or no would be great. Did another informant
produce information that led to the arrest of a neo-Nazi
individual who sought a national security clearance in
Philadelphia Navy Yard?
Ms. Wiley. Yes.
Ms. Jayapal. Did an informant produce information that the
Center used to tip off the FBI about the 2017 Charlottesville
rally?
Ms. Wiley. Yes.
Ms. Jayapal. The Center was using informants to root out
hate and help the FBI prosecute that hate, not manufacture
hate. Is that correct?
Ms. Wiley. Yes.
Ms. Jayapal. I want to ask you the charges are also
premised on the idea that donors were misled and they didn't
know what the funds were being used for, but The New York Times
publicly reported there's no donor that's come forward, as Mr.
Raskin said.
Based on your experience, is there anything different about
how SPLC is operating than any other nonprofit?
Ms. Wiley. Not that I'm aware of.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Ms. Wiley. This seems to be a
``Trumped-up'' case, literally, just to continue to prosecute
people who don't agree. I yield back.
Mr. Issa. The gentlelady yields back.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chair?
Mr. Issa. We now go to--
Mr. Raskin. I just have a UC request.
Mr. Issa. Of course.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much. First, is The Intercept,
``We Knew They Were Paying Informants. SPLC Donors Reject
Trump's DOJ Fraud Claims.'' Second, is a letter from the
Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, an nonprofits
together and 442 civil rights organizations rejecting the
criminal charges.'' Third, finally, unanimous consent to
introduce a statement from Trevor Potter, President of the
Campaign Legal Center, former Republican Chair of the FEC.
Mr. Issa. Without objection, so ordered. We now go to Mr.
Hunt for five minutes.
Mr. Hunt. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The talking point for the
Democrat hype today is that Jim Crow is alive and well in
America. I am sure that some of the SPLC's actions have helped
them make this argument.
My first question is for you, Ms. Swain. In the 2024
Presidential election, were you required to pay a poll tax
before you voted?
Ms. Swain. No.
Mr. Hunt. I have another question for you. When you went to
vote at the voting locations, were you intimidated in anyway
with baseball bats, fire hoses, or dogs?
Ms. Swain. The only thing that intimidated me is that in my
State, that you go in--if you have to ask for a Republican
ballot or a Democrat ballot. If you are in a precinct that's
predominantly Democrat, I think you would have a lot of fear.
Mr. Hunt. Thank you for answering that question, ma'am.
For my Democrat colleagues and everyone on the Left
screaming, ``Jim Crow 2.0,'' like I hear ad infinitum, let's
take a moment to revisit what actual Jim Crow was. Jim Crow was
a time when Black Americans could not sit in classrooms with
White Americans. It was colored-only water fountains. It was
beatings in the streets. It was lynchings. It was fear. It was
public humiliation.
My own father who grew up in the segregated South in New
Orleans had to walk around to the back of a restaurant just to
order a sandwich in the French Quarter of New Orleans because
of the color of his skin. That was Jim Crow. That is precisely
why it is so offensive to compare that era of legalized
discrimination and racial terror to showing a photo ID in a
voting booth. It is just as offensive when groups and
organizations like these manufacture faux hate and racial
tension.
Requiring identification to vote is not oppression. It is
not segregation. It is not racism. It is a basic standard that
applies equally to every single American citizen, regardless of
what you look like. You need an ID to board a plane. You need
an ID to cash a check. You need an ID to buy alcohol. You need
an ID to enter these very Federal buildings. By the way,
attaining an ID in this country is an extremely low bar.
Somehow, showing an ID to vote in America is now considered to
be Jim Crow 2.0. This is not about civil rights. This is about
political theater.
The Democrat Party survives on manufacturing grievance.
Democrats invoke the pain of the past because they have nothing
to offer for the present. They don't want an honest debate.
They want emotional manipulation. They want outrage. They want
division, as evidenced by our discussion in this very hearing
today. They want Americans to fight each other because chaos is
politically useful to them--words like ``racism,'' ``White
supremacy,'' and ``Jim Crow 2.0.''
For the purposes of elucidating my colleagues on the other
side of aisle, let's take a hard look at what real Jim Crow
was. Check out this one behind me. You see, this is Jim Crow.
This is what Democrats call Jim Crow. Next slide, please. See,
that is Jim Crow. For whatever reason, this is what Democrats
call Jim Crow.
Next slide, please. That is Jim Crow. This is what
Democrats call Jim Crow. I know that some of these images can
seem to be very jarring to many of us that haven't experienced
that. Over the course of the past 40 years of my lifetime, I
never saw these things. I never experienced them personally. I
have family members who have and who did.
That is why it is extraordinarily important for us to be
very, very careful with what we compare to Jim Crow, because
this country has come a very, very long way. I keep saying this
over and over, and over and over again, until I am blue in the
face. I represent a White majority district, along with three
of my other Black colleagues here in Congress.
You know what? Nobody cares about what we look like. We are
being judged not by the color of our skin, but by the content
of our character, because we have come a long way from this. I
don't want to go back to that. In fact, I want to continue on
the path that America has set forward in the name of Jesus
Christ. I want people to know that we don't need to be angry.
We don't need to be divided. We want equality for everyone.
Let me be crystal-clear. This is not 1960 anymore. It is
2026. The fact that groups like these are willing to stroke the
flames of hate by funding the KKK is absurd.
With that, I yield back the remainder of my time. Thank you
for being here.
Mr. Issa. I thank the gentleman, and he yields back. We now
go to the gentlelady from Pennsylvania, Ms. Scanlon.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. As we heard earlier, in
July 1983, the Ku Klux Klan firebombed the Southern Poverty Law
Center's offices in Montgomery, Alabama. The Klan carried out
its violent attack because the SPLC had stood up against it and
has continued to stand up against hate in the following
decades, whether it is racial and religious hate, hatred of
immigrants, or the LGBTQ community.
This melted clock, which was frozen in time by the KKK
fire-
bombing, still hangs in SPLC's headquarters as a reminder of
the very real dangerous of defending Americans' civil liberties
from hate.
How grotesque is it, given that history, that the Majority
has chosen to frame this hearing as an accusation that the
Southern Poverty Law Center itself is in the business of
manufacturing hate? With the increasing shamelessness of the
Trump Administration and its Congressional allies, none of us
should be surprised that they are desperately trying to
manufacture a reason to attack one of the organizations
standing up to their assault on American civil rights. They are
trying to turn back the clock and drag America backwards into
some of the darkest days of our past. What has changed is not
the Southern Poverty Law Center, but the 2205 way that this
Administration--with its embrace of White nationalist rhetoric
and groups--has decided to rewrite facts and history.
In the past year, we have seen pardons of Proud Boys and
Oath Keepers who orchestrated the violent January 6th attack;
the DOJ hiding from the public government research confirming
that Right-wing extremism poses the biggest domestic terrorism
threat to our Nation; the White House issuing NSPM 7 a
directive that the Department of Justice and IRS target Left-
leaning groups that the White House has declared--without
evidence--are a threat to our national security.
The Members of the Administration making repeated
statements that they intend to destroy nonprofit groups, like
the Southern Poverty Law Center, that are a threat to their
extremist agenda. This White House has engaged in a concerted
attack on the pillars of civil society that would ordinarily
hold it accountable--going after law firms, the courts, legacy
media, universities, organized religion, and even the Pope.
We can all see a corrupt DOJ leveraging its power to attack
the President's perceived enemies and protect his allies--
prosecuting those who have tried to hold the Administration
accountable; stealing taxpayer dollars to create a $1.8 slush
fund to make payoffs to Trump loyalists who have been convicted
of serious crimes, and giving Trump and his family a gold-
plated get-out-of-jail-free card with the settlement agreement
that the President's lawyer just signed.
The Department of Justice's blatant political prosecution
and this Committee's attacks against the Southern Poverty Law
Center signal the revival of an old authoritarian playbook to
vilify and discredit those working to combat hate and protect
people from oppression. It is part of this Administration's
whole-of-government attempt to shut down opposition to its
lawless behavior.
This Administration and its MAGA allies are trying to
rewrite facts and history, just as they have tried to whitewash
the violent January 6th assault on our Capitol and our
Constitution.
The facts have a way of being sticky. They get in the way
of lies. Americans have always sought to bend the arc of
history toward justice, to hold those in power accountable, and
to spur our country toward a more inclusive and perfect union.
We're not going to stop now. We are not going to allow
extremists and charlatans to turn back the clock and take our
civil rights and repression and put them asunder with hate.
Ms. Wiley, the DOJ's indictment targets SPLC itself rather
than individuals. Is the Administration's goal to take out the
organization, and why?
Ms. Wiley. Well, I certainly can't speak for the
Administration. That what is so concerning to us as a civil
rights community is that the Southern Poverty Law Center has
been attacked because it does work to ensure that Black voters
can vote; because it does work to show and ensure that fair
maps are drawn for places like Alabama and Louisiana, where,
yes, because we still have racial segregation in this country,
Black people have to be ``packed or cracked'' to take away the
opportunity for them to decide who can represent them that will
actually be accountable to them.
These are incredibly important for civil rights, but it's
also incredibly important for people's ability to have voice
and power, including to dissent and disagree with the policies
of this Administration.
Ms. Scanlon. Do you think that SPLC--
Mr. Issa. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Ms. Scanlon. --might have been targeted because it
published emails by Stephen Miller that were expressing White
nationalist sentiments?
Mr. Issa. The gentlelady may answer briefly.
Ms. Wiley. Possibly, yes.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Issa. Thank you. I now recognize myself.
Ms. Wiley, would you agree with the statement that Charlie
Kirk was a dangerous extremist?
Ms. Wiley. I can't answer the question that way. I can
certainly say that--
Mr. Issa. No, no--
Ms. Wiley. --statements that I am aware of that Mr. Kirk
made were ones that I would consider to be dangerous.
Mr. Issa. Would those be the ones that he took directly
from the Bible repeatedly?
Ms. Wiley. I'm referring to the ones that he made about
Black women and Black communities, the stereotyping that
stereotyped a whole group of people.
Mr. Issa. You would put him on a list of dangerous people
that should--as the Southern Poverty Law Center did?
Ms. Wiley. I don't designate groups. I'm just answering
your question.
Mr. Issa. Well, you have had opinions on everything the
Democrats asked for. I just thought you might have an opinion
on that.
Ms. Wiley. I shared my opinion about some of the things I
heard he said, yes.
Mr. Issa. Okay. Would you agree that a group could be good,
have a great mission, do a lot of good things, but also commit
crimes?
Ms. Wiley. Well, anything is possible. I think what we've
been talking about today is a specific organization.
Mr. Issa. Oh, no, no, it was kind of a yes or no, but --
Ms. Wiley. It's a specific organization. It's a specific
organization we're talking about, though, which is Southern
Poverty Law Center, and I think the thing is--
Mr. Issa. Your opinion is they can't commit crimes because
they do good?
Ms. Wiley. My opinion is that we see a prosecution where we
know that the Southern Poverty Law Center offered evidence and
is asking for accountability about whether that exculpatory
evidence was shown to a grand jury. That should concern all
Americans.
Mr. Issa. Okay. Mr. O'Neil, I'll ask you, essentially, the
same question. Would you say that Southern Poverty Law Center
does some good work, at least historically?
Mr. O'Neil. Yes.
Mr. Issa. Having looked at the evidence, would you say that
it appears to be overwhelmingly evidence of criminal activity?
Mr. O'Neil. I would direct audiences to page 10 of the
indictment, where there's a direct quote from an employee
saying, ``I certify that I am the sole owner of the above-named
proprietorship.'' This is a statement to a bank in December
2016.
Then, the statement from then-Chief Executive Officer of
Southern Poverty Law Center Margaret Huang, who said that,
``The accounts below listed were opened for the benefit of the
Southern Poverty Law Center operations and operated under the
Center's authority.''
Mr. Issa. Okay. What you have is actual evidence of bank
fraud?
Mr. O'Neil. I'd say it's black and white.
Mr. Issa. Okay. Well--
Mr. O'Neil. Long as the quotes from the indictment are
accurate, I have not seen--
Mr. Issa. Well, people will go to jail if it turns out
that, in fact, it was true, but they have indicated them. Both
sides are playing high risk, but it appears as though the
evidence is overwhelming.
Ms. Wiley, did you ever hear of the Jewish Defense League?
Are you familiar with them?
Ms. Wiley. I'm not familiar with them.
Mr. Issa. Okay. Anyone else familiar with them? You are?
Mr. O'Neil, you are familiar with them? They go back to the
days of New York City and going after, basically, White
supremacist groups, anti-Semitic groups.
Mr. O'Neil. Yes.
Mr. Issa. Would it surprise you to know that Irv Rubin and
Earl Krugel both went to prison for attempting to blow up my
office in 2001?
Mr. O'Neil. I was not aware of this, but it wouldn't
surprise me.
Mr. Issa. Yeah. Earl Krugel later died in prison. Earl
died--or Irv died before being tried, but the other was
convicted, and eventually, actually, confessed.
Mr. O'Neil. I'm so sorry to hear that.
Mr. Issa. Here's a group you know of. They have a history
of fighting anti-Semitism, something that has been mentioned on
the other side, and that, obviously, still exists in this
country, as does racism.
You can be a good group, and yet, you could have criminal
activity, and activity that flies in the face of what you say
you stand for.
Mr. O'Neil. Yes.
Mr. Issa. Ms. Wiley, I asked you that question for a
reason. Dr. Swain here has, in fact, a history of being falsely
accused, a history of being gone after. Mr. Perkins has given
these examples.
The other side has spent a lot of time here today trying to
tell us that it is all motivated because, somehow, we are
persecuting people in this Administration. Do you have any
evidence--not anecdotally, that, oh, they picked them--do you
have any evidence that, in fact, Southern Poverty did not, in
fact, commit these crimes? Do you have any firsthand evidence
of that? Yes or no, please.
Ms. Wiley. Well, the Southern Poverty Law Center has a
motion before the court right now which actually says that the
Department of Justice admitted that they knew that the banks
knew Southern Poverty Law Center owned the accounts. That is
evidence in the public record that will be tried in court.
Mr. Issa. Okay. I will look forward to that in trial. I
want to thank all the witnesses today for bringing out the fact
that we should, in fact--this Committee should be looking at
these not-for-profits and whether, in fact, they have deviated
from their mission.
With that, do we have--oh, you have another unanimous--
Mr. Raskin. Just a couple of UCs, yeah.
Mr. Issa. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you kindly, Mr. Chair. First, The
Guardian, ``U.S. Lawmakers Say DOJ Rushed Southern Poverty Law
Center Indictment, Citing Whistleblowers.''
Second, House Judiciary Democrats letter re: The targeting
of Southern Poverty Law Center, to Deputy Attorney General
Aakash Singh.
Mr. Issa. Without objection
Mr. Raskin. That's it for now.
Mr. Issa. Thank you. We now go to the lady from--the
gentlelady from Georgia for five minutes.
Ms. McBath. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for our
witnesses being here today.
My father was the President of the Illinois Chapter of the
NAACP for many, many years. As a child, I learned how to fight
for my rights before I even learned how to walk. I marched in
protests, sat in meetings, and helped to organize. I want
everyone in this room to understand what is happening right
now. The Republican Party has launched an all-out assault
against civil rights organizations founded to ensure the end of
Jim Crow.
That is just one part of their strategy. Three weeks ago,
the Supreme Court gutted Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in
Louisiana v. Callais, saying that--and I'm going to quote--
``Race-neutral considerations,` that it could employ race-
neutral considerations,' '' in redistricting. Within days,
Southern legislatures, they rushed to wipe out Black
representation in Congress.
Tennessee called an emergency session to repeal its own law
against mid-decade redistricting. It then splintered Memphis, a
city that is 60 percent Black, into three districts to dilute
the voices of the Black voters there.
The State's Black legislators protested, and in response,
the speaker stripped every single one of them of their
Committee assignments.
Tennessee is not alone in silencing Black voices. Alabama
moved to reinstate maps a court previously struck down for
intentional racial discrimination. Florida passed new racially
gerrymandered maps. We are waiting in my home State of Georgia
to see what happens with us on June 17th.
Ms. Wiley--and you can just answer yes or no--have you ever
seen five States move simultaneously to dismantle Black
representation in Congress in such a very rapid, short time?
Ms. Wiley. No.
Ms. McBath. While this Administration demands attacks on
Black Americans' voices with phone calls to governors, it is
fighting hard for the Right-wing extremist groups who stormed
the Capitol on January 6th--groups whose members are not all
White supremacists, but doesn't seem to mind White
supremacists.
Trump's DOJ has given $1.8 billion of a slush fund, taken
from taxpayers, to pay off the 1,600 Right-wing rioters who
tried to steal the election for him. That is one million for
each rioter with $100 million left over.
Ms. Wiley, what message does this send to the country that
this Administration is prosecuting the organization that takes
down White supremacists while stealing taxpayer money to give
to White supremacists?
Ms. Wiley. I wish I had a word, and I don't have a word for
that, except to say that the American public should be
outraged.
Ms. McBath. The Southern States are tripping over
themselves to eliminate Black representation in Congress; the
President is doling out reparations to White supremacists, and
DOJ has indicted the Southern Poverty Law Center, an
organization built to defend the rights of Americans--on
charges so flimsy that it would make Bull Connor and George
Wallace blush.
Americans deserve a voice in our democracy, representation
of their interests, and should not have to fight for their
basic civil rights again and again and again. Race should not
be a factor.
This is an attempt to roll back the progress made through
the Civil Rights Movement and strip Black Americans of their
voice and public life, using the same tactics as Southern
segregationist States following the death of Reconstruction for
the very same goal.
I am a child of the Civil Rights Movement. We have seen
this before. If we needed a reminder or a wake-up call that Jim
Crow is alive and evolved, these legislatures made sure that we
got the notice.
Ms. Wiley, would you like to expand on any previous
questions or statements that you weren't able to complete?
Ms. Wiley. I just want to remind us that the Federal
agencies, FBI, DEA, and AFT, spent over $548 million on
informants for a reason--because they thought it was going to
help them keep people safe.
We're talking about this attack on SPLC at a time when we
are facing an Administration that cut funds to prevent gun
violence; that cut funds to track where and how we might have
violent White supremacist, neo-Nazi attacks; that cuts funds
that was going to support public safety--all at a time when
we've seen a White House directing Department of Justice about
who it wants to prosecute. As someone who used to work for the
Department of Justice, that is unheard of.
Ms. McBath. Thank you. I yield.
Chair Jordan. [Presiding.] The gentlelady yields back. The
gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized.
Mr. Grothman. Yeah, just a couple of comments to lead off.
First, I would like to thank Congressman Hunt for his pictures
up here showing what it was like in the days in which the
Democrat Party just rode roughshod over the South.
I would like to point out that the criticisms of Stephen
Miller, to believe to this day are because of the role he took
in exposing the Duke lacrosse player hoax, in which three
people almost were sent to prison for life. Steve had the
braveness to stand up to the politically correct, and
eventually, those three people were found innocent after going
through absolute hell.
I also want to point out a book by Christopher Rufo called
``America's Culture Revolution: How the Radical Left Conquered
Everything.'' In that book, he clearly describes how a goal of
the hard-core Left--and I think some Members of this Committee
are Members of the hard-core Left--the degree to which they try
to racialize everything--not just racialize Black Americans,
but Hispanic, Asian Americans, everything; that their ultimate
goal is the end of the United States as we have a breakdown. It
should be mandatory reading.
When you talk about Joe Biden screaming about White
supremacy all the time, I think a lot of us must wonder, what
in the world was he talking about? What he is talking about is
he is trying to divide America on racial lines, which is really
just a horrible thing.
Finally, I don't have time to look into it. I know, if you
Google ``Ann Coulter'' and ``Proud Boys''--and Ann Coulter is a
many times The New York Times best-seller--you may get a
different version of the narrative we have had today on the
Proud Boys.
Okay. Now, we are going to start off with Mr. O'Neil. Given
the SPLC's long documented pattern of partisan activism,
financial misconduct--by the way, the financial misconduct by
itself is enough that nobody should ever be citing for
anything--and its recent Federal indictment for secretly
funneling millions of dollars to individuals tied to extremist
groups, how do you explain the continued willingness of major
press outlets to cite the SPLC as an authoritative source?
By the way, I think 12 years ago, 13 years ago, any
reasonably well-educated American would have known the SPLC was
just a disgusting and made-up group. I would think that any
newspaper, magazine, online magazine that cites them should be
considered totally discredited--anybody who has spent the last
12 years--but how do you, Mr. O'Neil, explain why so-called
major press outlets, at one time prestigious outlets, still
cite SPLC as an authoritative source?
Mr. O'Neil. It's because the SPLC positions itself as a
weapon of the Left by demonizing the sorts of conservatives
that many in the mainstream Left want to render irrelevant, and
therefore, it is a weapon, a reputational weapon, against
people who are inconvenient for the Left's narrative.
Mr. Grothman. Yeah. Go ahead, Mr. Perkins.
Mr. Perkins. Well, they leverage their relationship with
government to be able to do that with the media, and then, they
leverage the relationship with the government with the
corporations. That's how they were able to get the corporations
to de-bank and de-platform conservatives--because of that
relationship.
I go back to the illustration of the hub. They're at the
center of it, but they're not alone.
Mr. Grothman. Right. Yes?
Ms. Swain. I would also say that they leverage their
relationship with universities, especially law schools, because
of a lot of the law students will go and intern with the
Southern Poverty Law Center.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. Very good. It just still bugs me that
they go after Stephen Miller for finding those three lacrosse
guys innocent. Doesn't it just bug you? You know that is what
it is all about.
Well, we will go to Tony Perkins. Your organization has
falsely been labeled a hate group--to me, you are about the
most wholesome organization in the country--by SPLC for holding
Main Street and prolife, profamily positions. Man, they hate
those prolifers.
Given that this designation was cited by the perpetrator of
the 2012 attack, how do you assess the responsibility of the
organization?
Mr. Perkins. Well, again, we warned them to take down that
label. We've had subsequent attacks on people who have been
labeled by them, including the latest Charlie Kirk who was
assassinated.
There is culpability here. That we need to look at the--
going back to that government leverage that they've been using,
they should never have a relationship with a government entity
again.
Mr. Grothman. Right. They just hate Christianity, don't
they, just hate it? Dr. Swain, do you want to comment on that?
Would you like to comment? Oh, I'm sorry.
Chair Jordan. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from North Carolina.
Ms. Ross. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Just reminding
people that many of the roots of antiracism and civil rights in
the South came from the churches, very Christian people.
I suppose I need to remind some Members of this Committee
of the long and blood-soaked history of the Ku Klux Klan in
North Carolina--maybe even some of our witnesses. During
Reconstruction, the Klan lynched and assassinated countless
Black and White leaders who opposed them.
In the sixties, the Klan grew to more than 10,000 Members
in North Carolina, more than any other Southern State combined,
and they earned the nickname--and North Carolina earned the
nickname--``Klansville USA.'' Klan members in North Carolina
carried out coordinated terror campaigns, culminating in the
1979 Greensboro Massacre, where the Klan and their neo-Nazi
allies shot and killed five people who were protesting against
them.
The story doesn't end there. Only because of the bravery of
those who fought back against the Klan, like so many of our
Christian ministers, and the Southern Poverty Law Center, did
we see some change.
In the 1980s, the Southern Poverty Law Center launched Klan
Watch to monitor, track, and expose the activities of the Klan.
In 1987, the Southern Poverty Law Center won a groundbreak-
ing lawsuit, securing $7 million in a judgment against the
United Klans of America after their members lynched 19-year-old
student Michael Donald in Mobile six years earlier. I know that
Mr. Johnson talked about that.
Mercifully--mercifully--the judgment bankrupted the United
Klan of America. This verdict greatly weakened the Klan and
sent them scurrying underground, though, of course, we are
seeing many of them today. It didn't stamp out the last rotten
remnants of the Klan throughout the South, and those remnants
have been planting seeds that have been cultivated by this
President. That is why the continued work of the Southern
Poverty Law Center and its allies is so essential.
Now, Ms. Wiley, is paying for informants to disrupt a
violent White supremacist organization like the Klan the same
thing as supporting these groups?
Ms. Wiley. No, that's why I was citing the FBI's own use of
informants.
Ms. Ross. Actually, was there a book written about an
undercover agent by an undercover agent who infiltrated the
Klan, like maybe called Black Klansman? Could you tell us about
that?
Ms. Wiley. I haven't read the book, but it's a great movie.
Ms. Ross. It's a great movie. Given that the SPLC's
incredibly successful history of fighting the Klan and other
extremist groups, do you think the people who have been
consistently donating to the SPLC were surprised that the SPLC
was paying informants to monitor, report, and expose the
violent activities?
Ms. Wiley. Well, the only things we've heard in the public
sphere are donors saying that the SPLC did what they had hoped
donors would do, and we know from the public record that
they're continuing to try to give money to the SPLC to continue
its work.
Ms. Ross. I kind of hope this lawsuit, this specious
lawsuit, results in more contributions to the SPLC. Might be a
silver lining to the lawsuit and this ridiculous hearing. Even
the an amateur hour Trump lackeys at DOJ know that this is a
specious lawsuit. They don't believe these cynical charges.
They know it is wrong.
The SPLC is not funding the KKK or far-Right groups. The
SPLC is taking them down. At the same time, the President of
the United States is trying to use taxpayer money to fund
people who have assaulted police officers and tried to disrupt
the peaceful transfer of power.
We have to speak truth. We have got to tell the American
people what is going on, and that might be the only good thing
that comes out of this ridiculous hearing. Thank you, and I
yield back.
Chair Jordan. I'm not sure Leo thinks the hearing is
ridiculous, oh, actually, I'm pretty sure he thinks it doesn't.
Ms. McBath. Mr. Chair?
Chair Jordan. The gentlelady from Georgia is recognized.
Ms. McBath. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I have a
unanimous consent request.
First, I request unanimous consent to enter into the record
an article from April 15, 2025, titled, ``Justice Department
Moves to Toss Seditious Conspiracy Convictions of Oath Keepers
and Proud Boys.''
Second, I have is, ``Several Tennessee House Democrats
Stripped from Committees After Last Week's Special Session.''
Chair Jordan. Without objection.
Ms. McBath. Thank you.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized.
Mr. Van Drew. Thank you, Chair. I'm going to take the
gentlelady from North Carolina's advice and get to what I
believe is the truth here. I'm getting a little historic on
you.
Anybody ever heard of Machiavelli? Remember that, when you
learned that in school? When you can debate the exact wording
of what it means; you can debate the exact argument, but the
meaning is basic and it is simple, and it is as old as politics
itself.
If you believe, according to Machiavelli, that your cause
is important enough; that it is righteous enough; that you want
to obtain certain goals; and that it is urgent enough, there
are no rules, no morals, and no ethics. Truth becomes flexible
and there are no standards anymore.
People start telling themselves that anything is acceptable
if they can win, if the outcome is important enough to them.
This is about winning. This is about the Left-wing--I'm sorry--
but it is about the Left-wing Democratic Party wanting to win
and using the SPLC, using each other, as tools to make sure
that they win elections and put out misstatements.
We have to ask, when did it become part of the philosophy?
Well, in the last Administration, we remember, we saw a lot of
things--an FBI of lies, an FBI of untruths, an FBI of
injustice, and an FBI that Joe Biden was willing to rely on
politically tainted information, some of which came from the
SPLC--bad information. We know now that it was wrong; that it
wasn't true at multiple levels.
Attorney General Garland told us that the greatest threat
facing the entire country was domestic violent extremists. The
real threat, the great threat, a great threat to freedom, was
his own Department of Justice and his own FBI back then.
It was scary. If you had a different opinion--guess what,
folks? I'm not trying to address this to you, Ms. Wiley. I have
a right to be conservative. I have a right to a different
viewpoint.
There is not one human being up here that supports the Ku
Klux Klan; none of us like it. I bet you there's nobody in this
whole damned room that supports the Ku Klux Klan.
Catholics saw the clearest example of this. It was hateful.
It was harmful. They went after Roman Catholic churches. They
were going to have undercover agents. Thank God we found the
information. It would have been still going on.
They went after Hindus in my State of New Jersey--good,
faithful, peaceful, and loving people. The FBI went in with
guns drawn--from bad information that they got. SPLC supplied a
lot of this. The FBI painted them as domestic terrorists.
The same thing with parents in school board meetings that
were worried about the stuff their own biological children were
being taught. It is wrong. Catholics aren't extremists.
Concerned parents aren't extremists. Hindus aren't extremists.
We have seen the pattern before over and over again. We saw
it in the abuse of FISA. We saw when, by the way, tax dollars,
questionable sources, the FBI, and Igor Danchenko. Remember
that? Hundreds of thousands of dollars paid to him for bad
information.
We also got bad information from the Southern Poverty Law
Center--all for politics to go after Republicans. That is the
elephant in the room. That is what people don't want to talk
about, but that is the real deal.
If you were conservative--no, Charlie Kirk was not a
terrorist. He just sat and listened to what he said--you might
not agree with it--but he was just a very faithful conservative
person. It is his right.
Now, the worst of it, though, is that we find the Southern
Poverty Law Center is just one more tool. It started out good.
They wanted to do good things. There are still people in there
that want to do good things. It has been used in a way that is
perverse and awful to get political goals of a political party
accomplished--Machiavelli through and through. It is pretty
damned amazing.
People donated money, believing they were helping good
causes and helping vulnerable people. In the beginning, they
were. Nobody wants racism. Nobody up here in this room wants
racism. Nobody wants to hurt anybody. Nobody wants to hate
anybody.
The Southern Poverty Law Center and the work that they have
done in recent times has actually caused more hate, more hurt,
and more problems. They gave money to the KKK. I don't give a
hell how you approach it, what you say about it; it's a bad
thing.
I have just got some really quick questions, and I know I'm
running out of time. Mr. Perkins, should the Southern Poverty
Law Center have had such a high level of influence in Federal
agencies?
Mr. Perkins. No.
Mr. Van Drew. No. Mr. O'Neil?
Mr. O'Neil. No. In fact, with the FBI memo, the SPLC has
suggested that the catechism of the Catholic Church is itself a
hateful document.
Mr. Van Drew. Unbelievable. I'm a Roman Catholic. I resent
that, Ms. Wiley. I'm not a hateful person. I would never hurt
anybody. I resent that and so does a lot of Catholics, as a lot
of people of faith, they have a right to--
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chair, if we are going to run over time--
Mr. Van Drew. No.
Mr. Raskin. --can we talk about the President's attack on
the Pope?
Mr. Van Drew. How does an organization--
Mr. Raskin. Is that part of your presentation?
Mr. Van Drew. Last question, and then, I'm done. How does
an organization maintain credibility--
Chair Jordan. I have been very lenient--the time of the
gentleman from New Jersey controls the time. The gentleman can
ask his last question.
Mr. Van Drew. I'm losing my time here. How does an
organization maintain credibility as an authority on extremism
if there are serious concerns being raised about its own
extremism, its own judgment, and its own activities? Really
quick, Mr. O'Neil and Mr. Perkins. Dr. Swain, how do you--go.
Ms. Swain. I can say that they--by 2009, they had already
deviated and started targeting conservatives. I would say that
they were so effective at eliminating hate groups that they had
to find new people to label, new organizations. That's the
problem.
Mr. Van Drew. You're right. Go back to your original
mission. I have a few UCs.
Chair Jordan. Okay. We will do UCs, and then, I think--
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chair, a point of order, just so we are
clear. That was one minute over, as we moved into Ms. Balint's
time.
Chair Jordan. We have been very lenient with the time.
Mr. Raskin. I just want to make sure we are doing it
equally; that's all. Equal rights; that's all.
Chair Jordan. We are moving to UCs for Mr. Van Drew, UCs
from the gentlelady from Pennsylvania, and then, we are
actually going to go vote. Then, we will come back once votes
are completed.
The gentleman from New Jersey, a UC.
Mr. Van Drew. I have a UC from Moms for Liberty, and it is
entitled, ``The Justice Department Announced Indictment Against
Southern Poverty Law Center.''
A UC from Tyler O'Neil on 2026, ``Democrats Beclown
Themselves by Defending SPLC.''
Another one from Mr. O'Neil, ``However Bad You Think
Biden's DOJ Was, New Documents Show It was Even Worse.''
Chair Jordan. Without objection.
Mr. Van Drew. Thank you, Chair.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. The gentlelady
from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a unanimous
consent request to introduce an article from The Hill, dated
September 17, 2025, ``DOJ Quietly Removes Study Showing Right-
Wing Attacks Outpace Those by the Left.''
An article from The Washington Post, November 13, 2019,
``Leaked Stephen Miller Emails Show Trump's Point Man on
Immigration Promoted White Nationalism, SPLC Reports.''
The White House Issued the National Security Presidential
Memorandum 7, September 2025.
An article from The New Republic, April 2026, ``The Justice
Department Sides with the Ku Klux Klan.''
Chair Jordan. Without objection.
Mr. Raskin. I have two here. First, ``Massacre at
Pittsburgh Synagogue Tied to Anti-Refugee Sentiment.'' Second,
the article, ``Buffalo Shooter's Manifesto Promotes `Great
Replacement' Theory, Anti-Semitism.''
Chair Jordan. Without objection.
The Committee will be in recess for a short period of time.
The reason we have to leave now is I do know that there's one
15-minute vote, and then, the next five votes I think are two-
minute votes. I don't want to miss that. We are going to
recess. There's lunch for you in the back, and then, we will be
back as quickly as we can.
The Committee stands in recess.
[Recess.]
Chair Jordan. The Committee will be in order. The
gentlelady from the great State of California isrecognized for
five minutes.
Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I previously asked
in this Committee why the DOJ took down the NIJ's Journal
dedicated to domestic radicalization, violent extremism, and
terrorism. In that Journal, the DOJ research found that, since
1990, far-Right extremists have committed far more
ideologically motivated homicides than far-Left or radical
Islamist extremists.
In spite of those facts, we held two hearings in this
Committee committed to Islamophobia. Not a week later, yet
another act of deadly violence from the Right occurred at a
mosque in my home State.
Before I begin, I would like to respectfully ask our Chair,
Mr. Chair, will you commit to holding a hearing on the White
nationalists who violently shot at the mosque this week in San
Diego?
Chair Jordan. We will take that under the consideration. We
have a number of hearings scheduled and markups scheduled
coming up here in the next week. We are looking to deal with
something on Act Blue. We are looking to get the CEO of
Southern Poverty Law Center--
Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Mr. Chair, I'm going to reclaim my
time--
Chair Jordan. --but he wouldn't agree to come yet.
Ms. Kamlager-Dove. I'm going to reclaim my time from you,
and hope that this long thing turns into a yes.
Now, I would like to talk about an organization which is,
and has been, historically dedicated to stopping violence, the
Southern Poverty Law Center, whose informant program has helped
stop real acts of violence in this country.
SPLC shared intelligence gathered from informants directly
with law enforcement agencies, including the FBI and DOJ. That
information helped stop a neo-Nazi from obtaining a security
clearance and helped thwart a planned terrorist attack
targeting a synagogue and a LGBTQ bar in Las Vegas.
Mr. Tyler, if an organization helped stop a bomb attack, is
that good or bad?
Mr. O'Neil. Well, of course, it's good, but--
Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Okay. Thank you. No, because I don't
have a lot of time. Mr. Tyler, do you believe that law
enforcement should ignore credible intelligence about violent
extremist threats? Yes or no?
Mr. O'Neil. No.
Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Okay. Thank you.
Chair Jordan. The witness' name is Mr. O'Neil.
Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Oh, I apologize.
Mr. O'Neil. Thank you.
Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Because from where I sit, those answers
sound like public safety work. Yet, Republicans applauded when
Kash Patel severed the FBI's information-sharing relationship
with SPLC.
I cannot find a single instance where SPLC's cooperation
with law enforcement made Americans last less safe. Maybe the
real issue is simply SPLC has been effective at exposing
White supremacists and extremist organizations for
decades--organizations that Republicans either condone or deny
exist at all.
SPLC was founded during the Civil Rights Movement to fight
racial terror and organized hate in the South, and for over 50
years, it has sued violent White supremacist organizations,
monitored extremist groups, protected voting rights, and
defended vulnerable communities. SPLC bankrupted factions of
the KKK and fought racial intimidation campaigns.
Recently, they exposed abusive living conditions in
juvenile detention centers and filed suit against school
districts that failed to provide individualized services and
reasonable accommodations for disabled students. How is that
bad?
Let's talk about transparency for a moment. Republicans are
accusing SPLC is wrongdoing because it did not public disclose
donor-by-donor payout maps tied to confidential informants, but
nonprofits do not operate that way.
Are Turning Point USA or Moms for Liberty publishing donor-
by-donor payout audits? Because I can't seem to find them.
Somehow, Republicans want a completely different standard
applied here.
The hypocrisy becomes even more obvious when you look at
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. Mr. Blanche publicly
attacked SPLC over its confidential informant program, while
refusing to rule out taxpayer-funded payouts to January 6th
rioters, including individuals convicted of assaulting police
officers.
Why is secrecy suddenly unacceptable, when a civil rights
organization uses confidential informants to stop violent
extremism, but perfectly acceptable when this Administration
creates a $1.8 billion taxpayer-funded White reparations slush
fund? Why are Republicans attacking SPLC while refusing to
provide transparency about who could receive taxpayer-funded
payouts tied to January 6th insurrectionists?
This hearing has nothing to do with oversight and nothing
to do with public safety. It is about intimidating
organizations that challenge White supremacy, defend civil
rights, and refuse to bend the knee to this Administration. Mr.
Chair, as you know me, I have some--
Chair Jordan. UCs?
Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Yeah, there we go, my friend.
Chair Jordan. The gentlelady is recognized for unanimous
consent requests.
Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you. I ask unanimous consent.
(1) An article entitled, ``Acting Attorney General is
facing bipartisan criticism about the DOJ's so-called `anti-
weaponization fund,' '' May 19, 2026, Politico.
(2) An article entitled, ``What we know about the San
Diego mosque shooting victims, suspects, possible motive, and
more.''
(3) An article entitled, ``Multiple Republicans in
Congress post openly anti-Muslim statements.''
(4) An article entitled, ``The Second Wave: Return of the
Militias.''
(5) An article entitled, ``Pentagon tightens ban on
supremacist activity after years of denying problem.''
(6) An article entitled, ``SPLC DOJ lawsuit a `wake-up
call' to end Mississippi's school-to-prison pipeline.''
(7) An article entitled, ``SPLC report reveals the high
price of Florida's incarceration of black children.''
(8) An article entitled, ``Fifth Circuit rules against
unlawful debt collections targeting Hurricane Katrina
survivors.''
(9) An SPLC Report, ``Overcoming the Unprecedented
Southern Voters' Battle Against Voter Suppression,
Intimidation, and a Virus.''
(10) An article entitled, ``SPLC announces new campaign
`Poverty is Not a Line,' during Poverty Awareness Month.''
(11) An article entitled, ``How the threat of political
violence is transforming America.''
(12) The last one, ``Right-wing extremist violence is more
frequent and deadly than left-wing violence.''
Chair Jordan. Without objection.
Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I am looking
forward to getting additional information--
Chair Jordan. Yes, yes.
Ms. Kamlager-Dove. --on when that possible hearing can--
Chair Jordan. Just for the record, Republicans aren't upset
when the Southern Poverty Law Center labels racist
organizations ``racist.'' We're upset when they label nonracist
organizations, conservative organizations, ``racist,'' and we
are upset when they pay racists. That is why we are having the
hearing.
The gentleman from South--the gentlelady is recognized,
then the gentleman from South Carolina.
Ms. Hageman. Thank you. The 11-count indictment of the
Southern Poverty Law Center over wire fraud, false statements,
and conspiracy to commit money laundering states that, between
2014-2023, the SPLC covertly funneled more than $3 million in
donated funds to individuals who were associated with several
violent extremist groups, including the KKK, the National
Socialist Movement, and the National Socialist Party of
America.
Because the SPLC was instigating, rather than infiltrating,
these hate groups, donor money was seemingly being used to
create and prop up the very hate that SPLC claimed to be
fighting against. More hate means more money for the SPLC, and
this led to a transformation of this corrupt and divisive
group, moving toward a creator of hate within America.
There is a fundamental difference between Federal law
enforcement using paid informants and a nonprofit organization
lying to financial institutions to compensate people to foment
hate, racism, and anti-Semitism.
The SPLC's field sources were doing much more than
gathering information. For example, the indictment notes that
one field source, quote, ``made racist postings under the
supervision of the SPLC and helped coordinate transportation to
the Charlottesville event for several attendees.''
Mr. O'Neil, do you believe that SPLC's conduct crossed the
line from infiltrator to instigator?
Mr. O'Neil. Yes, based on the information in the
indictment.
Ms. Hageman. In response to the indictment, we also found
out that the SPLC was sharing information with law enforcement.
I have got concerns about that because of how biased the SPLC
obviously is, and the information that they were sharing with
law enforcement was also biased.
You can tell that by the questioning, or at least the
accusations that were just recently made, and even some of the
articles that were identified by the woman from California. The
articles themselves even accusing the folks this week of
committing a horrible act at the mosque out in San Diego. Their
own writings defy and disagree with what she was alleging over
there.
Individuals on the Right and Left have long recognized that
the SPLC is no longer the group that it was founded to be.
Mr. O'Neil, shouldn't we be concerned that our government
and law enforcement are accepting information from knowingly
biased sources?
Mr. O'Neil. Yes, we should be concerned that they were
receiving information specifically from a group that
systematically demonizes concerned parents, conservative
Christian groups, and even groups of LGB people who oppose the
sexualization of children.
Ms. Hageman. If the SPLC were instigating criminal action,
and then, reporting such information to law enforcement, would
that not raise even more legally dubious conflicts? Mr.
Perkins?
Mr. Perkins. It would. SPLC was kind of--it was like they
were hiring an arsonist to create a fire. Then, they were
calling the fire department and ratting out the arsonist that
they hired. Then, they wanted to get--
Ms. Hageman. Accusing someone else. Accusing someone else
of setting the fire.
Mr. Perkins. Well, but they also wanted to get Citizen of
the Year Award by calling in and turning in the arsonist that
they paid.
This is conspiracy that goes way behind just money. This
was about trying to demonize, silence, and completely eliminate
any opposition to the left, when it came to their agenda.
Ms. Hageman. That is what has played out today with the
questioning and your testimony.
Now, we are finding out that the SPLC was not only engaged
in this kind of behavior, but we have schools across the
country that have included SPLC information in their
curriculum.
Dr. Swain, what are the concerns that you have in that
regard?
Ms. Swain. I have that the SPLC's program ``Teaching
Tolerance'' is really intolerant. Many of the public and
private schools use their materials, and because they have so
many resources, they are able to get into the schools in a way
that is very dangerous, because they're all about
indoctrination of a very progressive agenda. That is my
concern.
Ms. Hageman. Okay. I appreciate that. I believe that this
program, that it is the ``Learning for Justice,'' is the
community education program that I am referring to. Mr. O'Neil,
do you have concerns about that program as well?
Mr. O'Neil. Yes. It's very telling, in my mind, that the
program that was long known as ``Teaching Tolerance,''
apparently, the SPLC has become too woke for tolerance. They
changed the name to nix the tolerance and just go with
``Learning for Justice.''
Ms. Hageman. Okay. All right. Interesting. Well, I'm just
about out of time. I also have a unanimous consent.
Chair Jordan. The gentlelady is recognized.
Ms. Hageman. This is an article from April 30, 2026, from
LifeZette News, ``The `both sides' political violence narrative
completely debunked: They cooked the books.''
An example being that all claims of anti-Semitism, they
claim are Right-wing or conservative attacks. We know that is
absolutely not the case. They do not count what happened on 9/
11, and there are many other examples in this particular
article where they have absolutely cooked the books; that they
claimed Left-wing violence is Right-wing, when we know that
this isn't true. They are even lying about that as well.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Chair Jordan. Without objection. The gentlelady also yields
back. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Vermont.
Ms. Balint. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This President and his
supporters in Congress want to turn the clock back. They are
trying to undo the progress of the Civil Rights Movement. That
is what this is all about.
This is about White nationalism and a direct attack on
Black Americans in this country, and it comes from the very
top. That is why we need groups like SPLC, because the
President is systematically taking us back to the darkest
chapters of American history. Rather than face accountability
from the voters, he is fully embracing authoritarianism. Sham
indictments against nonprofits are just one part of this plan.
President Trump, his captured Supreme Court, and
Republicans in this very room have supported attacks on law
firms involved in civil rights litigation, dismantling the
Federal civil rights offices, weaponizing the DOJ to baselessly
attack the President's enemies, gutting the Voting Rights Act.
This is an effort to criminalize dissent. We are witnessing
an intentional effort to intimidate any institution who will
stand up for our rights--the rights of Americans. It is an
intentional effort to silence Black voices and to undo our
multiracial democracy.
The Majority claims that the SPLC manufactures hate. Here's
the hard truth: There is no reason that the SPLC has to
manufacture hate in this country, because the Trump era has
supplied plenty of it. White supremacy, Christian nationalism,
violence against women, Right-wing extremism, and bigotry
against the LGBTQ community is flourishing.
The President just set up a corrupt slush fund to pay
people who took up arms against our own government. Right now,
hate is being cultivated, rewarded, and reinforced by those in
power.
Ms. Wiley, thank you for being here. How do these attacks
on SPLC, the Justice Department, and the civil rights of Black
Americans enforce--civil rights enforcement affect the civil
rights of Black Americans?
Ms. Wiley. Significantly. I just want to share one story we
haven't talked about. Because the reality is Charles Murrell,
III, a Black man in Boston, in 2022, was just walking down the
street. The Patriot Front attacked him. The Patriot Front is
listed on SPLC's Hate Map as a hate and extremist group. The
importance of calling it out is so that Charles Murrell, III,
can walk down the street and be safe.
At a time when we are talking about schools and education
and children, and what happens within them, we see a broadside
attack on even teaching history of slavery, history of the
Civil Rights Movement that took permission away from hate and
extremism and said:
This country, no matter your viewpoint, no matter your
religion, no matter who you vote for, and no matter what you
believe, is your country. That matters for all of us, and I say
every American should be concerned, no matter who you are, if
we Whitewash hate.
Ms. Balint. I couldn't agree more. Because we see every
day, when we turn on the news and we watch this President at
press conferences, the bigotry and the hatred is coming from
the top. It is a strategy; it is an electoral strategy, but it
is also a cultural one.
The way President Trump has routinely insulted and demeaned
women and people of color has permeated this country. When he
casually calls women reporters ``piggy'' and ``stupid'' and
mouths the word ``bitch'' at a Black reporter; when he calls
Haiti and African countries ``shithole nations''; when he
repeatedly and relentlessly spreads falsehoods about President
Obama's birth certificate, it spreads the hate.
As a former history teacher, I know there's going to be a
reckoning; there will. Our children and our grandchildren will
ask us where we stood; what we said; what we did, when we had
these microphones, when we had these platforms. They will ask
us if we bowed down to a tyrant, to a bigot, to a man who
spreads hate through his social media posts, through his
appearances at press conferences. They will ask us this.
I will tell you I know where I am. I'm standing with the
people and I'm standing with the Constitution. I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back. The gentleman
from South Caroline is recognized.
Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Hey, guys, I have a great
idea. In 2016, we raised $51 million. That is really good. We
can do better, right? We can do just a little bit better if we
just invest in the same thing that we are perpetuating--if we
perpetuate the same thing that we are fighting against.
Let's take, Mr. O'Neil, $3 million. Does that sound about
right? If we take that little bit of money and send it to
informants and White nationalist groups, we can--two-and-a-
half--we can double our money. Does that sound like a good
business model?
Mr. O'Neil. It is a deal for you. It is only $270 to that
particular Charlottesville informant.
Mr. Fry. Right. Let's--I think that is a good investment,
don't you? If a year from now--
Mr. O'Neil. Two hundred and seventy grand, and then--
Mr. Fry. If a year from now in 2027, we will see the fruits
of our labor. Is that kind of what happened?
Mr. O'Neil. According to the indictment--and I do need to
preface, ``according to the indictment,'' because I haven't
seen the underlying evidence. Of course, this will work out in
court. According to the indictment, that's exactly what
happened.
Mr. Fry. We take this organization, the Southern Poverty
Law Center, that has had, let's say, tremendous success decades
ago in eliminating racism in our country, in fixing laws, and
seen really a societal change in the way that we approach race,
in the way that we deal with race.
They were doing pretty good in 2016, maybe even before.
Isn't that just crazy? Ms. Hageman talked about this a second
ago. We are sitting in--we are perpetuating the problem and
funding the problem that we are eliminating, right?
This is a ``division for dollars'' racket. Is that a fair
characterization, at least according to the indictment?
Mr. O'Neil. Well, that's why I wrote this book in 2020,
years before the indictment. Because I saw it when they put
good people, like Tony Perkins' organization, the Family
Research Council, on the Hate Map. I've been screaming from the
rooftops about this for years. When the indictment comes out, I
say, yeah, that makes a lot of sense to me. I want to set a
few, if you don't mind, I want to set a few things straight.
The Southern Poverty Law Center wasn't founded until 1971.
A lot of people in this room have been saying that it's a civil
rights organization started in the middle of the Civil Rights
Movement. It started toward the end of it.
They were almost ambulance chasing. Forgive me on this, but
when they sued the Klan, their own lawyers said that suing the
Klan was like shooting fish in a barrel. Their own lawyers quit
because they said Morris Dees was so focused on suing the Klan
to make money by going to donors, because he knew donors cared
about this, that they were drifting away from their original
mission, which, by the way, wasn't fighting White supremacy,
but it was representing poor people in the South with legal
representation, which is a noble mission.
I pray to God that they turn every effort that they have
demonizing conservatives toward that effort, because that
effort is noble. By the way, groups on the Hate Map, good
conservative groups that provide legal representation to people
who can't afford it, are demonized by the SPLC for doing
exactly what the SPLC was founded--
Mr. Fry. Mr. Perkins, really quick, if the SPLC puts on
their Hate Map a neo-Nazi group--that is kind of their mission,
right? There's no objection to that, probably not. The
transparency actually helps to eliminate groups like that.
Would you agree?
Mr. Perkins. Yes.
Mr. Fry. You are on the same list as a neo-Nazi group, and
that is not really a fair characterization, is it?
Mr. Perkins. No.
Mr. Fry. The Moms for Liberty, too, their only crime is
being involved in their child's education, right?
Mr. Perkins. Right, being moms.
Mr. Fry. Being moms.
Mr. Perkins. Yeah. What they mean--
Mr. Fry. That is, apparently, a White supremacist thing,
right? Like I don't understand this logic.
We are taking an entity and using an idea that we are going
to go grow our influence. In the Biden Administration, in
government, they are going to meet with us on a quarterly
basis. We are going to go after people.
It became--and maybe this is fair to characterize--but the
SPLC went from maybe an altruistic entity at its inception--on
a good day--to really a racket of: Let's go grow our influence.
Let's balloon our fundraising.
What is their foundation right now, $700 million? Is it
fair to characterize the mission creep of the SPLC in that way,
sir?
Mr. Perkins. Congressman Fry, it's more insidious than
that. They needed the White supremacist groups, so that they
could marginalize and demonize moms and groups that adhere to
biblical teaching. They needed those groups.
That's why they're propping them up. This was not about
money. Charlottesville was about coalescing corporations behind
their initiative to marginalize and demonize conservatives, so
the Left could march forward. It's much more insidious than
what--this is like Al Capone. Does anybody believe that it was
just tax evasion? Come on, he was a criminal. He killed; he
murdered.
Mr. Fry. You use that to justify your existence. With that,
Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from
Florida is--shall we go on?
Mr. Raskin. No, I was just going to note they were 36
seconds over, and that Ms. Crockett needs to be catching her
plane. If she could go first--
Chair Jordan. The gentlelady from Texas, and then, we will
come to the gentleman from Florida.
Ms. Crockett. Well, well, well. It is so hard to sit here
and listen to this. That is one reason I watched the Majority
of this and didn't actually sit in this room, because I'm sure
my faces would have told everything that I was thinking.
Is there anyone that finds it odd--well, can we start here?
I'm going to start with the entire panel. Are the Proud Boys a
White supremacist organization, yes or no? Starting with Ms.
Wiley.
Ms. Wiley. It is my view they are.
Ms. Swain. It depends on how you define it. I have a book--
Ms. Crockett. Okay, never mind. Next.
Ms. Swain. It depends on how you define it.
Ms. Crockett. It's a yes or no.
Ms. Swain. Oh--
Ms. Crockett. Proud Boys, how they define themselves? Are
they White supremacists, yes or no?
Ms. Swain. I have not read a description of how they define
themselves.
Ms. Crockett. Okay, that's fine.
Mr. Perkins. I'm not on their mailing list. I don't know.
Ms. Crockett. Are you only on the mailing list of White
supremacists?
Mr. Perkins. No, I'm not like the SPLC; I don't fund
organizations that I'm--
Ms. Crockett. Oh, it just seemed like you were saying,
because you haven't received their mail, you only receive the
mail of White supremacists. Go ahead, the last witness.
Mr. O'Neil. No, they're not White supremacists.
Ms. Crockett. You know what? I do believe that you all
believe that. Let's try another one. Neo-Nazis? Ms. Wiley?
Ms. Wiley. Well, yes.
Ms. Crockett. Neo-Nazis. Nazis is in their name. Neo-Nazis,
Dr. Swain.
Ms. Swain. Is the question still about the Proud Boys, or
is it about the--
Ms. Crockett. Neo-Nazis: We have moved on--Neo-Nazis.
Ms. Swain. Neo-Nazis are hate groups, and I have a book
about hate groups.
Ms. Crockett. Okay. Thank you so much. We're going to hate
groups--
Ms. Swain. --that I suggest that you all read. It's a long
one--
Ms. Crockett. I'm reclaiming my time. I'm reclaiming my
time. Neo-Nazis, are they White supremacists?
Mr. Perkins. Neo-Nazis, are they White supremacists?
Ms. Crockett. Yes or no?
Mr. Perkins. What's that?
Ms. Crockett. Yes or no?
Mr. Perkins. They're certainly antisemitic, which I would
join with any Member of the Democratic Party. Mr. Nadler
earlier was talking about standing up for the Jewish people.
Ms. Crockett. Okay. Reclaiming my time. Thanks.
Mr. O'Neil. I'd be happy to do that. Yes, they're White
supremacists.
Ms. Crockett. Whoo, thank God. Jesus Christ.
Mr. O'Neil. Sure are.
Ms. Crockett. I didn't think we were going to get there.
Oh, my gosh. Let me be clear. Proud Boys are freaking White
supremacists. Neo-Nazis are, too. This President, who loves to
coddle White supremacists, has decided that they should be
given checks. The reason that I pointed to those particular
organizations is because you can go and read I don't know how
many articles, as Dr. Swain wants people to read up. I'm going
to be clear. I've read my fair share of books. I do have my
fair share of degrees.
It is clear that Neo-Nazis as well as Proud Boys joined in
on January 6th, yet this slush fund that they keep talking
about is specifically to give them money. How dare this
Majority sit here and try to lecture--try to lecture this
organization about money? Now, we're not talking about tax-
paying dollars as we are in that slush fund, but you're telling
me that $2 billion in the same country that I'm sure some of
y'all would struggle with whether or not the enslavement of
Black people was good or bad--I'm not even going to go there
and ask y'all the question because y'all struggle with defining
that these people were White supremacists.
This country still hasn't thought that reparations made
sense for Black folk in this country, but at the same time,
they've decided that people that are in organizations that are
absolutely White supremacy organizations should get our tax
dollars because they decided to tear apart or attempt to tear
apart our democracy. They are being rewarded. These are people
that went through our criminal justice system. When people on
that side of the aisle claim that they love law and order, they
went through it.
They either entered pleas of guilty or they were found
guilty, and this President, on day one, his priority was not
around racism. It was around doing things like letting them go
and now putting money in their pockets. We haven't had one
hearing on White supremacy, yet when we look at things like the
killing of Ahmaud Arbery, George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, the
nine worshipers who were murdered at the Mother Emanuel AME
Church, the 23 people murdered in 2019 during the shooting at
Walmart in El Paso, the 10 people murdered during the 2022
shooting at a grocery store in Buffalo, New York, all these
were murdered by White supremacists who are empowered by the
Republican Party's racist rhetoric and policies. This is the
same party that wants to drag us back to the Jim Crow era. Some
say that there aren't poll taxes, and I guess it's because
they're not listing the amount of money.
When you tell somebody that they've got to go and pay for
something, say like a passport that costs over $100 to be able
to vote, that looks like a poll tax to me. Some of y'all need
to read up on your history books, the very same ones that the
Republicans have decided that people should not hear about,
because you don't want real history taught in our schools
because you're afraid that it's going to hurt people's feelings
to know that their ancestors were so savage that they would
enslave Black folk. You don't want them to understand why the
14th Amendment mattered then, and it matters today. You don't
want them to understand that when they draw these racist lines
and tell Black folk that they shouldn't have representation in
this country--that it is against the Constitution.
Chair Jordan. Time of the--
Ms. Crockett. You want them to be ignorant?
Chair Jordan. Time of the--
Ms. Crockett. That they can sit up here and do your
talking.
Chair Jordan. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
Ms. Crockett. For your mission. I yield.
Chair Jordan. Well, you can't yield because you have run
out of time. It looks like the Ranking Member wants to make a
unanimous consent request.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chair, thank you. Walmart gunman attacked
El Paso because that's what his President was telling him, his
defense attorney says. I'd like to introduce that for the
record.
Chair Jordan. Without objection. Democrats would talk about
a slush fund. I would just point out, was it a slush fund when
Peter Strzok got $1.2 million from the Garland Justice
Department? Was it a slush fund when Lisa Page got $800,000?
Peter Strzok's the guy that said, ``I'm in the Northern
Virginia Walmart. I can smell the Trump supporters.'' The Biden
Justice Department gave him $1.2 million. The gentleman from
North Carolina is recognized.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ms. Wiley, I want to talk
to you about the Charles Morrell case that you mentioned
earlier. You said it happened where?
Ms. Wiley. Boston.
Mr. Bishop. In Boston?
Ms. Wiley. Massachusetts. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bishop. He was attacked by whom?
Ms. Wiley. The Patriot Front.
Mr. Bishop. The Patriot Front: The SPLC did not give the
Patriot Front any money, is that correct?
Ms. Wiley. I don't know.
Mr. Bishop. You don't know?
Ms. Wiley. No.
Mr. Bishop. How was he attacked? Pardon me, I'm just not
familiar with this case.
Ms. Wiley. The Patriot Front had a march that they were
engaged in without a permit, and he was attacked on the street.
Mr. Bishop. Was he killed or just assaulted or--
Ms. Wiley. I don't know that it matters if we're talking
about a hate crime which is what we're talking about.
Mr. Bishop. I'm just trying to get the details, ma'am, and
I'm leading up to this. Would you be willing to condemn the
local leaders efforts to defund the police? Because I agree
with you. We should have safe streets.
Ms. Wiley. I'm sorry. I'm not--what was the question?
Mr. Bishop. Will you condemn Boston's local leaders trying
to defund the police? They did that in their recent budget
proposal.
Ms. Wiley. I don't live in Boston. What I will say is this
was a hate crime.
Mr. Bishop. Do you think that defunding the police helps or
hurts public safety?
Ms. Wiley. The question that I was asked to come speak to--
Mr. Bishop. Mm-hmm.
Ms. Wiley. Was the rise of hate?
Mr. Bishop. Right.
Mr. Wiley. The critical importance of us addressing and
protecting civil rights, and as a public plan--
Mr. Bishop. Well, you said earlier that you respect Mr.
Morrell's right to a free street, so I'm asking you: Will you
condemn the local leaders efforts to defund the police?
Mr. Wiley. I will not make any comment about local
decisions in Boston.
Mr. Bishop. What about Mayor Wu's policy of offering
sanctuary to people here illegally, regardless of their
criminal history? Will you condemn that?
Mr. Wiley. No.
Mr. Bishop. It seems like your qualification on public
safety is very limited, correct?
Mr. Wiley. No, I'm just here--
Mr. Bishop. I think it is. I think it is.
Mr. Wiley. I'm just here on a hate crime.
Mr. Bishop. Well, let's talk about the hate crimes. In
terms of the neo-Nazis, I actually agree with just about every
word that Jerry Nadler said. I'm working on a bill to promote
safe places of worship, increase penalties for attacks on
worshipers, and neo-
Nazism is certainly on the rise. You would agree with that?
Mr. Wiley. I would.
Mr. Bishop. Antisemitism--attacks against Jews, Christians,
and members of other faiths--is on the rise.
Mr. Wiley. It is.
Mr. Bishop. Do you know why it's on the rise?
Mr. Wiley. Well, that's why we've been so concerned about
the cuts to grants and programs that are helping us understand
the rise and exactly why we have young men like we saw in San
Diego.
Mr. Bishop. Yeah.
Mr. Wiley. Murder three men at a mosque.
Mr. Bishop. Are you concerned at all?
Mr. Wiley. While we're concerned about the attacks on the
Southern Poverty Law Center, which is also seeking to help us
better understand the rise of--
Mr. Bishop. I agree--I agree. Do you find it at all
problematic that one of the leading candidates for United
States Senate proudly commissioned and displayed a Nazi tattoo
on his chest for almost 20 years? Does that concern you?
Mr. Wiley. I don't know who you're referring to. I would
only say that antisemitism, neo-Nazism, hate always concerns
me.
Mr. Bishop. Would you condemn that, and that candidate?
He's a United States Senate candidate who proudly wore a Nazi
tattoo right on his chest.
Mr. Wiley. Well, certainly I don't agree with any support
of neo-Nazism.
Mr. Bishop. Okay. Now, I'm detecting a little bit of--it
seems like--viewpoint and partisan bias from the SPLC. Mr.
Perkins, I want to talk to you a little bit about this. Do you
know why there is such fervent resistance or, I would say,
fervent hatred for traditional viewpoints, for Christians, for
people like yourself?
Mr. Perkins. I do because we have a fixed view of marriage,
of human sexuality--
Mr. Bishop. Mm-hmm.
Mr. Perkins. That stands in the way of the Left's
ideological push to transgender our children and to redefine
marriage. To shut us up, knock us off the media, defund us,
they have to label us alongside of these racist groups.
Mr. Bishop. Right. Right. Ms. Wiley, do you think that
biblical values are extreme?
Mr. Wiley. I don't even understand the question, sir. I'm
sorry.
Mr. Bishop. Very simple. Do you believe that biblical
values are extreme?
Mr. Wiley. I believe that people have the right--
Mr. Bishop. Sure.
Mr. Wiley. To have their beliefs, including their
interpretations of religion, whatever their religion is.
Mr. Bishop. Is Mr. Perkins belief in traditional biblical
values what brought him to the forefront of the SPLC's hate
group map?
Mr. Wiley. I can't speak for the SPLC's decision.
Mr. Bishop. You are today.
Mr. Wiley. I am here to speak about hate and bias, and what
I'm here to say is--
Mr. Bishop. Do you think that belief in biblical values
promotes hate and bias?
Mr. Wiley. That is way too broad a question to answer.
Mr. Bishop. Well, I'm asking because--
Mr. Wiley. What I'm very clear on is that we have a
Constitution that protects the--
Mr. Bishop. Sure.
Mr. Wiley. --First Amendment rights, including freedom of
religion. We support that as a civil rights community that
includes almost every faith and and an interfaith alliance.
Mr. Bishop. Yeah. Well, let me just stop you there. I know
Dr. Swain well. She's a scholar. She's independent. She's very
well thought out. Why was she listed as someone to be concerned
about?
Mr. Wiley. I'm here because we're talking about hate. I do
not engage in the designations--
Mr. Bishop. Is she a hateful person?
Mr. Wiley. I don't know her.
Mr. Bishop. You're on behalf of the SPLC.
Mr. Wiley. I'm on behalf of civil rights, the Leadership
Conference on Civil and Human Rights.
Mr. Bishop. Is she anticivil rights?
Mr. Wiley. I don't know her.
Mr. Bishop. Okay. Well, I'm over my time, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chair, can we just clarify Ms. Wiley's
organizational identification? There's some confusion here.
Chair Jordan. Yeah.
Mr. Wiley. I am the President and CEO of the Leadership
Conference on Civil and Human Rights, which is the Nation's
oldest and largest civil rights coalition of almost 250
national organizations.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman from Florida is recognized.
Mr. Moskowitz. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to go back
really quick to the questioning by Ms. Crockett, just because I
thought it was actually an easy line of questioning, and I want
to give everyone an opportunity just to clarify. Ms. Swain, the
neo-Nazis are a supremacist group, right? I know you talked
about your book, but--
Ms. Swain. May I--
Mr. Moskowitz. Neo-Nazis are a supremacist group.
Ms. Swain. May I define a White supremacist? Because I have
a Cambridge University Press book when I did my research, White
supremacists.
Mr. Moskowitz. Okay. Can you--but Ms. Swann, you're--I got
to ask, you're doing what the university professors did with
Elise Stefanik.
Ms. Swain. No, I'm telling you--
Mr. Moskowitz. Talking about, well, what's the definition
of this and what's the--
Ms. Swain. No, I'm giving you a definition--
Mr. Moskowitz. No, but.
Ms. Swain. Because you all don't have one.
Mr. Moskowitz. No, no, the neo-Nazis are a supremacist
group. They believe they're supreme, right? That's why they
wanted to put people in camps that they believed were not pure.
Neo-Nazis are a supremacist group, right? This is not a trick
question, Ms. Swann. I'm not trying to trip you up, and the
fact that you are--
Ms. Swain. I would like to define a White supremacist, and
when I did my research, it was White people who believed that
because of their race they were superior to other groups. The
Left redefined White supremacist so that it could include any
White person as well including you all.
Mr. Moskowitz. Okay, but Ms. Swann, Ms. Swann, that's a--
hold on. That's a wonderful speech and a filibuster.
Ms. Swain. No, it's true.
Mr. Moskowitz. Are neo-Nazis supremacists?
Ms. Swain. It depends on which ones. They are individuals.
Mr. Moskowitz. No, I didn't ask you--
Ms. Swain. Some of them--
Mr. Moskowitz. I didn't ask you which ones.
Ms. Swain. Some of them are plain old antisemites--
Mr. Moskowitz. Ms. Swain, listen--I'm not reading your book
if you literally can't answer this question. Are neo-Nazis
supremacists?
Ms. Swain. They're individuals. Some are, and some may be
just plain old antisemites.
Mr. Moskowitz. No. Neo-Nazis are antisemites, okay? We're
going to agree there.
Ms. Swain. Right. Okay.
Mr. Moskowitz. They're also supremacists, Ms. Swain.
Ms. Swain. Okay. If you agree--
Mr. Moskowitz. No--no--no. You don't have to take my word
for it, right? Like, they are. That's the whole reason they
exist.
Ms. Swain. You all don't seem to--
Mr. Moskowitz. Because they believe they are supreme.
Ms. Swain. You all don't seem to understand that a White
supremacist--
Mr. Moskowitz. Who are they all? I'm not a neo-Nazi. Who
are they all? I'm a regular person asking another regular
person--
Ms. Swain. Okay.
Mr. Moskowitz. If we can agree that neo-Nazis are
supremacists.
Ms. Swain. Okay. I will agree with you.
Mr. Moskowitz. Okay. I don't want you to be forced into it.
Ms. Swain. I would agree with you, but I suggest you all
take the time and read my Cambridge University Press book--
Mr. Moskowitz. Yeah. Listen, I--
Ms. Swain. --that was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize.
Mr. Moskowitz. Ms. Swain, listen. Dr. Swain, I can promise
you, there's no freaking way I'm buying your book when it took
two minutes for you to look at me and had to convince you
that--
Ms. Swain. Because I don't like the talking points that
Leftist--
Mr. Moskowitz. This is not a talking point. This is 100
years of history. Watch this. I'm going to show you how easy it
is. Mr. Perkins, are Neo-Nazis supremacists?
Mr. Perkins. They are supremacists.
Mr. Moskowitz. Thank you, sir. Mr. O'Neil.
Mr. O'Neil. Yes.
Mr. Moskowitz. Okay. Dr. Swain, that wasn't a trick
question for them. I wasn't trying to trip them up. I wasn't
using DNC talking points. This is part of the problem. I didn't
even want to do this, quite frankly, because I'm not interested
in making this stuff political, right? I got Democratic
candidates in Texas coming out yesterday and saying that Jews
belong in concentration camps again, okay?
Ms. Swain. It's terrible.
Mr. Moskowitz. Like, we're in real bad times.
Ms. Swain. I agree.
Mr. Moskowitz. If we put these hateful conversations in our
political box and we do the what about ism, this is just going
to continue to spread hate.
Ms. Swain. I agree with you 100 percent. We agree on that.
Mr. Moskowitz. Right. Right. That's why we have to be able
to at least agree to a simple set of facts: That neo-Nazis are
supremacists. Right? Okay. We've moved on. We've moved on.
You're there.
Ms. Swain. You all use White supremacists as a broad
statement.
Mr. Moskowitz. I didn't--I didn't --
Ms. Swain. That's not every White person.
Mr. Moskowitz. Listen, I didn't say anything other than
they're supremacists.
Ms. Swain. Okay.
Mr. Moskowitz. They are.
Ms. Swain. I apologize to you, sir.
Mr. Moskowitz. Okay. No, you don't have to apologize to me.
I just want you to understand, if we can't agree on a simple
set of facts, then we can't solve real problems. Mr. Chair,
this obviously was a specific topic that you had scheduled a
couple weeks ago and invited these witnesses in.
I got to be honest the last week, the amount of anti-
Semitic messages, voicemails, text messages I have gotten,
stuff on my social media, an assassination plot, a couple
months ago, someone serving 25 years in jail, and now watching
someone running for office trying to join the greatest
deliberative body ever created on this planet who thinks the
way forward for America is to look at 1940s Germany. Okay. My
grandmother was part of the Kindertransport out of Germany.
Her parents died at Auschwitz. My kids are not going to an
internment camp, I can assure you. It's becoming so normalized.
It is. We've gone from, oh, there's Americans who donate to
elected officials that are APAC. Then it's, okay, Netanyahu.
Then it's okay, maybe we shouldn't support foreign money. Then,
okay, now we're going to call these people Zionists. Now, we're
at concentration camps. By the way, we got to concentration
camps much faster than I thought we would get, but here we are.
It's real scary. People are scared. People don't want to show
their Jewish stars anymore. They're moving into neighborhoods
just to be around other Jews because they're concerned. One of
my Republican colleagues--I know I'm over, Mr. Chair, I'm going
to wrap it up.
One of my Republican colleagues asked: Do we know why it's
spreading hate? All sorts of hate, not just antisemitism. Why?
This is why it's spreading. It's all here. It's really here. Go
poll young kids versus seniors. It's a dramatic difference in
the amount of hate young kids have versus seniors. This is the
difference. You're seeing it in voting patterns. You're seeing
it in belief systems.
We've let foreign governments and bots just totally
weaponize this. No countries can beat us militarily. We're
stronger than everyone combined. They have gotten us fighting
among ourselves, dividing us, at each other's throats. You
asked me why things are so bad, just spend a couple minutes, go
to my Twitter, go look at some happy things, like Happy
Veterans Day or Happy Memorial Day that I posted, and look at
the hate I get. It is out of control. Mr. Chair, I appreciate
you doing this hearing in general, but hate--hate, real hate is
spreading in this country in ways that my grandparents--they're
gone, right? I can't imagine if they were alive to see what was
going on here. I yield back. Thank you for the extra time, Mr.
Chair.
Chair Jordan. Well, I appreciate what the gentleman said,
and one of the things I have personally made a commitment to do
is keep it out of our--party I belong to. I know you are doing
unbelievable amount of work trying to keep it out of your
party. The once great party of FDR and JFK, we're seeing things
there that are just not healthy for this great Nation. I'm
committed to doing everything I can to make sure it doesn't get
involved in the Republican Party. I appreciate your words
because it is scary. Very scary.
The gentleman from Missouri is recognized.
Mr. Onder. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, Mr. Chair, I have to
say I agree with a lot of what my colleague, Mr. Moskowitz just
said, a lot of the hatred and division is driven by social
media, by this, especially since COVID, and I believe our
foreign adversaries in many times are intervening, and I
believe the algorithms are driving our young people
particularly into more and more extreme views, and that's
sowing social division, and that is not good for anyone other
than our foreign adversaries. Mr. Chair, thank you for holding
this Committee. It is truly astounding to me the lengths to
which the Southern Poverty Law Center has gone to preserve its
relevance. It's telling that our second hearing about the
Southern Poverty Law Center, my Democratic colleagues have not
called someone from SPLC to defend themselves. In fact, the
previous Democrat witness, very similar to the witness today,
just over and over again. Well, I don't speak for the SPLC.
Well, why are you here then?
Look, an organization that was ostensibly committed to
advancing civil rights should strive to make its own
intervention less necessary by encouraging productive dialogue
and fostering equal treatment under the law, rather than
continually framing disagreements through the lens of racial
animosity. If the SPLC were serious about dismantling hate, it
would not be funding it, nor would it be engaging in conduct
that promotes division for institutional or political gain. Mr.
O'Neil, is it a common practice? You've written a lot about
nonprofit organizations or NGOs. Is it a common practice for
NGOs to channel money through intermediaries--entities in ways
that obscure the ultimate recipient or purpose of those funds?
Mr. O'Neil. Yes, to some degree. There is dark money
funding. This happens on both the Right and the Left.
Mr. Onder. Sure.
Mr. O'Neil. You have groups like 1630 Fund and the Tides
Foundation that seem set up to hide which donors are funding
which projects.
Mr. Onder. Okay. Are there legal or ethical issues with
this? This, I don't know, money laundering as well?
Mr. O'Neil. That's a complicated question.
Mr. Onder. Yeah.
Mr. O'Neil. It is not money laundering.
Mr. Onder. Yes.
Mr. O'Neil. There is a very important First Amendment right
established and upheld through NAACP v. Alabama, and most
recently AFP v. Bonta, that Americans have the right to give
to--
Mr. Onder. Yeah.
Mr. O'Neil. Causes they believe in.
Mr. Onder. Yeah.
Mr. O'Neil. That said, there are questions about this
cloaking of dark money.
Mr. Onder. Right.
Mr. O'Neil. What is not covered in this is lying to a bank.
Mr. Onder. Right.
Mr. O'Neil. By saying you established an account for one
purpose and then using it for another.
Mr. Onder. Yes. Okay. Does the SPLC reveal what the
criteria or metrics are to determine which organizations or
individuals are included in their hate map?
Mr. O'Neil. They claim to, yes. They have--
Mr. Onder. Because when I look--
Mr. O'Neil. Very weaselly language.
Mr. Onder. Yes.
Mr. O'Neil. They say when a group vilifies other people,
typically by their immutable characteristics, but they use the
word typically--
Mr. Onder. Yes.
Mr. O'Neil. Because they have anti-immigrant hate groups.
Mr. Onder. Yes.
Mr. O'Neil. Your immigration status is not an immutable
characteristic.
Mr. Onder. FAIR, Center for Immigration Studies--
Mr. O'Neil. Correct.
Mr. Onder. I've studied their work quite a bit, and all I
see is desire to enforce Federal immigration law, but somehow
that makes you a hate group. Well, let's go to someone right
here. Dr. Swain, are you an apologist for White supremacists?
Ms. Swain. I don't think so. I try to stand up for all
Americans. I believe in the Civil Rights Act and the Equal
Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. It applies to all
races, and in America, we should not be discriminating for or
against any group.
Mr. Onder. You have a dream that someday your young
children would be judged not by the color of their skin, but by
the quality of their character?
Ms. Swain. Yes.
Mr. Onder. I don't know. If someone says something like
that, they would be labeled a hate group by the SPLC maybe.
Ms. Swain. Probably.
Mr. Onder. Probably. I think you said it. You said it very,
very well, Dr. Swain, that rather than monitoring hate groups,
the Southern Poverty Law Center has become one.
Ms. Swain. That was 2009, and I had been a Democrat all my
life, and so at that time, I was about ready to make a
transition, but the--
Mr. Onder. That was 2009.
Ms. Swain. It was my observation--
Mr. Onder. Yes, 2009. In the last 17 years, has anything
changed your mind about SPLC?
Ms. Swain. Oh, I was ahead of my time.
Mr. Onder. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Chair Jordan. Yields back. Gentleman from New York. We go.
We go to--oh, okay. Sure. We'll go to the gentleman from
Wisconsin.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you, Chair. Mr. O'Neil, I wanted to
talk a little bit about this--the hate map concept, but isn't
it true Southern Poverty Law Center began as a public interest
law firm?
Mr. O'Neil. Correct.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Yeah. Actually, as a Member of the State
legislature, we had some issues in which Southern Poverty Law
Center had weighed in on. I was familiar with the group before
this latest set of issues made us kind of more aware of what's
going on internally. When did the organization start to kind of
stray from that original mission or that original course?
Mr. O'Neil. It strayed from that course in at least two
ways, in two time periods. The first was in the 1980s when the
lawyers all quit because they said that Morris Dees took the
organization in a direction of fighting the Klan instead of
representing poor people in the South. Then the more recent
time was really starting in the late 1990s, but ramping up by,
you know, 1,000 percent in 2010 when they had their hate map
and they started going after conservative organizations.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Let's talk about the hate map. First, can
you explain the hate map?
Mr. O'Neil. Yes. This is the SPLC is best known for suing
Klan groups into bankruptcy, and so they had a program called
Klanwatch. They expanded it to Hatewatch because they ran out
of grand dragons to slay. Not to say that White supremacy
doesn't exist anymore in America, there are some isolated
groups, but by and large, not enough to justify the sort of
money that the SPLC gets. They have this map that's supposed--
and in their words, they say it reveals the infrastructure
upholding White supremacy in America today.
This map now includes social conservative organizations
like the Family Research Council, Moms for Liberty. It includes
now Turning Point USA, PragerU. It includes Alliance Defending
Freedom. It includes the Center for Immigration Studies, the
Federation for American Immigration. I could just go down the
list. It also includes a group of LGB people who oppose
sexualized lessons for children in schools.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Is it--
Mr. O'Neil. They call that group an anti-LGBTQ hate group.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Is it too far to say there's no Left-wing
groups on the hate map?
Mr. O'Neil. There are a few Left-leaning groups on the hate
map, but nowhere. The overall bias is very clear against the
right. They don't have Antifa. They don't have Jane's Revenge.
They do have the New Black Panther Party, I believe, which they
always reference when they're asked this question. By and
large, the hate map is, well, not solely, but by and large,
targeted on conservative organizations.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Very good. Thank you. Mr. Perkins, do you
think the Southern Poverty Law Center is intentionally trying
to draw a distinction between you and these legitimate hate
groups? Do you think they're trying to maybe --
Mr. Perkins. They're trying to conflate--
Mr. Fitzgerald. Mold them? Yeah. Okay.
Mr. Perkins. They use those organizations to marginalize
and demean legitimate conservative Christian organizations.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Do you think they're purposely diverting
money from your organization and reducing your operations, or
do you think that's a target?
Mr. Perkins. That was a part of their broader conspiracy
with financial platforms and banks to debank us and other
organizations to keep us from being able to get funds from
donor-advised funds, yes. They're trying to bankrupt
conservative groups.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Can I ask you further? Did they have any
success in that adventure?
Mr. Perkins. Yes, they did.
Mr. Fitzgerald. That they launched? Okay. Okay. The last
thing I would say is, do you have a relationship with, if there
is,--with corporate donations? Is there any linkage between
what they were doing to suppress further corporate donations to
their organization or to you, either way?
Mr. Perkins. I think most of the work was with corporations
that had platforms or financial corporations that, like PayPal,
that would facilitate funding for conservative groups. Most
corporations were not giving to conservative groups directly,
they were intermediates. They were the vehicles through which
people would donate to conservative organizations.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Yeah. It wasn't about the ideology of the
corporation. It was more about how they facilitated the actual
Movement of funds.
Mr. Perkins. Correct. Well, I would say some of them
willingly went along. Others were pressured by the SPLC using
their government connections. Some in the tech world have
suggested that there were threats about regulate regulators
like in the banking industry.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Yeah.
Mr. Perkins. They used threats and bullying tactics.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you very much. Chair, I yield back.
Chair Jordan. Gentleman yields back. Jelani from
Pennsylvania is recognized.
Ms. Scanlon. Yes. I seek unanimous consent to introduce an
article from May 8, 2026 from the Intercept, which is entitled,
``Big Finance Might Be Dooming the SPLC Even Before Its Day in
Court,'' describing how some of these larger financial
institutions have been blocking donor-advised fund donations to
the SPLC.
Chair Jordan. Objection.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman from New York is recognized.
Mr. Goldman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The hate map--you don't
like it. I get it. The SPLC is not a government organization,
and we have the First Amendment, so they're free to put what
they want, and you, all of you, are free to speak out against
it and to explain why they're wrong. As I think of my
Republican colleagues, we believe in the First Amendment,
except, I guess, when it's critical of far-Right groups or
conservative groups who support these Republicans.
You are not free to use the government to criminally indict
an organization based on a completely bogus charge. I want to
dig into this indictment. On April 21st, hours after Acting
Attorney General Todd Blanche and the FBI Director Kash Patel
announced this indictment, Mr. Blanche went on Fox and said
this:
Mr. Blanche: No information that we have that suggests that
the money that they were paying to these informants and these
members of these organizations, they then turned around and
shared what they learned with law enforcement. To the contrary,
or else we would have known from their own words that they had
given this money to these guys, and we didn't know it.
Mr. Goldman. They had no idea that the SPLC was using
informants and providing information to the government. Five
days later, Mr. Blanche was forced to acknowledge that that was
a false statement. In fact, it was in a document filed by the
Department of Justice where he said it is true. He went on TV
and said, ``it is true that over the years they have
selectively shared information with law enforcement.''
That's well documented and there is no dispute, but they
aren't charged with any of that conduct. What the hell does
that mean they aren't charged with any of that conduct? The
entire premise of this fraud scheme is that SPLC was actually
using the money given by the donors to support the hate groups,
not to dismantle them as they represented. Any knowledge by the
government that the SPLC shared information with them to
dismantle these groups completely undermines and defeats the
fraud claim. There's plenty of evidence that the
The FBI knew that the information provided to them by the
SPLC to help the FBI dismantle these groups came from
informants. In fact, two weeks before the indictment, the SPLC
presented the US Attorney's office with evidence that showed
that they had been sharing information from informants with the
FBI dating back to 2018. Even Blanche's statement that none of
the information shared with the FBI was charged in the
indictment is false. It doesn't matter because that's not what
the fraud claim is, but it is false because the Charlottesville
Unite the Right movement is specifically mentioned in the
indictment. The indictment does not mention the 45-page report
that the SPLC sent to multiple FBI offices before the Unite the
Right event that included information from their informants.
Now, we've established that. Now, we know this fraud claim
is completely bogus, but it gets worse because it's not even
part of the allegations. In paragraph 19 of the indictment, it
explains the fraud scheme. It says that the SPLC represented to
the victim donors that their money would be used to help
dismantle violent extremist groups, but that they did not tell
those donors exactly how they would do that. It actually
charges fraud by omission, not representation--
misrepresentation. To have fraud by omission, you must prove
that the omission was material to the victims such that they
would have acted differently if they had known about it. There
isn't a single allegation in the indictment that any donor
would not have donated if they knew about the payments to
informants. In fact, everything we know is the opposite. Ms.
Wiley has pointed out repeatedly about how donors are trying to
continue to give.
That Intercept article that Ranking Member Raskin
introduced cites 20 donors who now say that they either knew
about the paid informants or they would have made their
donations anyway. What is this really about? It is weaponizing
and politicizing the Department of Justice, not any of your
groups, to quash and squash free speech, to muzzle people
that--because you are trying to protect far-Right
investigations who are huge supporters of the Republican Party.
They may not do any oversight into this indictment, but I
guarantee you, when we take the Majority back in January, we
will be doing that oversight, and they will be held
accountable. I yield back.
Chair Jordan. Chair yields back. Gentleman from Texas is
recognized.
Mr. Gill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks for holding this
hearing and thank you to the witnesses for taking the time to
be here and testify before us. We certainly really appreciate
that and appreciate your expertise. Ms. Wiley, I have a couple
questions for you. Do you still believe in defunding the
police?
Mr. Wiley. I believe in public safety, and that means
driving dollars to where we're most likely to prevent crimes
from happening and ensure that we have responsive law
enforcement that doesn't violate people's rights, and it
prevents crime.
Mr. Gill. Does that mean driving dollars away from law
enforcement?
Mr. Wiley. It means making sure we're driving dollars to
the things that support public safety.
Mr. Gill. Possibly away from law enforcement--
Mr. Wiley. That's a variety of things.
Mr. Gill. Possibly away from law enforcement.
Mr. Wiley. Well, I think we have law enforcement. We have
talked about the need for law enforcement, particularly when
we're fighting hate and biased crimes, which have--
Mr. Gill. I agree. We certainly do need lawn enforcement.
Mr. Wiley. More than doubled in this country since 2015.
Mr. Gill. Law enforcement is very important.
Mr. Wiley. I think I--
Mr. Gill. During your mayoral race a few years ago, you
said, quote, ``I'm going to take a billion dollars from New
York City Police Department.'' Do you still think that's a good
idea?
Mr. Wiley. Well, I'm here to talk about hate crimes, not my
run for city--
Mr. Gill. I'm just asking if that's--I'm asking from a
public--
Mr. Wiley. I stand by my run for mayor, and I appreciate
the opportunity--
Mr. Gill. You stand by that statement?
Mr. Wiley. To try to drive dollars to public safety.
Mr. Gill. You have to cut the police budget and change what
we mean by policing. Do you still stand by that statement as
well?
Mr. Wiley. I stand by the need to invest in community
safety, to ensure that we have--
Mr. Gill. By defunding the police--
Mr. Wiley. --a vibrant civil rights community that is able
to participate and keep our community safe.
Mr. Gill. I just want to be clear, you believe in--
Mr. Wiley. From hate and bias.
Mr. Gill. Investing in community safety by defunding the
police?
Mr. Wiley. I am here to say that I'm really grateful we
have the Southern Poverty Law Center, because it is doing work,
including with law enforcement--
Mr. Gill. You think defunding the police makes our
community safer?
Mr. Wiley. --to prevent hate and bias crimes.
Mr. Gill. Okay. I've got another question for you. What is
a Black job?
Mr. Wiley. You'd have to ask Donald Trump.
Mr. Gill. I'm not sure what that means. I'm referring to a
statement that you made a year ago on your LinkedIn:
I was so honored and proud to be a New York State delegate for
our next President with Vice President Kamala Harris ascending
to her Black job.
Mr. Wiley. Donald Trump made a comment that was very
stereotypical about Black people, and it was a joke about his
stereotypical statement about Black people.
Mr. Gill. What is a black job?
Mr. Wiley. You'll have to ask Donald Trump.
Mr. Gill. Have to. Well, Donald Trump's not on the witness
stand, so I'm asking you.
Mr. Wiley. Well, I'm here to talk about hate crime, which I
hope you want to talk about as well.
Mr. Gill. Could Hillary Clinton--
Chair Jordan. If you would, I can clarify that.
Mr. Gill. No, I'd like to hear from the witness, but I
appreciate it. Could Hillary Clinton have filled that Black
job, what you call a Black job?
Mr. Wiley. You'd have to ask Donald Trump.
Mr. Gill. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate it. Dr. Swain, I'd
got a couple questions for you. Thank you again for being here.
In your book, ``The New White Nationalism,'' which is
excellent, you wrote that in 2002 there were approximately
2,000 KKK members in the entire Nation. Sounds like you believe
a large portion of them were paid informants. Do you think that
the SPLC was involved back in 2002?
Ms. Swain. Well, there was a scholar named.
Mr. Gill. If you can turn the mic on, please.
Ms. Swain. There was a scholar named Laratt Wilcox that I
referenced, and he did research and he was very critical of the
Southern Poverty Law Center. He said at one point that there
were more paid informants than actually KKK members. I will
concede that the Southern Poverty Law Center was very
successful as far as bankrupting the neo-Nazis and the KKK. I
will concede that, but I will also argue that as early as 2009,
when I wrote the article that triggered the Southern Poverty
Law Center, at that time, the New Black Panther Party was
patrolling the polls in Philadelphia.
They were intimidating White people and they had sticks in
their hands, and the Southern Poverty Law Center had not
labeled them as a hate group. In the blog, where I ended with
instead of monitoring hate groups, the Southern Poverty Law
Center has become one, instead of labeling or listing the New
Black Panther Party, what they did, they went after Lou Dobbs,
and they went after the Center for Immigration Studies and
anyone who questioned liberal immigration policies.
Mr. Gill. Mm-hmm. We've got about 15-20 seconds left. Can
you? To sort of close this out, what are the dangers of paying
for these informants and extremist groups like the KKK?
Ms. Swain. You get biased information if you're paying
people for information, and one of the dangers for our society
is that the Southern Poverty Law Center has pretty much become
an arm of the Democratic Party. They are very partisan. They
should not have that 501 C3 status if they're going to take a
side in--if they're going to be biased in how they monitor
groups and how they destroy individuals like me.
Mr. Gill. Thank you, Dr. Swain.
Chair Jordan. Gentleman yields back. The gentleman from New
York recognized.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chair, could I just do one UC?
Chair Jordan. That's what I'm doing.
Mr. Raskin. Well, I think they both want it.
Chair Jordan. Okay, go ahead.
Mr. Raskin. Oh, so sorry. This is in direct answer to the
gentleman from Texas question. The New York Times, ``What's a
Black job? Trump's anti-immigration remarks are met with
derision.'' Trump accused immigrants of stealing Black jobs
during Thursday's debate, prompting criticism from Democrats
and other social media users. I'm glad to see that the
gentleman's on our side. Thank you very much.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman from New York is recognized.
Mr. Goldman. I have another unanimous consent motion.
Chair Jordan. Motion to enter.
Mr. Goldman. To enter into the record an April 17th, letter
from the attorneys for the SPLC four days before the
indictment, where the organization reminded him of his
obligation as a Federal prosecutor to inform the grand jury of
information that negates evidence of wrongdoing by SPLC, of
which there is much.
Chair Jordan. Without objection. Chair now recognizes
gentleman from Washington.
Mr. Baumgatner. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair, and our
distinguished panelists. I don't know what happened to the
Southern Poverty Law Center. I know growing up in the Inland
Northwest in Eastern Washington, I had some fond, at least
favorable, memories toward the Southern Poverty Law Center when
we had an Aryan Nations compound in the Coeur d'Alene area, and
it resonated with me that the SPLC had played a role in getting
those folks out of our communities, and it was generally viewed
on favorably. I don't know how it went from that organization
to what I think today could be accurately described as an
almost militant, weaponized arm of a progressive Marxist
political project here in the United States. I guess, Mr.
O'Neil--I'm sure you're familiar with the phrase jump the shark
in Happy Days --
Mr. O'Neil. Yeah.
Mr. Baumgatner. When Fonzie jumped over the shark, and
certainly the show went downhill from there.
Mr. O'Neil. Yeah.
Mr. Baumgatner. You spoke about the quest to start the
focus on raising money from SPLC, but how did this
organization, again, go from doing some good work against real
racists like the Aryan Nations to suddenly targeting people
trying to exercise their First Amendment rights and care about
kids like Moms for Liberty? Where is that process?
Mr. O'Neil. Yeah, The answer to that question is long and
complicated, and that's what my book was trying to do.
First, there was Morris Dees, who was a consummate
fundraiser, and he decided to take the SPLC in that suing the
Klan direction. The lawyers said it was like shooting fish in a
barrel. The real answer to your question, the substantive
answer, is that we've seen on the Left this ideological drift,
where it used to be that they would stand for your right to
disagree and speak openly, and now it is as though if you
disagree with anything that the Left says, you must be a vile,
racist hater. Like, this has always been a little bit of the
rhetoric, but it got supercharged after 2020. One of the
reasons why Moms for Liberty is on the hate map is because many
people on the Left seem to work themselves into a lather and
think that America is still systemically racist. Critical race
theory is so deeply--their idea of critical race theory is that
White supremacy is so deeply embedded in our institutions that
you have to have a fundamental revolution on a systemic basis;
otherwise, you are supporting White supremacy. That's the main
reason why the SPLC justifies calling conservatives the
infrastructure upholding White supremacy.
Mr. Baumgatner. Do you think the SPLC is interested in
racism being solved?
Mr. O'Neil. I don't have expertise on that particularly. I
wish I could say that I do believe that, but I don't know.
Mr. Baumgatner. Our colleague from Florida spoke very
passionately Congressman Moskowitz, about really concerning
rise in antisemitism. When we see these issues of hate that can
manifest themselves online in the social media sphere, often
with foreign actors--the area that I'm really concerned about
is the conspiracy theory mindset and this kind of derangement
in the fever swamps of the internet that can play upon these
things.
That's one of the reasons why what's happened to SPLC is so
concerning, because not only does their own activities of
funding these informants--so-called informants--using donations
to fund racism itself but just this whole project certainly is
laden with fervor for conspiracy theories. We really do need
some good think tank work, NGO work, and other work to focus on
this issue across the board of fighting conspiracy theory.
However it did happen, this jumping of the shark for SPLC
really did some part of your law center, really did--was a
detriment to society as a whole. I'll just close by saying
thank you to all the panelists, but for all the good work you
do: Ms. Swain, Mr. Perkins, Mr. O'Neil, and Ms. Wiley. With
that, Mr. Chair, I'll yield back.
Chair Jordan. Gentleman yields back. I want to thank our
witnesses for being here today, for their great testimony, and
I want to thank those members of the audience who are here with
us for the entire hearing, particularly Leo. Thank you. We
appreciate you all being here and what the Committee was able
to gather from your fine testimony. You, the witnesses, are
excused.
Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Mr. Chair, I'd like to offer an
unanimous consent.
Chair Jordan. The gentlelady is recognized. Thank you all
again.
Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have two that I
would like to enter into the record.
First, is from the Center for Economic and Policy Research,
January 26th, ``The Black jobs deficit cost Black Americans $87
billion in 2025 because of strong anti-Black bias in hiring.''
Second, I would like to enter into the record: June 24th,
Forbes, ``Black Americans respond to Trump's notion of Black
jobs.''
Chair Jordan. No objection.
Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chair Jordan. Gentleman, the Ranking Member's recognized
for a motion. I understand.
Mr. Raskin. Yes, Mr. Chair, thank you. Pursuant to Clause
2K6 of Rule 11, I hereby move to subpoena Acting Attorney
General Todd Blanche, Associate Attorney General Stanley
Woodward, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, IRS Chief Executive
Officer Frank Bisignano, Treasury Department General Counsel
Brian Morrissey to testify before the Committee at a hearing on
Donald Trump's nearly $1.8 billion slush fund to reward
insurrectionist rioters and other alleged victims of
weaponization.
Chair Jordan. Ranking Member's made a motion.
Mr. Kiley. Mr. Chair.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman from California is recognized.
Mr. Kiley. I move to lay the motion on the table.
Chair Jordan. Motion has been moved. There's been a motion
to move and put the motion on the table. The motion is
nondebatable. The question occurs on the motion to table. Those
in favor say aye, Aye. Those opposed, No.
[Chorus of aye.]
Chair Jordan. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have
it, and the motion is tabled.
Mr. Raskin. Can we have a recorded vote please, Mr. Chair?
Chair Jordan. Request for a recorded vote being asked for.
A recorded vote is requested. The clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Jordan.
Chair Jordan. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Jordan votes yes. Mr. Issa? Mr. Biggs? Mr.
McClintock? Mr. McClintock votes aye. Mr. Tiffany? Mr. Massie?
Mr. Roy? Mr. Fitzgerald? Mr. Fitzgerald votes aye. Mr. Cline?
Mr. Cline votes aye. Mr. Gooden? Mr. Gooden votes aye. Mr. Van
Drew? Mr. Nehls? Mr. Moore? Mr. Moore votes aye. Ms. Hageman?
Ms. Hageman. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Hageman votes aye. Ms. Lee? Mr. Hunt? Mr.
Fry? Mr. Kiley?
Mr. Kiley. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Kiley votes no. Mr. Grothman?
Mr. Grothman. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Grothman votes aye. Mr. Knott?
Mr. Knott. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Knott votes aye. Mr. Harris?
Mr. Harris. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Harris votes aye. Mr. Onder?
Mr. Onder. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Onder votes aye. Mr. Schmidt? Mr. Gill? Mr.
Gill votes aye. Mr. Baumgartner?
Mr. Baumgatner. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Baumgartner votes aye. Mr. Raskin?
Mr. Raskin. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Raskin votes no. Mr. Nadler? Ms. Lofgren?
Ms. Lofgren. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren votes no. Mr. Cohen? Mr. Johnson?
Mr. Johnson. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Johnson votes no. Mr. Lieu?
Mr. Lieu. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Lieu votes no. Ms. Jayapal?
Ms. Jayapal. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Jayapal votes no. Mr. Correa? Ms. Scanlon?
Ms. Scanlon. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Scanlon votes no. Mr. Neguse?
Mr. Neguse. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Neguse votes no. Ms. McBath? Ms. Ross?
Ms. Ross. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Ross votes no. Ms. Balint?
Ms. Balint. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Balint votes no. Mr. Garcia? Ms. Kamlager
Dove?
Ms. Kamlager Dove. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Kamlager Dove votes no. Mr. Moskowitz? Mr.
Goldman?
Mr. Goldman. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Goldman votes no. Ms. Crockett? Mr. Nadler?
Mr. Nadler. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Nadler votes no.
Mr. Biggs. Am I recorded?
The Clerk. Biggs? Mr. Biggs, you're not recorded.
Mr. Biggs. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Biggs votes aye.
Ms. McBath. I didn't realize we were going next.
The Clerk. Ms. McBath.
Ms. McBath. No.
The Clerk. Ms. McBath votes no.
Chair Jordan. Mr. Garcia and Mr. Correa. Mr. Garcia.
Mr. Garcia: No.
The Clerk. Mr. Garcia votes no.
Chair Jordan. Correa?
The Clerk. Mr. Correa.
Mr. Correa. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Correa votes no.
Chair Jordan. Moskowitz? Mr. Moskowitz, did you already
vote?
The Clerk. Mr. Moskowitz votes no. Mr. Schmidt, you're not
recorded.
Chair Jordan. Mr. Schmidt, you're not recorded.
The Clerk. Mr. Schmidt votes aye. Mr. Issa?
Mr. Issa. That'll be yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Issa votes yes. Mr. Van Drew?
Mr. Van Drew. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Van Drew votes yes. Mr. Fry, you're not
recorded.
Mr. Fry. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Fry votes aye.
Chair Jordan. Clerk will report.
The Clerk. Mr. Chair, there are 18 ayes and 17 nos.
Chair Jordan. The motion is tabled. That concludes today's
hearing. We thank our witnesses--well, the witnesses already
left. We thank them now again.
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.
[Whereupon, at 3:13 p.m., the Committee adjourned subject
to the call of the Chair.]
All materials submitted for the record by Members of the
Committee on the Judiciary can be found at: https://
docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=119311.
[all]