Bombshell report shows foreign charities dumped billions into US political advocacy groups, ‘erode’ democracy’ – Fox News

Report on Foreign Charitable Contributions to U.S. Climate Advocacy and Their Intersection with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

1.0 Executive Summary

A recent report published by Americans for Public Trust details nearly $2 billion in donations from five foreign-based charitable foundations to various American non-profit and policy advocacy organizations. The recipient groups are primarily focused on activities related to climate change and political activism. This analysis examines the report’s findings through the framework of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), focusing on the implications for SDG 13 (Climate Action), SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions), and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals).

2.0 Profile of Donor Foundations and Financial Scope

The investigation identifies five key European charities as the source of the funds. The financial flows represent a significant international partnership aimed at influencing U.S. policy, a dynamic central to SDG 17.

• Quadrature Climate Foundation (United Kingdom)
• KR Foundation (Denmark)
• Oak Foundation (Switzerland)
• Laudes Foundation (Switzerland/Netherlands)
• Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (United Kingdom)

The Quadrature Climate Foundation is noted as the most substantial contributor, awarding approximately $520 million to 41 U.S. groups since 2020.

3.0 Analysis of Funded Activities and SDG Alignment

The financial contributions support a range of activities that, while permissible under federal law, are intended to shape U.S. policy and public discourse. These activities have direct relevance to several SDGs.

3.1 Advancing SDG 13 (Climate Action)

The primary stated purpose of the funding is to accelerate climate policy, directly aligning with the objectives of SDG 13. Funded activities include:

1. Lobbying efforts for environmental regulations.
2. Issue advertising and “get-out-the-vote” campaigns.
3. Support for climate-related litigation and legal research.
4. Organization of public protests and demonstrations.

3.2 Implications for SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions)

The report raises concerns regarding the potential for foreign funding to influence the integrity of domestic institutions, a core tenet of SDG 16. Two case studies are highlighted:

• Environmental Law Institute (ELI): This organization received $650,000 from the Oak Foundation. A portion of this funding supports its Climate Judiciary Project, which educates judges on climate litigation. This has raised questions about judicial impartiality and the principle of accountable institutions under SDG 16. ELI maintains its nonpartisan independence.
• Community Change: This group received $1.6 million from the Oak Foundation and served as a fiscal sponsor for organizations that led protests against federal law enforcement policies. This illustrates the use of foreign funds to influence civic action related to domestic governance and justice.

3.3 Intersection with SDG 14 (Life Below Water)

A specific grant from the Oak Foundation to the Environmental Law Institute for $300,000 was designated to support the creation of a toolkit for sustainable small-scale fisheries. This initiative directly contributes to the targets of SDG 14 by promoting legal frameworks for the conservation and sustainable use of marine resources.

4.0 Conclusion

The report documents a significant international financial partnership (SDG 17) aimed at influencing U.S. domestic policy. While these financial flows are directed toward activities intended to advance SDG 13 (Climate Action) and, in some cases, SDG 14 (Life Below Water), the methodology raises concerns about potential conflicts with SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). The findings underscore the complex relationship between global partnerships and the sovereignty of national democratic and judicial processes in the pursuit of sustainable development.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 13: Climate Action

  The article’s primary focus is on foreign funding directed towards U.S. nonprofits and advocacy groups concentrated on “climate change.” It explicitly mentions that the Quadrature Climate Foundation and other groups are funding efforts related to climate litigation, research, and policy, which directly connects to the goal of taking urgent action to combat climate change.

• SDG 14: Life Below Water

  A specific grant mentioned in the article directly relates to this goal. The Environmental Law Institute (ELI) received funding from the Oak Foundation “to support the drafting of a toolkit for sustainable small-scale fisheries.” This initiative aims to conserve and sustainably use marine resources, a core objective of SDG 14.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  The article raises significant concerns about the potential for foreign funding to undermine democratic processes and institutions. Statements like “Foreign money is coming in, and it’s trying to erode our democracy” and the focus on funding for lobbying, political activism, and the “Climate Judiciary Project” which “educate[s] judges,” all point to issues of institutional integrity, accountability, and transparent decision-making, which are central to SDG 16.

• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

  The mechanism described in the article—foreign charities partnering with and funding U.S. nonprofits—is a form of global partnership. The article details the financial flows between these entities, which is a key aspect of SDG 17’s focus on finance and multi-stakeholder partnerships. However, the article frames this partnership as potentially problematic, questioning its transparency and impact on national policy.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. SDG 13: Climate Action

   • Target 13.3: Improve education, awareness-raising and human and institutional capacity on climate change mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction and early warning.
     
     Explanation: The funding is directed towards groups engaged in “climate litigation, research, protests, lobbying,” and specifically to the Environmental Law Institute’s “Climate Judiciary Project,” which works to “educate judges on climate litigation.” These activities are explicitly aimed at building institutional and human capacity to advance climate-related policy and legal action.

2. SDG 14: Life Below Water

   • Target 14.b: Provide access for small-scale artisanal fishers to marine resources and markets.
     
     Explanation: The article states that a grant was given to “support the drafting of a toolkit for sustainable small-scale fisheries.” This toolkit “offers guidance on how to strengthen small scale fisheries through law,” directly aligning with the goal of supporting and providing access for small-scale fishers.

3. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.
     
     Explanation: The article’s central argument questions the accountability and transparency of U.S. institutions when influenced by foreign funding. The concern that this money is used for “lobbying” and to “educate judges” implies a potential threat to the impartiality and accountability of legislative and judicial bodies.
   • Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.
     
     Explanation: The article suggests that foreign-funded activism and lobbying could make decision-making processes less representative of domestic interests. The funding of protest groups like Free DC, which led “anti-Trump protests in Washington D.C.,” is presented as an example of foreign-backed efforts to influence the U.S. political landscape and decision-making.

4. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

   • Target 17.17: Encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships, building on the experience and resourcing strategies of partnerships.
     
     Explanation: The article details a large-scale civil society partnership between foreign charities (e.g., Oak Foundation, Quadrature Climate Foundation) and U.S. nonprofits (e.g., ELI, Community Change). The “resourcing strategy” is the core of the article, which tracks the “just shy of $2 billion” in donations.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Financial Flows as an Indicator

  The most prominent indicator implied throughout the article is the amount of financial resources mobilized for specific purposes. This can be applied to several targets:

  • For SDG 13 & 17: The article provides concrete financial data that can serve as an indicator. It states that “five foreign charities have donated just shy of $2 billion into various American nonprofits” for climate change and political activism. Specific amounts are also mentioned, such as “$520 million to 41 U.S. groups since 2020” from the Quadrature Climate Foundation and a “$650,000” grant to ELI. These figures directly measure the dollar value of financial commitments.
  • For SDG 16: The amount of foreign money directed towards politically sensitive activities serves as a proxy indicator for potential external influence. The article quantifies this by tracing “$1.6 million in foreign money” from the Oak Foundation to Community Change, a group involved in political protests.

• Development of Policy and Legal Frameworks as an Indicator

  This is implied in the context of SDG 14:

  • For SDG 14: The article mentions the creation of a “toolkit for sustainable small-scale fisheries” that “offers guidance on how to strengthen small scale fisheries through law.” The development and dissemination of this legal toolkit is a tangible output that can be used as an indicator of progress toward implementing legal frameworks to support small-scale fishers (Target 14.b).

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: foxnews.com