Follow the Money: What CCDH’s Own Tax Returns Reveal About Who Pays for Censorship

A line-by-line reading of the Center for Countering Digital Hate’s IRS filings — and the matching UK Companies House records — exposes the financial architecture behind the speech-regulation campaign now at the center of Finn v. Global Engagement Center.

[Disclosure: The author is a named plaintiff in Finn v. Global Engagement Center (M.D. Fla., Case No. 3:25-cv-00543). This analysis draws entirely on primary-source documents: the Center for Countering Digital Hate’s own IRS Form 990 filings, UK Companies House filings for its British affiliate, and public court records.]

Sayer Ji@sayerjigmi

1/🚨 In November 2025, the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) signed an IRS form under penalty of perjury describing itself as a lobbying organization "advocating for change" at named tech platforms. Two months later, its lawyers told a federal court the same organization

1:36 PM · May 6, 2026 · 5 Views

---

1 Reply · 1 Like

In my last piece, I walked through the leaked emails Paul Thacker obtained showing CCDH’s CEO Imran Ahmed writing a British government minister’s agenda, co-chairing policy roundtables inside government buildings, and convening State Department, White House, congressional, and UN officials in Washington in the summer of 2024.¹ That evidence answered the what: CCDH was not lobbying the speech-regulation apparatus from outside. It was operating inside it.

This piece answers the who pays — and the answer is troubling enough that I think every American who has ever donated to a 501(c)(3) believing their dollar would stay inside the American civil-society ecosystem deserves to read it.

I spent several days going line by line through CCDH’s IRS Form 990 filings from 2021 through 2024, the most recent fiscal year available, posted by ProPublica on November 14, 2025.² I cross-referenced every cross-border financial disclosure against the UK Companies House filings for CCDH’s British affiliate.³ What emerges is a clean, documentable picture: a US 501(c)(3) public charity functioning as a tax-deductible funding pipeline for a UK private limited company founded by the man who would become Keir Starmer’s Downing Street Chief of Staff — and which has been growing dramatically in lockstep with the policy-coordination activity Thacker exposed.

Why the Cross-Border Pipeline Exists: The Upstream Funders, and What the Architecture Protects

Before walking through the structural evidence in CCDH’s tax filings, I want to situate this analysis within a body of upstream evidence that has accumulated over the past year and that, in my view, supplies the answer to the question every reader of this article is going to ask: why does this transnational financial pipeline exist in the first place?

The financial architecture documented in the rest of this article is not the whole story. It is one component — the structural-organizational component — of a larger architecture that I have documented elsewhere and that other journalists, including Paul Thacker, Matt Taibbi, and reporters at the Washington Free Beacon, have independently confirmed across the past two years. Two pieces of upstream evidence are essential context for everything that follows.

First, on the upstream funders. For most of CCDH’s existence, the question of who funds the organization has been substantially obscured by Schedule B donor confidentiality and by the routing of major contributions through donor-advised funds and fiscal sponsors that, by design, permit donor identities to remain undisclosed. That changed in November 2025. The Washington Free Beacon obtained and published documentation that the Open Society Foundations — George Soros’s flagship grant-making vehicle — directly awarded CCDH a $250,000 grant for fiscal year 2024.⁶⁶ Subsequent reporting, including my own analysis published on November 19, 2025, traced more than twenty additional dark-money backers through the Arabella Advisors network, the Sixteen Thirty Fund, seven anonymous Prism trusts, and donor-advised fund structures engineered for permanent opacity in domestic political operations.⁶⁷ These are not all of CCDH’s funders. They are the ones the public record now confirms — and they include the precise philanthropic networks whose financial interests in pandemic-related public-health policy CCDH’s own targeting campaigns have functioned to shield from public scrutiny.

Second, on what the architecture protects. The Center for Countering Digital Hate’s “Disinformation Dozen” report did not emerge from a vacuum. It emerged from a pre-existing rhetorical environment, established a year earlier, in which public discussion of specific named individuals’ financial involvement in pandemic-related investment vehicles had been preemptively designated as far-right extremism. In May 2020, the Institute for Strategic Dialogue — itself funded in part by the Gates Foundation and Open Society Foundations — published a report co-produced with BBC Click and NewsGuard declaring that public discussion of “Bill Gates, George Soros, the Rothschilds and Jeff Bezos” in connection with pandemic profiteering constituted unfounded far-right conspiracy theory.⁶⁸ The report listed 34 websites as “disinformation-hosting.” GreenMedInfo.com — the publication I founded — was on the list.

The federal exhibit record released through the Department of Justice’s Epstein file disclosures between 2024 and 2026 has since established that the very financial architecture ISD’s report declared off-limits for public discussion was, in fact, sitting in primary-source correspondence with specific Bates numbers. I have analyzed this record at length in my February 2, 2026 piece on the Gates–JPMorgan–Epstein vaccine fund architecture and in my February 18, 2026 analysis of the Edmond de Rothschild DOJ settlement.⁶⁹ Federal exhibits including EFTA01256269 and EFTA01835356 (the August 2011 Epstein–JPMorgan–Gates vaccine-fund correspondence) and EFTA00584904 (the October 2015 Southern Trust Company / Edmond de Rothschild Holding Letter of Agreement related to a $25 million U.S. government engagement) document financial arrangements whose existence ISD’s 2020 report had categorized as conspiracy thinking.⁷⁰ The most comprehensive synthesis I have published of how this upstream financial network connects to the suppression apparatus is in my February 22, 2026 piece, The Real Pandemic Profiteers.⁷¹

The asymmetry that explains the architecture. One piece of comparative evidence from that synthesis bears directly on the financial-pipeline analysis that follows in this article. In July 2020, Oxfam America published a detailed media briefing titled Pandemic Profits Exposed, drawing on SEC filings, Federal Reserve data, and FactSet earnings reports to document that 17 of the top 25 most profitable U.S. corporations were on track to earn nearly $85 billion in excess pandemic profits.⁷² The Oxfam analysis was treated as legitimate policy discourse. It was covered, cited, debated. No one was deplatformed for publishing it. Its proposed remedy was fiscal: an excess profits tax modeled on the World War II precedent.

Eleven months later, in June 2021, CCDH released its own profiteering report — Pandemic Profiteers: The Business of Anti-Vaxx — identifying $36 million in collective annual revenue among twelve named independent publishers, including this author.⁷³ CCDH’s proposed remedy was not regulation. It was removal: a public petition demanding permanent platform deplatforming.

The scale ratio is approximately 2,400 to 1. The remedies are inverse. The Oxfam target population — corporations earning tens of billions — was invited to contribute more to the system. The CCDH target population — independent publishers earning a fraction of a fraction of that amount — was told they had no place in it. The “profiteer” label was not applied based on the scale of profit. It was applied based on who was speaking and whether their speech served or threatened institutional consensus.

The financial architecture documented in the rest of this article is the structural backbone of the apparatus that enforced that asymmetry. The Schedule R cash transfers, the §501(h) lobbying election, the standing “Trigger EU & UK regulatory action” annual priority, the GAVI coordination layer, the cross-border legal services pipeline — all of these are the operational tools through which an upstream funder network whose members are now documented in federal exhibit records has translated its financial interest into public-discourse enforcement. The remainder of this piece walks through how that translation works, line by line, in CCDH’s own sworn IRS filings.

If you read only this article, you have the structural evidence. If you read it alongside The Real Pandemic Profiteers, you have the structural evidence and the upstream funder evidence. Together they form the documentary picture.

The Financial Architecture in One Paragraph

Here is the structure, in plain English. American donors give tax-deductible donations to Center for Countering Digital Hate, Inc. (EIN 86-2006080), a Washington, DC–based 501(c)(3) public charity recognized by the IRS in April 2021.⁴ That entity pays roughly a quarter of its annual expenses — $838,676 in 2024 alone — to a UK private limited company called Center for Countering Digital Hate Ltd (Companies House #11633127), under the accounting category of “resource sharing — consulting support.”⁵ The UK entity is not a charity. It was incorporated in October 2018 under the generic shell name “Brixton Endeavours Ltd” by Morgan McSweeney — who would go on to serve as Downing Street Chief of Staff under Prime Minister Keir Starmer from October 2024 until his resignation in February 2026.⁶ The UK board includes a sitting Conservative MP who co-authored the Online Safety Act, a former senior digital-policy civil servant, and (until July 2024) a Labour MP who is now a junior minister in the Starmer government.⁷

That is the architecture. Every claim in this article is footnoted to a primary-source document.

The 84% Revenue Surge of 2024

CCDH’s American 501(c)(3) had a breakout year in 2024. Total revenue jumped from $2.31 million in 2023 to $4.25 million in 2024 — an 84% year-over-year increase.⁸ To put that growth in context, here are the four years for which 990s are available:

Source: ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer, derived from IRS Form 990 filings.⁹

CCDH itself attributed its 2023 surge to the X Corp lawsuit, explaining on Schedule O of its FY 2023 return that the case generated “a record number of donations from the public and charities.”¹⁰ But the 2024 surge — substantially larger — has no such public explanation in the filing.

What it does have is a footprint of organizational maturation that suggests the increase was not simply popular fundraising. In 2024, CCDH:

• Filed Form 5768 to elect §501(h) lobbying status for the first time, formally registering as a lobbying organization with a defined dollar safe harbor of approximately $269,000 per year for direct legislative lobbying.¹¹

• Engaged its first independent financial audit. Schedule O states plainly: “CCDH had its financial statements audited for the first time for the year ended 2024.”¹² The years of intensive government-coordination activity — 2021, 2022, and 2023 — ran on unaudited books.

• Received a single $1,000,000 conditional grant that sits as deferred revenue on the balance sheet because the donor’s performance conditions had not yet been satisfied at year-end.¹³ In other words: a single donor, whose identity is on the IRS-redacted Schedule B, wrote a seven-figure check tied to specific work products CCDH was contractually obligated to deliver in 2025 and beyond.

These are the moves an organization makes when it has decided to scale, formalize, and accept money from institutional donors who write contracts. They are not the moves of a small civil-society nonprofit responding to grassroots demand.

The Cross-Border Cash Pipeline

The single most important disclosure in CCDH’s 2024 filing — and the one almost no one has noticed — sits on Schedule R, the related-organizations schedule. Part V, Line 1q reports that the US 501(c)(3) made one transaction with one related organization during the year:

”Reimbursement paid by related organization(s) for expenses: $838,676 in cash to CENTRE FOR COUNTERING DIGITAL HATE (London, UK).”¹⁴

That number has scaled steadily over four years, in a pattern that tracks the operational maturation of the broader campaign:

Sources: Schedule R filings for fiscal years 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024.¹⁵

The Schedule R figures reconcile against the UK side of the ledger. CCDH Ltd’s audited Companies House accounts for the year ended 31 December 2024 — filed September 29, 2025 and signed by board chair Simon Clark — disclose in their related-party note:

”The company charged a total management fee of £691,553 (2023: £455,708) to Center for Countering Digital Hate Inc (US) in the year. At the year end, the company was owed £196,393 (2023: £69,504) by Center for Countering Digital Hate Inc (US), a company which shares key management personnel.”¹⁶

At the average 2024 GBP/USD exchange rate, £691,553 equates to approximately $885,000 — within rounding of the $838,676 reported on the US Schedule R after fiscal-period and currency timing adjustments. The numbers are the same money, recorded from each side.

The Schedule O explanation of where that money goes describes it as “RESOURCE SHARING — CONSULTING SUPPORT: $1,247,458” — a figure CCDH categorizes entirely as program-service expense, not management or fundraising.¹⁷ At $1.25 million, this single line is the largest expense category on CCDH’s 2024 Form 990. It is more than three times the legal fees ($358,050), more than five times the executive compensation ($260,418), and represents 36.4% of total annual expenses.¹⁸

The “consulting support” accounting category and the “reimbursement to related organizations” Schedule R line are the same money described two different ways. The largest single expense category on the US 501(c)(3)’s books is paying its foreign affiliate.

The Affiliate Was Founded By a Future Downing Street Chief of Staff

Pull the Companies House record for CCDH Ltd and you will find the entity’s first public name was not Center for Countering Digital Hate. It was “Brixton Endeavours Ltd” — a generic shell-company name held from incorporation on 19 October 2018 until rebranding on 30 August 2019.¹⁹ During those eleven months the company was operationally dormant, with one person on its register of persons with significant control.

That person was Morgan James McSweeney. The Companies House persons-with-significant-control register lists him as having held “significant influence or control” over the entity from 19 October 2018 (incorporation day) until 19 September 2019 — at which point he was removed from the register and the company filed a statement saying it knows of “no registrable person or registrable relevant legal entity.”²⁰ The rebrand to “Center for Countering Digital Hate Ltd” followed eleven days later.

McSweeney resigned from the CCDH board entirely on 6 April 2020 — the exact period he began full-time work on Keir Starmer’s Labour leadership campaign.²¹ He led that campaign to victory, then directed Labour’s 2024 general election campaign, and was appointed Head of Political Strategy at 10 Downing Street in July 2024 before becoming Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister on Sue Gray’s resignation in October 2024.²² He resigned on 8 February 2026 — two days after Part 3 of my Epstein-files series traced the organizational lineage from Labour Together to CCDH.²³

Put plainly: the man who founded the shell company that now receives roughly a quarter of CCDH’s annual expenses — paid for by tax-deductible donations from American citizens — became, six years later, the most powerful unelected figure in the British government during precisely the period in which CCDH’s CEO was, per the Thacker documents, writing UK ministers’ agendas and convening US officials in Washington.²⁴

The Closed Circuit on the UK Board

McSweeney is not the only governance link worth noting. The current UK board of CCDH Ltd, per the Companies House officers register, includes:²⁵

• Damian Collins — Conservative MP, former Chair of the DCMS Select Committee (2016–2019), and a co-author of the parliamentary framework that became the UK Online Safety Act 2023. He sits on the board of the very organization whose research is repeatedly cited in support of the legislation he himself championed.

• Matthew Gould — former CEO of NHSX, former UK Ambassador to Israel (2010–2015), former Director-General for Digital and Media Policy at DCMS. A career senior civil servant whose digital-policy portfolio overlaps directly with the regulatory apparatus CCDH advocates expanding.

• Dr. David Rich — Director of Policy at the Community Security Trust, a UK organization with extensive coordination ties to British and international counter-extremism agencies.

• Imran Ahmed — also CEO of the US 501(c)(3). The “shares key management personnel” relationship the UK accounts disclose runs through Ahmed personally.

• Kirsty McNeill (until July 2024) — now a Labour MP and Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Starmer government. She resigned the CCDH board on 11 July 2024, three days after Labour took office.²⁶

A board comprising a sitting Conservative MP who co-wrote the relevant legislation, a former senior digital-policy civil servant, a counter-extremism advocate, the operating CEO who wears both hats, and (until they took office) a Labour MP, is not a board structured to provide independent civil-society oversight. It is a board structured for policy coordination.

Three Compliance Disclosures Worth Reading Carefully

I want to be precise here. None of what follows is a legal accusation. But every American who has ever filled out a Form 990 — or received one of the W-2 boxes that depend on accurate Form 990 reporting — should understand what positions CCDH has taken under penalty of perjury, and what those positions mean.

First, on Part IV, Question 14b of the FY 2024 Form 990, CCDH answered “No” to: ”Did the organization have aggregate revenues or expenses of more than $10,000 from grantmaking, fundraising, business, investment, and program service activities outside the United States, or aggregate foreign investments valued at $100,000 or more?”²⁷ A “Yes” answer would have triggered the requirement to complete Schedule F, which provides the IRS and the public with detailed disclosure of the foreign program activities being conducted. CCDH’s position appears to be that paying a related foreign entity to perform program services on its behalf does not constitute “program service activities outside the United States.” Reasonable people may disagree about that interpretation, but the practical effect is that no Schedule F is filed and the public has no detailed disclosure of what the $838,676 transferred to the UK actually purchased.

Second, on Part V, Question 4a, CCDH also answered “No” to having “an interest in, or a signature or other authority over, a financial account in a foreign country.”²⁸ This means the US entity is paying invoices into UK bank accounts that the US entity does not have signature authority over — a permissible structure if the management fees are arms-length, properly documented, and rendered for actual services. The $250,000-equivalent intercompany receivable disclosed on the UK side suggests there are also accruals between the entities that have not been settled.

Third, on Part IV, Question 35a, CCDH answered “No” to the question of whether it has a “controlled entity” within the meaning of Internal Revenue Code §512(b)(13).²⁹ The UK entity is therefore disclosed as related (Schedule R, Part II) but not as controlled. This is consequential: a controlled-entity finding would trigger additional disclosure obligations and tax consequences on the cross-border payments. Whether the relationship rises to control is a question that hinges on the specific governance documents — but given that the UK accounts themselves describe the two entities as “shar[ing] key management personnel,” and given that Imran Ahmed serves as a director of both, the question merits scrutiny it has not received.

CCDH has made consistent choices across multiple years to take the position requiring the least public disclosure of its cross-border arrangement.

The Mission Statement Versus the Program Statement

Form 990, Part I asks the organization to state its mission. CCDH’s filed answer:

”The Center for Countering Digital Hate’s (CCDH) mission is to protect human rights and civil liberties online through innovative research, public campaigns, and policy advocacy.”³⁰

Schedule O describes the organization’s primary program — at $2.6 million, the entire program-services budget — in different words:

”Social media and AI businesses cause harm to individuals and society through their design, their algorithms, and business decisions. CCDH holds platforms accountable by researching and publicizing their failures, educating the public, and advocating for change to protect our mental health, citizens’ lives, liberties and prosperity, and our precious democracy.”³¹

The asymmetry between those two framings is the heart of what Finn v. Global Engagement Center alleges [get more details of the case in the video link below]. An organization sincerely committed to “human rights and civil liberties online” would not have spent the past four years building the regulatory architecture that produced the platform-deplatforming actions targeting me, Dr. Christiane Northrup, Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, Dr. Ben Tapper, Rizza Islam, and Erin Elizabeth Finn — among many others.³² The Schedule O language describes what CCDH actually does: holds platforms accountable through research, education, and advocacy for change. That is advocacy work — entirely legitimate as a 501(c)(3) program — but it is not the civil-liberties protection the mission statement claims.

What CCDH’s Own Internal Records Reveal: Standing Annual Priorities, “Black Ops,” and a GAVI Coordination Layer

The financial architecture I have walked through above is the structure. Paul Thacker’s leaked policy correspondence is the coordination. A third body of evidence — leaked CCDH internal meeting minutes published in October 2024 by Thacker and Matt Taibbi at The DisInformation Chronicle — is the operational record: the day-by-day, week-by-week running internal documentation of how the organization deployed the resources documented in its 990 filings.⁵²

The leaked minutes cover monthly portfolio-planning meetings throughout 2024. The standing meeting template — the same template populated week after week by CCDH’s senior staff — lists the organization’s “Annual Priorities” as a fixed, persistent set of four items:⁵³

• Kill Musk’s Twitter • Advertising focus • Trigger EU & UK regulatory action • Progress towards change in USA and support for STAR

These are not aspirational mission-statement words. They are the standing operational priorities of a U.S.-tax-exempt 501(c)(3) public charity, written into the recurring template that frames every senior-staff meeting. “Trigger EU & UK regulatory action” appears verbatim as Annual Priority #3 in every single meeting record across 2024 — which is precisely the conduct the State Department’s certified administrative record in Ahmed v. Rubio identifies when it concludes that CCDH ”advocates for foreign regulatory action that extraterritorially impacts American citizens and companies.”⁵⁴

The minutes also document several specific operational findings that are independently consequential:

The “RFK black ops” line. The January 8, 2024 meeting record contains, in CCDH CEO Imran Ahmed’s own words: ”RFK – black ops being set up to look at RFK. Nervousness about the impact of him on the election. We may be asked to comment, particularly from antivaxx.”⁵⁵ Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is now Secretary of Health and Human Services. The internal record establishes that the CEO of a US 501(c)(3) public charity, in a recorded staff meeting, described his organization’s planned activity against the man who would become a U.S. cabinet secretary as “black ops.” That is the organization’s own characterization, not a critic’s.

The “60 meetings on the Hill” objective. The March 4, 2024 meeting agenda lists, alongside the report-launch and partnership items, an item simply titled ”60 meetings on the Hill - testing out.”⁵⁶ In the same document, on the same agenda page that reports the formal §501(h) lobbying election was eventually filed for the 2024 fiscal year, CCDH’s own internal record describes a programmatic Congressional outreach campaign measured in scheduled meetings on Capitol Hill. The Schedule C disclosure of $26,042 in “direct lobbying” expenditures sits awkwardly against an internal record describing 60 Congressional meetings as an organizational objective.

The GAVI coordination layer. The January 8, 2024 meeting record contains this disclosure under “Action Items”:

”GAVI Roundtables – SE: we told GAVI we would do roundtables. There will be 1-3 between now and March, bringing public health figures back into our public accountability asks. Because anti vaxx has fallen off the radar for many people, so we need to bring back.”⁵⁷

The February 19, 2024 meeting confirms execution: *”GAVI roundtable – first one on Weds this week.”*⁵⁸ This is documentary evidence that CCDH coordinated with GAVI — the Vaccine Alliance, a public-private global health partnership funded by sovereign governments and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation among others — specifically to “bring back” attacks on what CCDH internally categorizes as “antivaxx” voices. The strategic logic is stated explicitly: when the public salience of CCDH’s “anti-vax” framing fades, an external coordination partner is brought in to revive it.

This connection is not incidental. It establishes that the architecture documented elsewhere in this article — US 501(c)(3) → UK Ltd company → UK government → US executive branch → platforms → American citizens — has additional coordination nodes that the Schedule R disclosure does not capture. GAVI is not on CCDH’s Schedule R. It is not disclosed as a related organization or as a financial counterparty. But the internal meeting record establishes that it functions as a strategic-coordination partner in CCDH’s “public accountability asks” against the speakers CCDH targets.

The Schillings legal layer. The internal records reference the British defamation law firm Schillings as a routine operational layer at multiple points in 2024. The March 5, 2024 meeting notes: *”Antisemitism mini report - everything checked and referenced. Schillings are not so quick, so does introduce significant delays. Flagging that access to more/quicker legal resource would make a difference to our speed.”⁵⁹ The same meeting separately notes: ”MSI is with Schillings.”⁶⁰ Whatever else this evidence demonstrates, it establishes that CCDH’s outputs — the reports its motion to dismiss describes as ordinary “publication of reports” — pass through a London-based defamation firm before public release. That is consistent with an organization that understands its work product to be legally consequential and structures its operations accordingly.

The standing annual priorities, the GAVI coordination, the “black ops” framing, the Schillings legal layer, and the 60-meeting Capitol Hill program are the operational fingerprint of the structure documented in the 990 filings. They establish that the cross-border financial pipeline I traced above did not flow into a passive “research and publishing” operation. It flowed into an entity whose senior staff, in their own meeting minutes, described their work as targeting named platforms, suppressing named individuals, triggering foreign regulatory action against American companies, and “bringing back” the public framing that produced the deplatforming campaigns at issue in Finn v. Global Engagement Center.

The Motion to Dismiss Versus the Sworn Tax Return

In its motion to dismiss filed on January 16, 2026, CCDH’s lawyers — led by Roberta Kaplan — argue that the plaintiffs “do not allege that CCDH or Mr. Ahmed even communicated with the White House, the Surgeon General, or Meta, or any party mentioned” in the case, and that CCDH acted “independently.”³³ The argument is that CCDH merely “published reports” and that any government action that followed was an independent exercise of governmental discretion.

CCDH’s own FY 2024 Form 990 — filed under penalty of perjury two months earlier, on November 14, 2025 — describes the same year of operations as one in which the organization was advocating for change at named platforms and engaged in formal direct lobbying expenditures of $26,042 under a §501(h) election that places CCDH on the formal lobbying register.³⁴ The Schedule R discloses $838,676 in cash transferred to a UK affiliate whose CEO — by the documentary record Paul Thacker published — was personally writing British government ministerial agendas during precisely the same fiscal period.³⁵

These two documents — the motion to dismiss and the Form 990 — were filed by the same organization, two months apart, describing the same period. They cannot both be true. An organization cannot simultaneously be a passive “publisher of reports” exercising independent civil-society speech and a sworn lobbying organization actively advocating for regulatory change at named platforms while transferring nearly a million dollars annually to a foreign affiliate engaged in government policy coordination. The Form 990 is signed by an officer under penalty of perjury. The motion to dismiss is a litigating position taken by counsel. When the litigating position contradicts the sworn filing, the sworn filing is the document a court should credit.

What This Evidence Does in Two Active Federal Cases

The financial architecture documented above is not a freestanding investigative finding. It operates as evidence in two active federal lawsuits — Finn v. Global Engagement Center in the Middle District of Florida and Ahmed v. Rubio in the Southern District of New York — that are running on parallel tracks and that together will determine whether the architecture described in this article survives constitutional and statutory scrutiny. The 990 evidence functions differently in each case, and both functions matter.

In Finn v. Global Engagement Center: The Money Trail Closes the Standing Gap Murthy Left Open

The Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Murthy v. Missouri dismissed a similar government-platform-coordination case for lack of standing — not because the coordination didn’t happen, but because the plaintiffs could not establish, to the Court’s satisfaction, a sufficient causal chain between specific government actions and their specific injuries.³⁸ Finn v. Global Engagement Center is built to satisfy that standing requirement that Murthy identified. We have what the Murthy plaintiffs lacked: a named list (CCDH’s “Disinformation Dozen” report), our names on it, government officials citing it, and platforms acting on it.³⁹

What this article adds to that chain is the financial proof that the architecture was structured to produce exactly the conduct the case alleges. CCDH’s motion to dismiss, filed January 16, 2026, rests on the argument that CCDH “merely published reports” and that any government action that followed was independent.⁴⁰ The 990 evidence makes that argument structurally untenable in three specific ways:

First, on the question of independence. A US 501(c)(3) that transfers nearly a quarter of its annual expenses to a foreign affiliate whose CEO it shares, whose founding director became Downing Street Chief of Staff, and whose board includes a sitting MP who co-authored the foreign legislation the organization advocates expanding — is not, in any meaningful structural sense, an independent civil-society actor. The Schedule R disclosure, the Companies House related-party note, and the persons-with-significant-control register collectively establish that the US and UK entities operate as a single integrated transatlantic operation.⁴¹ CCDH’s own sworn IRS filings describe the relationship in those terms.

Second, on the question of program activity. CCDH’s lawyers argued in the motion to dismiss that the organization’s role was limited to “the publication of reports.”⁴² CCDH’s own Form 990, signed under penalty of perjury two months earlier, describes the program as “researching and publicizing their failures, educating the public, and advocating for change” at named technology platforms — and reports a §501(h) lobbying election filed for the same fiscal year.⁴³ Discovery in Finn will not need to establish that CCDH lobbied; CCDH has already conceded it on the IRS form. The remaining question is whom CCDH lobbied, when, and in coordination with which government actors — questions the Schedule O “consulting support” line item and the Schedule R cross-border transfers make ripe for targeted discovery requests.

Third, on the question of motive and capacity. The 84% revenue surge in 2024, the §501(h) election filed in the same year, the first-ever independent audit, and the $1,000,000 conditional grant arriving simultaneously — all in the calendar year during which Paul Thacker’s leaked emails show CCDH’s CEO writing British government ministerial agendas and convening US officials in Washington — establish that CCDH was operationally and financially scaled to do exactly what Finn alleges it did.⁴⁴ The motion to dismiss asks the court to believe that an organization formally registering as a lobbyist, doubling its revenue, accepting performance-conditioned major grants, and convening State Department and White House officials at a private summer 2024 summit was nonetheless engaged in nothing more than passive publication. That request strains credulity in a way the financial record makes specifically visible.

In Ahmed v. Rubio: The Money Trail Corroborates the Government’s Own Findings

The relationship between the 990 evidence and Ahmed v. Rubio is different. There, Ahmed is the plaintiff, having sued Secretary of State Marco Rubio after the State Department revoked his US visa and made a personal §237(a)(4)(C) deportability determination on December 19, 2025.⁴⁵ The certified administrative record filed by the State Department on February 6, 2026 — Document 42 on the SDNY docket — describes Ahmed as ”a key collaborator with the Biden administration on weaponizing the national security bureaucracy to censor U.S. citizens and pressure U.S. companies into censoring.”⁴⁶ The record specifically finds that CCDH “advocates for foreign regulatory action that extraterritorially impacts American citizens and companies,” identifying the UK Online Safety Act and EU Digital Services Act as targets of CCDH’s advocacy.⁴⁷

The financial architecture documented in this article is the structural mechanism that made the conduct the State Department identified possible. The State Department record describes what CCDH did — lobbied for foreign regulatory action against American companies. The 990 record describes how the operation was funded and where the money flowed. Specifically:

• The administrative record’s finding that CCDH “advocates for foreign regulatory action” is corroborated by CCDH’s own Schedule R disclosure that the US 501(c)(3) transferred $838,676 in 2024 to its UK affiliate — whose board includes a sitting Conservative MP who co-authored the very Online Safety Act the State Department names.⁴⁸

• The administrative record’s characterization of CCDH as a “collaborator” with the Biden administration is corroborated by the documented financial scaling that occurred during precisely the period when, per Paul Thacker’s leaked documents, CCDH’s CEO was running British ministerial roundtables and convening US officials at a 2024 Washington summit.⁴⁹

• The administrative record’s finding that CCDH “successfully led efforts to lobby Google to remove ads” from American outlets is corroborated by the Schedule C filing showing CCDH formally elected §501(h) lobbying status in 2024 — a regulatory move organizations make when they have decided to lobby openly and want a defined safe harbor.⁵⁰

In legal terms: Ahmed v. Rubio is an Administrative Procedure Act challenge to the State Department’s deportability determination, in which the central question is whether the Secretary’s findings were supported by substantial evidence. The 990 evidence does not appear in the State Department’s certified record — but it independently corroborates the record’s factual findings using documents Ahmed himself signed and filed under penalty of perjury. If the Ahmed litigation moves into a phase where the factual sufficiency of the State Department record is being contested, CCDH’s own tax filings provide a second, independent evidentiary track that points to the same conclusions.

The Two Cases, Read Together

The relationship between the two cases is structurally important and worth being clear about. In Finn, we are arguing that CCDH’s coordination with the prior administration caused our injuries — and the State Department’s certified administrative record in Ahmed v. Rubio is, as I wrote in February, the executive branch’s own formal documentation of exactly that coordination.⁵¹ In Ahmed, the State Department is arguing that Ahmed’s collaboration with the prior administration caused harm to U.S. foreign policy interests — and CCDH’s own 990 filings document the financial pipeline that made the collaboration operationally possible.

These two arguments are not in tension. They are the same argument made from two different procedural postures. The State Department, acting in its sovereign capacity, has formally identified Ahmed and CCDH as key collaborators in a censorship campaign. We, acting as private plaintiffs whose constitutional rights were violated by that campaign, are seeking damages and injunctive relief for the injuries the campaign caused. Both proceedings draw on overlapping factual records. The 990 evidence developed in this article is one of those overlapping records — and, importantly, one that neither side has fully integrated into the litigation as of this writing.

That last point matters. The 990 evidence has been sitting in plain view on ProPublica’s Nonprofit Explorer since the fiscal year 2024 filing was posted on November 14, 2025. The Companies House filings have been public since September 29, 2025. Neither set of documents has, to my knowledge, been formally cited in either docket as of the date of this article. That is an evidentiary gap I am writing this analysis specifically to close.

If you are an attorney representing any plaintiff in current or future First Amendment, FARA, or §501(c)(3) accountability litigation involving CCDH or its affiliates, every primary-source document referenced here is publicly available, IRS-certified or UK-government-certified, and ready for your filings. If you are a journalist, a researcher, or a citizen reading this who is not an attorney: the same documents are equally available to you, and the documentary chain I have walked through can be verified independently by anyone with an internet connection and several hours.

The evidence is built. The question now is whether it gets read into the record where it can do its work.

Why This Architecture Reached Me Personally — and Why Every American Is Reachable Through the Same Pipeline

I want to close on a point that I have been hesitant to spend too much ink on, because my personal experience is one application of the architecture this article documents, not the architecture itself. But the financial-pipeline evidence and the leaked operational record together change what my experience can fairly be said to demonstrate, and I think the universal stake is now clear enough that it deserves to be stated plainly.

In June 2025, on lawful UK soil, British authorities applied ex parte for my arrest in connection with statements I had made online — statements protected by the First Amendment of the country whose passport I carry, made from American IP addresses, on American platforms.³⁶ At the time, that experience felt anomalous. It does not feel anomalous anymore.

Read in light of what the documents in this article establish, the architecture that produced that arrest application is fully visible:

The legal infrastructure. The UK Online Safety Act of 2023 creates extraterritorial enforcement authority that British regulators can apply against American speakers whose content reaches UK users. CCDH UK board member Damian Collins, the Conservative MP who co-authored the parliamentary framework that became the Act, simultaneously serves as a director of the British entity that I have shown receives roughly $840,000 per year in tax-deductible American donations.⁶² The legislator who built the foreign regulatory infrastructure used against an American sits on the board of the foreign-affiliated organization that defamed that American on its “Disinformation Dozen” list.

The operational priority. CCDH’s own internal meeting template — populated month after month throughout 2024 — lists “Trigger EU & UK regulatory action” as a standing annual priority.⁶³ The conduct that produced my arrest application was not incidental fallout from CCDH’s work. According to CCDH’s own internal record, it was the work.

The financial pipeline. The US 501(c)(3) that holds the “Disinformation Dozen” report responsible for placing me on the deplatforming list is the same entity that transferred $1.43 million across 2022-2024 to its UK affiliate, whose board includes the Online Safety Act’s co-author, whose CEO I have shown was personally writing British government ministerial agendas during 2024.⁶⁴ Tax-deductible American dollars funded an organization that expanded foreign regulatory authority that was then used against an American citizen abroad.

The legal-services layer. The British defamation firm Schillings — referenced repeatedly in CCDH’s leaked internal meeting records as a routine pre-publication review layer — operates in the same UK legal environment in which my arrest application was filed.⁶⁵ CCDH’s own internal records establish that the organization understands its outputs as legally consequential and processes them through London legal counsel before release.

This is what transnational lawfare looks like in operational practice. It is not a single coordinated conspiracy with one master plan; it is an architecture in which a US-tax-exempt charity, a foreign affiliate, a foreign legal regime, foreign defamation counsel, and foreign law-enforcement authorities operate as adjacent components of a system whose practical effect — for the American citizens it targets — is to translate U.S. domestic political disfavor into foreign legal jeopardy.

The reason this matters for every American — not just for the six of us named in CCDH’s “Disinformation Dozen” report — is that the architecture does not require you to be on a list. Every American who travels internationally is, in principle, reachable through the same pipeline. The Online Safety Act’s extraterritorial provisions do not require a CCDH report to be applied. Once the legal infrastructure exists, it applies to anyone whose speech reaches UK users — which is to say, to anyone with an internet connection. The CCDH architecture is the demonstration case. It is not the limit of who the architecture can reach.

I am writing this as a plaintiff in Finn v. Global Engagement Center because that is the legal vehicle that exists to seek constitutional remedy for what was done to my co-plaintiffs and me. But the constitutional principle at stake is universal. If a foreign-affiliated organization, financially capitalized through American tax-deductible donations, can run “black ops” (in its own words) against American citizens — coordinate with American executive-branch agencies during one administration to deplatform them — coordinate with foreign legislators, regulators, and law enforcement to construct legal jeopardy for them abroad — and then, when sued in American federal court, claim it was just “publishing reports” — then the First Amendment is not protecting Americans from the actions of a foreign government. It is, at best, protecting Americans from one specific procedural form of one specific government action, while leaving every adjacent form of the same action untouched.

That is what Finn v. Global Engagement Center is asking the federal court to address. That is what the Missouri v. Biden Consent Decree leaves unaddressed. That is why the financial architecture documented in this article matters not as a curiosity but as a constitutional emergency.

Why This Story Should Reach Every American

The story I have walked through in this article — assembled from CCDH’s own IRS filings, the matching UK Companies House records, the leaked internal meeting minutes published by Paul Thacker and Matt Taibbi, the certified administrative record in Ahmed v. Rubio, and the public court filings in our own case — is the documented operational record of an American tax-exempt public charity functioning as a transnational coordination vehicle. The American donors who gave to CCDH believing they were supporting independent research and civil-liberties protection were funding, in fact, the construction of the regulatory infrastructure that has been used to silence Americans. Every dollar of those donations was tax-deductible — meaning the American taxpayer also subsidized the operation through the §170 charitable-deduction provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.

The Missouri v. Biden Consent Decree, signed March 23, 2026, prohibits direct government coordination with platforms to suppress lawful speech.³⁷ It does nothing about the indirect architecture documented above. Finn v. Global Engagement Center is the case that addresses what the Consent Decree leaves untouched: the use of nominally-independent NGOs as the connective tissue that translates government policy preferences into platform action — and, as the leaked internal records make clear, into foreign regulatory action against American citizens and companies — without leaving the fingerprint that direct coordination would.

CCDH’s own tax filings, its own internal meeting minutes, and its UK affiliate’s own audited accounts establish that the connective tissue exists, that it spans a foreign-domestic financial pipeline, that it operates on standing annual priorities written into the organization’s own meeting templates, and that it has been growing dramatically during the years our cause of action accrued. This is not speculation. It is what CCDH itself has produced — in sworn IRS filings, in audited UK accounts, and in its own staff’s recorded meeting notes.

If you are a journalist, a researcher, or an attorney reading this: every primary-source document linked in this article is publicly available. The 990s are on ProPublica’s Nonprofit Explorer. The UK accounts are on Companies House. The leaked meeting minutes were published by Thacker and Taibbi at The DisInformation Chronicle in October 2024. The court filings are on CourtListener. I have done the synthesis; you can verify each step yourself.

If you are an American citizen who cares about the fact that domestic dissent has been increasingly suppressed by an architecture you helped pay for, the most useful thing you can do today is share this analysis. The architecture works because it is illegible. Once it is read into the public record clearly, it loses much of its operational power.

We have the receipts. They are public. And they are, in a phrase the lawyers would understand, dispositive.

---

It takes an enormous amount of time, energy and courage to do independent journalism in this day and age. Please consider becoming a subscriber or making a dontion to support my investigative work.

---

Read the upstream investigations. This piece is the third installment in a continuing investigation. The structural-funder picture is most complete when read alongside “Co-Authors of Censorship: Leaked Documents Prove CCDH Ran the Government’s Speech-Regulation Agenda From the Inside” (the policy-coordination evidence) and “The Real Pandemic Profiteers: They Called Us Grifters. Then the Epstein Files Opened.” (the upstream funder and federal exhibit record).

Stay informed. Follow the case at Finn et al. v. Global Engagement Center et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-00543-WWB-MCR (M.D. Fla.). Every filing is a public record.

Support our lawsuit. We are up against the world’s most powerful organizations, Big Tech companies, and government agencies. Your contribution helps us pursue the case on behalf of every American whose civil liberties depend on getting this architecture into the legal record.

Support the Lawsuit · Personal Legal Defense Fund

Share and comment on the X thread dedicated to this post:

Sayer Ji@sayerjigmi

1/🚨 In November 2025, the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) signed an IRS form under penalty of perjury describing itself as a lobbying organization "advocating for change" at named tech platforms. Two months later, its lawyers told a federal court the same organization

1:36 PM · May 6, 2026 · 5 Views

---

1 Reply · 1 Like

---

Endnotes

1. Sayer Ji, “CCDH Wrote the Government’s Script: Leaked Documents Show Ahmed Shaped UK Speech Policy From Inside, Then Convened White House, State Department, and UN officials at a DC Summit,” Sayer Ji’s Substack, February 27, 2026; Paul D. Thacker, “Deporting Censorship: U.S. Targets Key Ally of British Government Over Free Speech,” RealClearInvestigations, February 18, 2026.

2. ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer, “Center For Countering Digital Hate,” accessed May 2026.

3. UK Companies House, “Filing history for CENTER FOR COUNTERING DIGITAL HATE LTD (11633127),” accessed May 2026.

4. Internal Revenue Service determination of tax-exempt status under §501(c)(3), effective April 2021, as reported on ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer, “Center For Countering Digital Hate.”

5. Center for Countering Digital Hate, Inc., Form 990 Schedule R, Part V, Line 1q, fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed November 14, 2025; Schedule O (”Resource Sharing - Consulting Support”), same filing.

6. UK Companies House, “Company Overview for CENTER FOR COUNTERING DIGITAL HATE LTD (11633127)“ (showing previous company name “BRIXTON ENDEAVOURS LIMITED” from 19 October 2018 to 30 August 2019); UK Companies House, “Persons with significant control“ (showing Morgan James McSweeney notified 19 October 2018, ceased 19 September 2019); Wikipedia, “Morgan McSweeney,” accessed May 2026 (recording his service as Downing Street Chief of Staff from October 2024 to February 2026).

7. UK Companies House, “CENTER FOR COUNTERING DIGITAL HATE LTD - Officers,” accessed May 2026.

8. Center for Countering Digital Hate, Inc., Form 990, Part I, fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed November 14, 2025; ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer, “Center For Countering Digital Hate – Fiscal Year Ending Dec. 2024.”

9. ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer, “Center For Countering Digital Hate,” summary financial data for fiscal years 2021–2024, derived from IRS Form 990 filings.

10. Center for Countering Digital Hate, Inc., Form 990 Schedule O, fiscal year ended December 31, 2023, filed October 15, 2024.

11. Center for Countering Digital Hate, Inc., Form 990 Schedule C, Part II-A (election under §501(h)), fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed November 14, 2025.

12. Center for Countering Digital Hate, Inc., Form 990 Schedule O (”Form 990, Part XII, Line 2C”), fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed November 14, 2025.

13. Center for Countering Digital Hate, Inc., Form 990, Part X, Line 19 (Deferred revenue), fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed November 14, 2025.

14. Center for Countering Digital Hate, Inc., Form 990 Schedule R, Part V, fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed November 14, 2025.

15. Center for Countering Digital Hate, Inc., Form 990 Schedule R, fiscal years 2021 (no transaction reported), 2022 ($88,248), 2023 ($505,919), and 2024 ($838,676).

16. Center for Countering Digital Hate Limited, “Accounts for a small company made up to 31 December 2024,” Note 10 (Related party transactions), filed at UK Companies House on 29 September 2025, signed by S. J. Clark.

17. Center for Countering Digital Hate, Inc., Form 990 Schedule O (”Form 990, Part IX, Line 11G”), fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed November 14, 2025; Form 990 Part IX, Line 11g (Other professional fees), same filing.

18. Calculated from Form 990 Part IX, fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed November 14, 2025: legal fees $358,050 (Line 11b), executive compensation $260,418 (Line 5), total expenses $3,431,870 (Line 25); $1,247,458 / $3,431,870 = 36.4%.

19. UK Companies House, “Company Overview for CENTER FOR COUNTERING DIGITAL HATE LTD (11633127)“ (Previous company names section).

20. UK Companies House, “Persons with significant control – CENTER FOR COUNTERING DIGITAL HATE LTD.”

21. UK Companies House, “Officers – CENTER FOR COUNTERING DIGITAL HATE LTD“ (entry for McSWEENEY, Morgan James: appointed 19 October 2018, resigned 6 April 2020); Wikipedia, “Morgan McSweeney.”

22. Wikipedia, “Morgan McSweeney“; Jennifer Bray, “Irish man Morgan McSweeney resigns as Keir Starmer’s chief of staff,” The Irish Times, February 8, 2026.

23. Sayer Ji, “The Switchboard from Epstein to Mandelson – Part 3,” Sayer Ji’s Substack; Sayer Ji, “BREAKING: The Original Architect of the UK CCDH,” Sayer Ji’s Substack; Bray, “McSweeney resigns.”

24. Sayer Ji, “CCDH Wrote the Government’s Script“; Thacker, “Deporting Censorship.”

25. UK Companies House, “Officers – CENTER FOR COUNTERING DIGITAL HATE LTD.”

26. UK Companies House, “Officers – CENTER FOR COUNTERING DIGITAL HATE LTD“ (entry for MCNEILL, Kirsty Jean, Ms.: appointed 19 September 2019, resigned 11 July 2024).

27. Center for Countering Digital Hate, Inc., Form 990, Part IV, Line 14b, fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed November 14, 2025.

28. Center for Countering Digital Hate, Inc., Form 990, Part V, Line 4a, fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed November 14, 2025.

29. Center for Countering Digital Hate, Inc., Form 990, Part IV, Line 35a, fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed November 14, 2025.

30. Center for Countering Digital Hate, Inc., Form 990, Part I, Line 1 (Mission statement), fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed November 14, 2025.

31. Center for Countering Digital Hate, Inc., Form 990, Part III, Line 4a (Statement of Program Service Accomplishments), fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed November 14, 2025.

32. Second Amended Complaint, Finn et al. v. Global Engagement Center et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-00543-WWB-MCR (M.D. Fla.), docket available at CourtListener.

33. CCDH Motion to Dismiss, Finn et al. v. Global Engagement Center, Document 118, filed January 16, 2026, at 15.

34. Center for Countering Digital Hate, Inc., Form 990 Schedule C, Part II-A, fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed November 14, 2025.

35. Thacker, “Deporting Censorship“; Sayer Ji, “CCDH Wrote the Government’s Script.”

36. Sayer Ji, “A Statement on Due Process,” Sayer Ji’s Substack; Paul D. Thacker, “Brits Spied on Me, According to Memo Marked ‘STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL,’“ RealClearPolitics, February 22, 2026.

37. Missouri v. Biden Consent Decree, signed March 23, 2026.

38. Murthy v. Missouri, 603 U.S. ___ (2024), opinion available at the Supreme Court website; see also Sayer Ji, “The Government Just Admitted It Censored Americans — and Named Its UK Partner,” Sayer Ji’s Substack, February 11, 2026.

39. Second Amended Complaint, Finn et al. v. Global Engagement Center, Case No. 3:25-cv-00543-WWB-MCR (M.D. Fla.); Center for Countering Digital Hate, “The Disinformation Dozen,” March 2021.

40. CCDH Motion to Dismiss, Finn et al. v. Global Engagement Center, Document 118, filed January 16, 2026.

41. Center for Countering Digital Hate, Inc., Form 990 Schedule R, fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed November 14, 2025; UK Companies House, “Persons with significant control – CENTER FOR COUNTERING DIGITAL HATE LTD“; Center for Countering Digital Hate Limited, “Accounts for a small company made up to 31 December 2024,” Note 10 (Related party transactions).

42. CCDH Motion to Dismiss, Document 118.

43. Center for Countering Digital Hate, Inc., Form 990, Part III, Line 4a, fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed November 14, 2025; Form 990 Schedule C, Part II-A, same filing.

44. Sayer Ji, “CCDH Wrote the Government’s Script“; Paul D. Thacker, “Deporting Censorship.”

45. Ahmed v. Rubio, Case No. 1:25-cv-10705 (S.D.N.Y.), docket available at CourtListener; Memorandum from Secretary Marco Rubio, December 19, 2025, Document 42 on the SDNY docket.

46. Certified Administrative Record, Ahmed v. Rubio, Case No. 1:25-cv-10705 (S.D.N.Y.), Document 42, filed February 6, 2026.

47. Ibid.

48. Center for Countering Digital Hate, Inc., Form 990 Schedule R, fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed November 14, 2025; UK Companies House, “Officers – CENTER FOR COUNTERING DIGITAL HATE LTD“; UK Online Safety Act 2023.

49. Sayer Ji, “CCDH Wrote the Government’s Script“; Thacker, “Deporting Censorship.”

50. Center for Countering Digital Hate, Inc., Form 990 Schedule C, Part II-A (election under §501(h)), fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed November 14, 2025; Certified Administrative Record, Ahmed v. Rubio, Document 42.

51. Sayer Ji, “The Government Just Admitted It Censored Americans — and Named Its UK Partner,” Sayer Ji’s Substack, February 11, 2026.

52. Paul D. Thacker and Matt Taibbi, “Election Exclusive: British Advisors to Kamala Harris Hope to ‘Kill Musk’s Twitter,’“ The DisInformation Chronicle, October 22, 2024; see also Sayer Ji, “BREAKING: ‘Kill Musk’s Twitter’ — Leaked Docs Reveal British Advisors to Kamala Harris Plot to Destroy X and Free Speech,” GreenMedInfo, October 2024.

53. CCDH Portfolio Planning Monthly Meeting minutes, January 8, 2024 through October 6, 2024, leaked internal documents, as published by Thacker and Taibbi at “Election Exclusive,” The DisInformation Chronicle, October 22, 2024. The “Annual Priorities” template language appears verbatim in the standing meeting template across all dated meeting records in the leaked corpus.

54. CCDH Portfolio Planning Monthly Meeting minutes (standing template, “Annual Priorities” section), 2024, as published by Thacker and Taibbi, “Election Exclusive“; Certified Administrative Record, Ahmed v. Rubio, Document 42, filed February 6, 2026.

55. CCDH Portfolio Planning Monthly Meeting minutes, January 8, 2024 (”Election Options” agenda discussion), as published by Thacker and Taibbi, “Election Exclusive“; Michael Nevradakis, “Group Behind ‘Disinformation Dozen’ Sought to ‘Kill Musk’s Twitter,’ Launch ‘Black Ops’ Against RFK Jr.“ Children’s Health Defense (republished at GreenMedInfo), October 23, 2024.

56. CCDH Portfolio Planning Monthly Meeting minutes, March 4, 2024 (agenda item 6: “60 meetings on the Hill - testing out”), as published by Thacker and Taibbi, “Election Exclusive.”

57. CCDH Portfolio Planning Monthly Meeting minutes, January 8, 2024 (action items: “GAVI Roundtables”), as published by Thacker and Taibbi, “Election Exclusive.” On GAVI as a public-private global health partnership, see Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance.

58. CCDH Portfolio Planning Monthly Meeting minutes, February 19, 2024 (Sarah Eagan policy and partnerships agenda: “GAVI roundtable – first one on Weds this week”), as published by Thacker and Taibbi, “Election Exclusive.”

59. CCDH Portfolio Planning Monthly Meeting minutes, March 5, 2024, as published by Thacker and Taibbi, “Election Exclusive.”

60. Ibid.

61. UK Companies House, “Officers – CENTER FOR COUNTERING DIGITAL HATE LTD“ (Damian Collins, Conservative MP, current director); UK Online Safety Act 2023; Center for Countering Digital Hate, Inc., Form 990 Schedule R, fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed November 14, 2025.

62. CCDH Portfolio Planning Monthly Meeting minutes (standing meeting template “Annual Priorities” line: “Trigger EU & UK regulatory action”), as published by Thacker and Taibbi, “Election Exclusive.”

63. Center for Countering Digital Hate, Inc., Form 990 Schedule R, fiscal years 2022, 2023, and 2024 (cumulative cross-border transfers); UK Companies House, “Officers – CENTER FOR COUNTERING DIGITAL HATE LTD“; Sayer Ji, “CCDH Wrote the Government’s Script“; Paul D. Thacker, “Deporting Censorship.”

64. CCDH Portfolio Planning Monthly Meeting minutes, March 5, 2024 and other dates, as published by Thacker and Taibbi, “Election Exclusive.”

65. Washington Free Beacon, “Exclusive: George Soros Gave $250K to British Group Working to Censor Conservative News Sites and ‘Kill Musk’s Twitter,’“ November 2025.

66. Sayer Ji, “BREAKING: Soros Confirmed as CCDH Funder — And 20+ Dark Money Backers Now Exposed,” Sayer Ji’s Substack, November 19, 2025.

67. Institute for Strategic Dialogue, BBC Click, and NewsGuard, “The Far Right’s Exploitation of Covid-19 Disinformation,” May 2020. ISD’s funding history during the relevant period is documented in the organization’s published annual reports and grant disclosures, including grants from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Open Society Foundations.

68. Sayer Ji, “BREAKING: The Epstein Files Illuminate a 20-Year Architecture Behind Pandemics as a Business Model — With Bill Gates at the Center,” Sayer Ji’s Substack, February 2, 2026; Sayer Ji, “Epstein’s $25 Million Email: Kathy Ruemmler, Ariane de Rothschild, and the Edmond de Rothschild DOJ Settlement,” Sayer Ji’s Substack, February 18, 2026.

69. Federal exhibits EFTA01256269 (Epstein–Erdoes correspondence, August 17, 2011) and EFTA01835356 (Epstein to Staley and Erdoes, August 28, 2011), released through Department of Justice Epstein file disclosures, 2024–2026; Letter of Agreement, Southern Trust Company, Inc. and Edmond de Rothschild Holding, S.A., October 5, 2015, federal exhibit EFTA00584904.

70. Sayer Ji, “The Real Pandemic Profiteers: They Called Us Grifters. Then the Epstein Files Opened.“ Sayer Ji’s Substack, February 22, 2026.

71. Oxfam America, “Pandemic Profits Exposed: A COVID-19 Pandemic Profits Tax as One Essential Tool to Reverse Inequalities and Rebuild Better Post-Pandemic,” media briefing, July 22, 2020.

72. Center for Countering Digital Hate, “Pandemic Profiteers: The Business of Anti-Vaxx,” CCDH, June 1, 2021.