New Report Exposes the Foreign Cash Behind ‘Extremist Climate Activist Movement’

Foreign donors have poured over $130 million into U.S.-based climate activist nonprofits, according to a new database tracking over $5 billion in foreign funding.

“Our database makes it clear foreign cash is bankrolling much of the extremist climate activist movement in America,” Caitlin Sutherland, executive director of Americans for Public Trust, told the Daily Signal. “Radical activist groups dedicated to undermining American energy dominance, like Energy Foundation China, Sierra Club, and League of Conservation Voters, are recipients of vast sums of foreign money.”

While the law prohibits foreign donations to political candidates, foreign donors can legally contribute to U.S. groups organized as tax-exempt entities under the IRS code. Many foreign foundations already disclose their funding to U.S.-based groups, but Americans for Public Trust claims that disclosure is inadequate.

The database, available at FollowForeignMoney.org, presents information from the annual reports of foreign foundations, involving 523 groups and 12,094 records. Most of the U.S. recipients of foreign funds advocate for causes on the Left. Americans for Public Trust filtered out traditional charitable causes, such as children’s hospitals and the Meals on Wheels Program, to focus on activism. It currently includes funding sources from Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands.

Foreign Funds for Climate Activism

The database shows more than $130 million in foreign funding going to climate activist groups based in the United States.

The Sierra Club, one of America’s oldest and largest environmental groups, began as a conservation-minded organization but has increasingly championed restrictions on traditional forms of energy, particularly fossil fuels. The Sierra Club received $50,000 from the Switzerland-based Berger Action Fund in 2014. It also received $1.8 million from the Swiss-based Wyss Foundation from 2004 to 2024. Hansjörg Wyss, a Swiss citizen who now lives in the U.S., set up both foundations. The Sierra Club also received $600,000 from the Swiss-based Oak Foundation in 2009.

TRENDING ARTICLES

news

Declassified Documents Reveal Democrats’, Deep State Targeting of Sessions in Russia Probe

Fred Lucas

opinion

Mamdani Blames E-Bike Sellers for Crisis He Refuses to Police

Jarrett Stepman

opinion

What the Situation on the Ground in Iran Actually Looks Like

Victor Davis Hanson

Environment America, another left-leaning climate activist nonprofit, received $1 million from the Oak Foundation in 2009. The foundation awarded the grant “to persuade the U.S. Congress and the president to pass a national cap on global warming pollution with a near-term cap of 35% by 2020 and long-term reductions of at least 80% by 2050.”

This grant appears to match the activist campaign supporting the American Clean Energy and Security Act, HR 2454, which failed in the Senate.

The League of Conservation Voters, another influential climate activist group, also received $28 million from Berger Action Fund from 2016 to 2024, according to the database. The league’s PAC, the League of Conservation Voters Education Fund, received $400,050 from the Oak Foundation in 2010 and $3.2 million from the Wyss Foundation from 2002 to 2024.

The Natural Resources Defense Council, one of America’s largest climate activist groups, received $472,708 from the Oak Foundation in 2014.

Energy Foundation China, a U.S.-based nonprofit that funds climate change projects and focuses on China, received $85 million from the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation, based in the United Kingdom, from 2014 to 2024. The foundation received $14.4 million from the Oak Foundation between 2012 and 2023. It received $4 million from the U.K.-based Quadrature Climate Foundation in 2022.

A Defense of Climate Activism

Environment America Executive Director Lisa Frank defended climate activism when reached for comment.

“America is blessed with abundant solar and wind power that shows up for free and doesn’t pollute,” she told the Daily Signal. “On the other hand, coal, oil and gas dirty our air and water, harm our health and worsen climate change. As Americans suffer from heat waves, fires, and floods, it’s clear we need to act on climate.”

Criticism

Foreign funding does not necessarily change the priorities or goals of climate activist groups. Even so, it may raise questions about the forces assisting the climate activist movement.

Critics claim that China benefits from climate activism in the U.S., and have pointed to ties between climate groups and Chinese entities. Climate activists say they work with China because China emits a large percentage of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions.

The conservative-leaning American Lands Council praised the Americans for Public Trust database.

“Americans for Public Trust has done a fantastic public service by amassing this database of foreign contributions to nonprofit groups,” American Lands Council Chairman Myron Ebell told the Daily Signal. “Climate and environmental groups have done tremendous damage to the economy by promoting policies that raise the price of energy.”

“This new database from Americans for Public Trust exposes what many of us have been warning about for years … namely, billions in foreign cash flooding U.S. nonprofits through gaping loopholes,” Craig Rucker, president of the free-market group Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, told the Daily Signal.

“These groups work overtime to kneecap U.S. oil, gas, and reliable energy while foreign adversaries and competitors smile,” Rucker said. “Americans deserve to know who’s really paying for the green agenda.”

Sutherland, the leader behind the database, called for Congress to prevent foreign funding for American nonprofits.

“We must close the loopholes that allow this money to flow into our system and influence U.S. policy and politics,” she said.

The Daily Signal reached out to Energy Foundation China, the Sierra Club, the League of Conservation Voters, and the Natural Resources Defense Council for comment, but did not receive responses by publication time.