WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department is investigating whether leaders in the Black Lives Matter movement defrauded donors who contributed tens of millions of dollars during racial justice protests in 2020, according to multiple sources.
This investigative surge has included subpoenas and search warrants for the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, which propelled a national dialogue on systemic racism. It is unclear if the inquiry will lead to criminal charges, but the existence of the investigation casts a shadow over a movement already criticized for its financial accountability.
The probing began under the Biden administration but appears to be gaining momentum amid the Trump administration's resurgence. This timing is particularly concerning for civil rights groups who fear targeting of progressive organizations.
Foundation representatives stated that they are not targets of the investigation, emphasizing their commitment to transparency and proper management of the $90 million raised amidst the outpouring of support following George Floyd's death.
Critics have accused the organization’s leaders of failing to adequately disclose how funds are spent, especially after reports emerged that they used donations to purchase a lavish $6 million property. Although they have published tax documents and committed to transparency, they have yet to quell public skepticism.
The investigation's scope, conducted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in California, arrives as divisions within the BLM movement have surfaced, amid increasing scrutiny about the financial landscape of multiple groups associated with it.
The BLM movement, first emerging from the tragedy of Trayvon Martin's death, has taken various forms over the years, with the recent financial criticisms showcasing the challenges it faces in maintaining public trust as it strives to advocate for social justice.
As the probe continues, the BLM foundation expresses its resolve to uphold its mission and restore faith among its supporters while navigating the complexities of institutional accountability.
