SPLC’s Informant Program – is Dangerously Unwise the Same as Unlawful?

By: Lauren Scribner

THE INDICTMENT

On April 21, 2026, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a nonprofit civil rights organization that works to “create a multiracial democracy” by “fight[ing] white supremacy and various forms of injustice”[1] was charged in an 11-count indictment[2] in the Middle District of Alabama.

The indictment alleges that the SPLC operated “a covert network of informants who were either associated with violent extremist groups . . . or who had infiltrated violent extremist groups at the SPLC’s direction.”[3] Such groups included the Ku Klux Klan, National Alliance, Unite the Right, United Klans of America, the National Socialist Movement, and the American Front.[4]  The indictment further alleges that in at least one case, the informant “made racist postings under the supervision of the SPLC and helped coordinate transportation to the [2017 “Unite the Right”] event for several attendees.”[5] The allegations in the indictment allege that the SPLC used information obtained by the informants in the contents of various SPLC publications, including the “Intelligence Report” magazine, “Hatewatch” blog, and “Intelligence Project Dispatch” monthly online publication.[6]

Between 2014 and 2023, the SPLC allegedly—and “clandestine[ly]”—paid these informants more than 3 million dollars.[7]

The scheme involved SPLC depositing funds in the name of various “fictious entities,” which “were never incorporated, had no bona fide employees, and conducted no actual business.”[8]  The funds were funneled to informants and therefore, DOJ contends, benefitted the extremist groups that the informants were infiltrating.

In total, the indictment charges six counts of wire fraud,[9] four counts of false statements,[10] and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering.[11]

THE ORGANIZATION

Initially founded in 1971 by Morris Dees, Joseph J. Levin Jr., and Julian Bond, the organization historically had undeniable relevance and credibility—most notably for filing civil suits seeking monetary damages for victims of violence suffered at the hands of the Ku Klux Klan.

The SPLC’s mission focuses on racial justice issues, such as strengthening voting rights, ending unjust imprisonment, eliminating economic equality, and dismantling white supremacy.[12] The organization relies on public and corporate donations to fund its legal services and advocacy efforts.

In response to the indictment, Bryan Fair, the SPLC’s interim CEO and president, stated that the organization is “outraged by the false allegations.”[13] He contended that “[t]he informant program was successful in accomplishing its purposes: Threats and attacks were prevented, criminal activity was stopped, and information was gathered to dismantle the efforts of hate and extremist groups.”[14] He emphasized that   “[t]aking on violent hate and extremist groups is among the most dangerous work there is, and . . . is also among the most important work [the organization does]. To be clear, this program saved lives.”[15]

On April 28, in response to the indictment, the SPLC filed motions seeking the full grand jury transcript and to prevent “further prejudicial statements” from being made in the media during the pendency of the case—namely, that the SPLC did not share the information obtained from informants with law enforcement.[16]^,[17]

IMPLICATIONS

Mr. Fair’s statements—that the nonprofit organization was carrying out “the most dangerous work there is”—leave no doubt that the SPLC’s use of informants was clearly reckless. The many risks associated with such informant use are obvious –

What if the informant lies?

What if the selected informant is particularly vulnerable to manipulation?

What if the informant is brought along to commit a crime?

What if the informant is physically harmed or is asked to harm someone else?

While law enforcement’s use of informants carries enforcement power, a private entity’s does not. And even with such enforcement power, law enforcement’s use of confidential informants has long been criticized, due to the risks involved and the informant’s obvious incentive “to provide information that officers find useful, true or not.”[18]

THE OUTCOME

But regardless of the risk, the reckless use of informants is ultimately not the stuff of wire fraud—and neither is failing to be upfront with donors about exactly where funds are going.

Indeed, under Ciminelli v. United States, 598 U.S. 306 (2023), merely withholding “valuable economic information needed to make discretionary economic decisions”—i.e. not informing a donor that funds are being used to infiltrate “violent extremist groups”—is not a basis for wire fraud liability under 18 U.S.C. § 1343.[19] In other words, because the SPLC had no legal duty to inform donors that their dollars were not being funneled to informants infiltrating violent extremist groups, it is hard to see how it could face a wire fraud conviction for failing to do so, irrespective of the irony that the SPLC solicited donations with the goal of “dismantling” such groups.

To be sure, the SPLC’s alleged lack of transparency with donors and decision to pay informants to infiltrate extremist groups certainly implicates moral and ethical issues—just maybe not issues that are subject to federal criminal jurisdiction.

[1] Southern Poverty Law Center, www.splcenter.org (last accessed Apr. 23, 2026).

[2] United States v. Southern Poverty Law Center, Inc., No. 2:26cr139 (M.D. Ala. Apr. 21, 2026) (Indictment).

[3] Id. at ¶8.

[4] Id. at ¶11.

[5] Id.

[6] Id. at ¶¶4-6, 11.

[7] Id. at ¶¶9-10.

[8] Id. at ¶14.

[9] Id. at ¶17.

[10] Id. at ¶24.

[11] Id. at ¶33.

[12] Racial Justice Issues, Southern Poverty Law Center, www.splcenter.org/racial-justice-issues/ (last accessed Apr. 23, 2026).

[13] Beitsch, Rebecca, DOJ charges Southern Poverty Law Center with fraud amid denials from civil rights group, The Hill (Apr. 21, 2026), https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5842266-justice-department-splc-indictment/ (last accessed Apr. 23, 2026).

[14] SPLC Files Motions Arguing Trump Administration Officials Made False Statements Related to Informant Program, Southern Poverty Law Center (Apr. 28, 2026), https://www.splcenter.org/presscenter/splc-motions-grand-jury-informant-program/ (last accessed: May 7, 2026).

[15] Beitsch, supra.

[16] Def.’s Mot. to Address the Gov’t’s Materially False Stmts, U.S. vs. Southern Poverty Law Ctr. at 2-3, 2:26cr139 (M.D. Ala. Apr. 28, 2026).

[17] SPLC Files Motions Arguing Trump Administration Officials Made False Statements Related to Informant Program, supra.

[18] See, e.g., Fernandez, Paige, The Use of ‘Confidential Informants’ Can Lead to Unnecessary and Excessive Police Violence, ACLU: News & Commentary (Sept. 21, 2019), https://www.aclu.org/news/criminal-law-reform/the-use-of-confidential-informants-can-lead-to-unnecessary-and-excessive-police-violence (last accessed Apr. 23, 2026); Two college drug busts, two different fates, CBS News: 60 Minutes Overtime (Dec. 6, 2015), https://www.cbsnews.com/news/two-college-drug-busts-two-different-fates-60-minutes-overtime/ (last accessed Apr. 23, 2026); Neal, Jeff, ‘Falling in love with your rat’: The criminal informant system in the US, Harvard Law Today (Nov. 18, 2022), https://hls.harvard.edu/today/falling-in-love-with-your-rat-the-criminal-informant-system-in-the-u-s/ (last accessed Apr. 23, 2026).

[19] See id. at 316 (“[T]he wire fraud statute reaches only traditional property interests. The right to valuable economic information needed to make discretionary economic decisions is not a traditional property interest.”).