Washington, D.C. — A new report from The Independent exposes the Capital Research Center (CRC) as exactly what it is: a pay-to-play outfit for wealthy conservative donors that functions as a mouthpiece for the Trump administration’s crackdown on nonprofits, environmental groups, and perceived political enemies. CRC’s research has now been called into question across multiple fronts, from a Justice Department directive to investigate Open Society Foundations, to House Republican attacks on EPA climate grants, to four appearances in the congressional record since January 2025. The review found CRC has a “documented record of publishing material that [does] not hold up,” including a report that misdated a 2014 protest photo as evidence tied to the October 7, 2023 Hamas attacks.
Congressional Integrity Project Senior Adviser Jeremy Funk released the following statement:
“Capital Research Center just got exposed for the fraud that it is. Trump and his allies didn’t need real evidence to go after their political enemies, they just needed a group willing to manufacture it – and Scott Walter’s outfit was happy to cash their dark money checks and do the job. CRC is nothing more than a pay-to-play operation bankrolled by the biggest names in the conservative ecosphere, laundering their agenda into ‘findings’ the White House can puff up. Nonprofits and civil society groups shouldn’t have their fates decided by a partisan noise machine that can’t even get its own facts straight.”
Key points from the reporting:
- CRC’s research directly triggered a DOJ criminal probe directive. Days after CRC investigator Ryan Mauro said on The Glenn Beck Program that the group’s report on George Soros “should equip the Trump administration with what they need,” a lawyer in the deputy attorney general’s office instructed U.S. attorneys’ offices across the county to draft plans to investigate the Soros-founded Open Society Foundations network.
- The Independent’s review found CRC’s report doesn’t hold up. The Independent found that the report “did not show that the Soros network knowingly paid for grantees to break the law — the element legal experts said a criminal case would require — and did not establish that any group used Soros money to commit violence.” The closest link to a specific violent act it surfaced was a 2021 Instagram post about a peaceful protest, which a port spokesman described as “just a bunch of people holding signs.”
- The CRC report contained a documented factual error. It claimed Open Society Foundations grantees had “endorsed Hamas,” showcasing a photo purported to be a Hamas paraglider” from the October 7, 2023 attacks. The image was actually from a 2014 protest, and showed someone climbing a wall holding a Palestinian flag.
- CRC is a pay-to-play operation for conservative megadonors. The group is funded by Donors Trust, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the Bradley Foundation, and the Charles Koch Foundation, and was previously exposed for serving as fiscal sponsor for a Ginni Thomas-led group that collected nearly $600,000 in anonymous donations, donor cash flowing in, administration-friendly “research” flowing out.
- CRC’s reach extends well beyond the DOJ. Its research has been cited to justify freezing $20 billion in EPA green bank grants, a freeze that has already forced grantees to lay off staff, was footnoted in a House Science Committee letter attacking a $2 billion climate grantee, and has been entered into the congressional record at four separate hearings since January 2025 through Walter’s own testimony.
- The White House pipeline to CRC dates back to March 2025, when Walter began briefing senior officials, reportedly including deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, on Democratic donors and nonprofit groups to target, an effort that intensified after the September 2025 killing of Charlie Kirk.
- CRC’s credibility problem isn’t new. Its research has been called into question repeatedly over the years, including a 1990 anti-tobacco-lobbying study later used by the tobacco industry, work promoted in the debunked 2020 election film “2000 Mules,” whose creator later apologized after admitting the footage was based on “inaccurate information,” and years of climate coverage comparing scientific consensus to arguments once used to justify slavery and eugenics.
###