Questions about political legacy and financial transparency are back in the spotlight after new attention turned to a $2 million grant connected to the Obama Foundation and routed through the Tides Foundation. What began as funding for broadly framed goals—such as reducing youth violence and supporting community “safe spaces”—has now become part of a wider congressional inquiry into how large nonprofit funding networks operate and where their money ultimately lands.
At the center of the debate is the Tides Foundation’s role as a fiscal sponsor. Under this structure, major organizations can donate to Tides, which then distributes funds to smaller initiatives that operate under its nonprofit umbrella. Supporters say this system allows grassroots groups to function without the heavy administrative burden of running independent charities. Critics counter that it creates layers of separation that make public accountability difficult.
Lawmakers are now examining whether funding routed through large nonprofit hubs like Tides may have indirectly supported organizations involved in highly controversial campus activism during 2024 and 2025. Some of those protests—particularly those tied to Middle East politics—drew national attention for crossing from political expression into behavior widely criticized as hostile or discriminatory. Investigators are seeking to determine whether donor-advised structures unintentionally enabled such outcomes.
The Obama Foundation has stated that its intent was focused on domestic community safety and youth engagement, not political agitation. Still, critics argue that using large fiscal intermediaries introduces reputational risk, especially for organizations tied to former presidents. Even when grants are legal and compliant with IRS rules, the lack of visibility into downstream recipients can raise public concern.
Continue reading on next page…