Secret Funders Fuel Los Angeles Anti-ICE Riots

Written by James Whitaker.

A federal investigation has been launched to uncover the financial backers of violent anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) protests in Los Angeles, following reports that a California-based firm received substantial offers to orchestrate demonstrations. These events, which have disrupted major U.S. cities since June 2025, highlight the complex interplay of advocacy, funding, and civil unrest in the immigration debate.

Federal Probe into Protest Funding

The Department of Justice, in coordination with the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism, has initiated a comprehensive inquiry into the financing of anti-ICE riots that erupted in Los Angeles and other urban centers. The investigation was prompted by revelations from Crowds on Demand, a California company specializing in organizing paid protest groups. The firm disclosed that it received multiple high-budget proposals to participate in the Los Angeles demonstrations but declined, citing concerns over potential involvement in illegal activities such as vandalism and violence. The company emphasized its policy of engaging only in lawful, impactful advocacy for both liberal and conservative causes, underscoring the risks of associating with volatile protests where peaceful and violent actors are difficult to distinguish.

Senator Josh Hawley, a Republican from Missouri and chair of the subcommittee, has taken a leading role in the probe, sending formal letters to several organizations suspected of providing logistical and financial support to the protests. One primary target is the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA), a Los Angeles-based nonprofit with a long history of immigrant rights advocacy. Hawley’s correspondence accused CHIRLA of facilitating disruptive actions, asserting that such involvement constitutes aiding criminal conduct rather than protected speech. This investigation aims to trace the flow of funds and determine whether they were used to incite or sustain the unrest that has led to property damage, looting, and clashes with law enforcement.

CHIRLA’s Role and Funding Scrutiny

Founded in 1986 in response to the Immigration Reform and Control Act, CHIRLA has established itself as a prominent advocate for immigrant rights, offering legal services, community education, and rapid-response networks to counter ICE operations. The organization operates the Los Angeles Rapid Response Network, which mobilizes volunteers, lawyers, and activists to monitor and respond to immigration enforcement activities. Critics, including Hawley and California Representative Kevin Kiley, allege that CHIRLA’s real-time alerts about ICE operations enabled agitators to disrupt federal activities, sometimes violently. Kiley has pointed to CHIRLA’s history of supporting campaigns to abolish ICE, suggesting that its actions during the recent protests align with a broader anti-enforcement agenda.

Financial records indicate that CHIRLA has received significant public funding, including approximately $34 million in government grants between 2022 and 2023, with $750,000 from the Biden administration for citizenship education programs. Additionally, the organization has benefited from state grants, notably $3 million annually from California’s Department of Social Services for legal services related to deportation defense. These funds, critics argue, may have indirectly supported protest activities, particularly through CHIRLA’s “Warriors for Justice” program, backed by the Los Angeles Justice Fund, a public-private partnership. However, CHIRLA’s leadership, led by Executive Director Angelica Salas, has firmly denied any involvement in violent protests, emphasizing that the organization’s efforts are limited to peaceful advocacy and legal support for immigrant communities.

The scrutiny extends beyond CHIRLA to other groups, such as the Million Voter Project, which received a portion of state funds and has supported anti-ICE demonstrations. Allegations of political ties have also surfaced, with Kiley noting that CHIRLA contributed nearly $500,000 to campaigns opposing Governor Gavin Newsom’s recall, raising questions about potential conflicts of interest given the organization’s receipt of state funding. For professionals in public policy and governance, these financial connections highlight the challenges of ensuring transparency and accountability in nonprofit funding, particularly when advocacy intersects with civil unrest.

Context of the Los Angeles Protests

The anti-ICE protests in Los Angeles began on June 6, 2025, following a series of targeted ICE operations that detained over 40 individuals suspected of immigration violations. These enforcement actions, part of President Donald Trump’s broader immigration policy, sparked widespread outrage among immigrant rights advocates, who argue that the raids sow fear in communities and target individuals contributing positively to society. While most protests were peaceful, some escalated into riots, with reports of over 1,000 individuals surrounding a federal building, setting vehicles ablaze, and looting businesses in areas like Little Tokyo. The Los Angeles Police Department declared an unlawful assembly, and Mayor Karen Bass imposed a curfew to curb further violence, stating that looting and vandalism do not represent the immigrant rights movement.

The protests have drawn attention to the broader immigration debate, particularly the role of advocacy organizations in mobilizing communities. CHIRLA’s Rapid Response Network, for instance, uses hotlines and text alerts to inform immigrants and supporters of ICE activities, enabling rapid mobilization. While this system has been praised for protecting vulnerable individuals, critics argue it can be exploited to obstruct federal operations. The involvement of other groups, such as the Party for Socialism and Liberation, which has been linked to protest signage and has a history of radical activism, further complicates the narrative. For business leaders and community stakeholders, the unrest underscores the need for balanced policies that address immigration enforcement without inflaming tensions or disrupting local economies.

The scale of the protests has prompted significant federal and state responses. President Trump deployed 2,000 National Guard troops and hundreds of Marines to Los Angeles to restore order, a move that has drawn criticism for escalating tensions. Meanwhile, the arrests of prominent figures, such as Service Employees International Union (SEIU) California President David Huerta, who was detained for allegedly interfering with federal officers, have intensified accusations of targeted persecution against advocacy groups. These developments highlight the polarized nature of the immigration debate and the challenges of distinguishing between legitimate advocacy and actions that cross legal boundaries.

Our Take

The Department of Justice’s investigation into the funding of anti-ICE riots in Los Angeles reveals a troubling intersection of advocacy, public funding, and civil unrest. While organizations like CHIRLA play a vital role in supporting immigrant communities, the allegations of their involvement in disruptive protests warrant thorough scrutiny to ensure that public funds are not misused. The refusal of Crowds on Demand to participate in the protests, despite lucrative offers, suggests that the funding behind these events may originate from sources with less transparent motives, potentially exploiting genuine grievances for political or ideological ends. The escalation of peaceful protests into violence underscores the need for clear boundaries in advocacy work, particularly when rapid-response networks can be co-opted by agitators.

Policymakers and community leaders must address the root causes of unrest, including public distrust in immigration enforcement practices, while ensuring that advocacy groups operate within legal frameworks. The significant government funding received by CHIRLA and similar organizations necessitates greater oversight to prevent any perception of enabling unlawful activities. For professionals in law, governance, and community development, this episode serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between protecting free speech and maintaining public safety. Moving forward, fostering dialogue between stakeholders—government, advocacy groups, and communities—will be essential to prevent further escalation and promote policies that uphold both security and human rights.