The enormous growth of anti-Israel activism in the West after the October 7 Massacre is usually discussed in terms of protests, campus encampments, social media campaigns and political organizing. Far less attention is paid to the financial and institutional infrastructure that allows movements to hire staff, organize nationally, conduct campaigns and translate activism into political influence. A detailed investigation places one organization at the center of that discussion: NEO Philanthropy, a New York-based public charity that describes itself as a philanthropic intermediary connecting major donors with grassroots social-justice organizations. NEO is a substantial institution. Its 2024 tax filings show revenues of approximately $169 million, expenses approaching $185 million and net assets of almost $165 million. Independent IRS-data analysis confirms those figures.
The report identifies financial relationships between NEO and several organizations that face allegations concerning Hamas or other terror and extremist connections, alongside an advocacy infrastructure capable of converting philanthropic money into political mobilization. This raises an important question extending well beyond Israel: how much scrutiny should philanthropic systems in the Western societies apply when enormous tax-advantaged funding networks intersect with organizations accused of proximity to terrorist or extremist movements?
NEO: More than a foundation
Understanding the issue requires understanding what NEO actually does. NEO self-describes itself as an intermediary between philanthropists and grassroots movements. Rather than simply writing checks from its own endowment, it manages collaborative funds, provides strategic partnerships and offers fiscal sponsorship to projects that may not possess their own independent nonprofit infrastructure. Under fiscal sponsorship, NEO can provide financial management, human resources, legal services and other institutional functions.
This model is legal and widely used throughout American philanthropy. It can allow small organizations to concentrate on their mission without building expensive administrative structures from scratch. But that same model gives intermediaries considerable influence. They can provide the organizational machinery through which comparatively small activist projects become sustainable national operations. NEO itself says its role goes beyond transactional grantmaking and includes leadership development, field building, risk management and other forms of capacity building designed to strengthen movements over time. This makes questions about who receives support particularly important.
Hamas & NEO’s money-for-martyrs fund
The Neuron investigation identifies several relationships it argues deserve closer scrutiny. According to the report, NEO gave Baitulmaal, a Texas-based humanitarian organization operating in Gaza and other Muslim-majority regions, $50,000 in 2024. The report cites allegations connecting figures associated with Baitulmaal to Hamas-linked charitable networks and notes allegations that money was channeled toward families of Palestinian “martyrs.”
Another $50,000 reportedly went to the Palestinian American Medical Association. The investigation points to PAMA’s relationships with other controversial organizations and individuals and alleges connections between some of those networks and Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
The question is not whether every organization several degrees removed from a problematic individual should automatically be condemned. It is whether philanthropic intermediaries handling hundreds of millions of dollars have sufficiently rigorous mechanisms for examining where their money ultimately goes, who their partners work with and what wider networks those relationships sustain.
Houthis & NEO’s anti-counterterrorism infrastructure
Perhaps the most significant part of the investigation concerns NEO’s role as an institutional platform rather than any individual grant. NEO fiscally sponsors the Charity & Security Network, which advocates for humanitarian organizations operating in areas where designated terrorist organizations are present. The network has opposed some counterterrorism measures, arguing that they could improperly restrict legitimate nonprofit activity. It opposed redesignating the Houthis as a Foreign Terrorist Organization in 2023 and criticized legislation that could remove tax-exempt status from nonprofits found to support terrorist organizations.
The wider pattern identified by the investigation deserves attention because it demonstrates how philanthropic funding can sustain not only organizations but also the policy and legal infrastructure surrounding contentious issues of terrorist financing and designation. This is no longer simply charity. It is political infrastructure.
Philanthropy vs Political Influence
NEO Philanthropy’s web extends beyond nonprofit activism and reaches deep into American electoral politics. It has a separate 501(c)(4), the NEO Philanthropy Action Fund, which engages in lobbying and election-related advocacy in the United States. According to reported financial data, that organization has handled millions of dollars annually, including approximately $9.5 million in revenue in 2024.
NEO has also fiscally sponsored MPower Change, founded by Linda Sarsour and others in 2016. The organization describes itself as a Muslim-American grassroots advocacy network and has received substantial foundation support through NEO. The Neuron notes that MPower Change subsequently supported Gaza campus protests and has participated in broader political mobilization around Israel.
The significance is structural. American political movements do not emerge solely because millions of people spontaneously decide to march, organize or pressure politicians. Successful movements require fundraising, staffing, communications, legal assistance, databases, training and institutional continuity. Philanthropic intermediaries can provide precisely that infrastructure.
NEO Obfuscation
There is nothing inherently wrong with philanthropy supporting political or social causes within the limits of the law. The difficulty arises when layers of intermediaries make it increasingly difficult for ordinary citizens to understand how money moves from major foundations through fiscal sponsors and collaborative funds into activist and extremist organizations and ultimately into political campaigns.
NEO’s scale makes this particularly important. Its revenues have grown from roughly $30 million in 2010 to approximately $169 million in 2024. This is not a marginal organization operating from the fringes of American civil society. It is part of a sophisticated philanthropic sector capable of moving substantial sums into grassroots movements while providing the administrative infrastructure necessary to make those movements more influential. The issue therefore deserves attention from regulators, journalists, donors and foundations themselves.
Conclusion: Scrutiny is Philanthropy
None of this requires assuming malicious intent by donors. Major foundations frequently provide grants through intermediaries precisely because those intermediaries possess expertise the original donor lacks. A foundation supporting civil rights, humanitarian relief or immigrant communities may have little knowledge of every organization several stages downstream. That is exactly why due diligence matters.
If organizations receiving philanthropic support have credible allegations surrounding extremist associations, donors should know. If money is passing through multiple organizations before reaching its ultimate destination, the funding chain should be sufficiently transparent to examine. If tax-advantaged charitable structures are helping build political movements, the public should understand where charitable activity ends and political advocacy begins.
These standards should apply equally to left-wing, right-wing, pro-Israel, anti-Israel, Christian, Muslim and secular organizations. Transparency is not ideological.
