The $188 Million Question"

“Justice consists not in being neutral between right and wrong, but in finding out the right and upholding it.”
— Theodore Roosevelt

How the Vera Institute Received America's Largest Anonymous Donation and Why No One Will Say Who Gave It

An investigation into the mysterious funding behind one of the most influential criminal justice organizations in America.

According to O’Keefe’s investigation on a quiet day in 2021, the Vera Institute of Justice received the largest anonymous donation in its 65-year history: $188 million.

To put that in perspective, it was:

• More than Vera's entire annual budget at the time
• One of the largest single donations to any criminal justice organization ever
• Completely anonymous—the donor's identity remains unknown to this day
• Given with virtually no strings attached

And almost nobody noticed.

The donation appeared buried in Vera's 2021 Form 990—the tax filing nonprofits must make public. Line 1b of Schedule B (Schedule of Contributors) showed a single contribution: $188,000,000. The donor's name was redacted, as IRS rules allow for contributions over $5,000.

For an organization that champions transparency in criminal justice, that manages hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars, and that advises governments on life-and-death policy decisions, the secrecy is remarkable.

Who gave Vera Institute $188 million? And why don't they want you to know?

THE VERA INSTITUTE: A PRIMER

Before we chase the money, understand what Vera is.

Founded in 1961, the Vera Institute of Justice positions itself as a research and policy organization working to "end mass incarceration" and "transform the criminal justice system." Its work includes:

• Partnering with local prosecutors and courts on "diversion" programs
• Operating alternatives to immigration detention
• Providing "technical assistance" to cities on criminal justice reform
• Advocating for policies that reduce incarceration

By 2020, Vera had become one of the most influential criminal justice organizations in America, with an annual budget exceeding $200 million and partnerships with jurisdictions across the country.

Then came the Senate investigation.

In 2024, Senator Chuck Grassley's staff documented how Vera's partnerships with progressive prosecutors had led to what the report called "disastrous consequences"—including the release of violent criminals who went on to commit murders, assaults, and in one case, a massacre at a Wisconsin Christmas parade that killed six people.

The Trump administration subsequently terminated $167 million in federal grants to Vera, calling the organization's work "contrary to public safety."

But by then, Vera had something federal grants couldn't give them: independence.

That $188 million donation meant Vera could operate without federal oversight, continue its work without accountability to taxpayers, and push even more aggressive criminal justice policies.

The question is: who wanted that badly enough to write a check for nearly $200 million?

THE DONOR CANDIDATES

Anonymous mega-donations are rare but not unheard of in American philanthropy. When they happen, detective work usually reveals patterns. Let's examine the most likely candidates.

CANDIDATE #1: GEORGE SOROS / OPEN SOCIETY FOUNDATIONS

The Case For:

Vera already has deep ties to the Soros network. According to tax records:

• Open Society Foundations gave Vera $11 million between 2015-2020
• Vera's work aligns perfectly with OSF priorities: criminal justice reform, immigration advocacy, reducing incarceration
• Soros has a documented history of massive anonymous donations through intermediary organizations
• The timing (2021) coincides with OSF ramping up criminal justice spending
• Vera's leadership has longstanding OSF connections

Nicholas Turner, Vera's president (salary: $602,333), previously worked closely with OSF-funded initiatives. Multiple Vera board members have OSF ties.

The Case Against:

• OSF typically takes credit for major grants (they want influence and recognition)
• $188M would be enormous even for Soros (though not impossible)
• OSF's own 990s don't show a corresponding $188M outflow in 2021
• OSF usually spreads money across many organizations rather than concentrating it

Likelihood: 40%

CANDIDATE #2: MACKENZIE SCOTT

The Case For:

Jeff Bezos's ex-wife has become famous for massive, rapid-fire donations with minimal strings attached. Her giving pattern matches:

• Surprise mega-donations
• Often anonymous or low-profile
• Focused on criminal justice reform
• Preference for "unrestricted" funding
• Timing matches her 2020-2021 giving spree

In 2020-2021, Scott gave away over $12 billion to 1,257 organizations, much of it unrestricted. Criminal justice reform was a stated priority.

The Case Against:

• Scott typically publicly announces her gifts (even if organizations keep them quiet initially)
• Her gifts usually go to many organizations, not concentrated in one
• Vera wasn't on her published list of recipients (though that list isn't comprehensive)
• She tends to favor grassroots organizations over policy shops

Likelihood: 30%

CANDIDATE #3: A TECH BILLIONAIRE

The Case For:

Silicon Valley has increasingly funded criminal justice reform:

• Pierre Omidyar (eBay founder) has spent hundreds of millions on criminal justice through Luminate and other vehicles
• Tech billionaires often prefer anonymity for controversial causes
• Several tech fortunes focus on "systemic change" which Vera promises
• The amount ($188M) is significant but not impossible for a tech billionaire

The Case Against:

• Most tech philanthropy is public (they want credit for "changing systems")
• Tech billionaires usually create their own foundations rather than giving to existing orgs
• No obvious tech connection to Vera's board or leadership

Likelihood: 20%

CANDIDATE #4: FOREIGN ENTITY/GOVERNMENT

The Case For:

This is the darkest scenario, but worth examining:

• Vera's immigration work often conflicts with U.S. law enforcement
• Some foreign governments might benefit from weakened U.S. criminal justice
• Anonymous donation avoids Foreign Agents Registration Act requirements
• The sheer size suggests resources beyond typical American donors

The Case Against:

• Would be highly illegal if discovered
• IRS would likely investigate such a large foreign contribution
• No evidence supports this theory
• Requires assuming Vera would accept foreign government money (though stranger things have happened)

Likelihood: 5%

CANDIDATE #5: A CONSORTIUM

The Most Likely Scenario:

What if it's not one donor, but several?

Here's how it could work:

1. Multiple foundations/donors coordinate
2. They pool funds through an intermediary (like a donor-advised fund)
3. The intermediary makes a single $188M donation to Vera
4. On Vera's 990, it appears as one anonymous donor
5. The individual contributors remain hidden behind the intermediary

This would explain:

• Why no single foundation's 990 shows the outflow
• Why Vera can keep it anonymous (it technically is one donor—the intermediary)
• Why the amount is so large (multiple sources pooled)
• Why the timing was strategic (coordinated to replace federal funding)

Common intermediaries for this approach:

• Tides Foundation (known for "dark money" progressive causes)
• Donor-advised funds at major financial institutions
• Silicon Valley Community Foundation
• New Venture Fund

Likelihood: 60%

WHY THE SECRECY MATTERS

"Why do you care who donated?" defenders might ask. "It's legal, and the money does good work."

Here's why it matters:

1. VERA MANAGES PUBLIC MONEY

Even with the federal grant termination, Vera still receives significant state and local government contracts. When a nonprofit manages taxpayer dollars, the public has a right to know who else is funding it.

Questions we can't answer:

• Is the anonymous donor influencing Vera's government work?
• Do they have financial interests in Vera's policy recommendations?
• Are they funding Vera to advance a private agenda using public contracts?

2. VERA ADVISES PROSECUTORS

Vera partners with District Attorneys' offices across America. These prosecutors make decisions about who goes to prison and who walks free.

If we don't know who's funding Vera, we can't assess conflicts:

• Is the donor a defense attorney with clients in these jurisdictions?
• Do they have business interests affected by prosecution decisions?
• Are they funding Vera to influence specific cases?

The Milwaukee partnership—which led to the Waukesha massacre—shows the life-and-death stakes of Vera's prosecutor relationships.

3. VERA INFLUENCES IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT

Vera runs programs that directly interfere with ICE operations. As documented in undercover video, Vera-funded systems notify illegal immigrants when ICE is coming, helping them evade arrest.

If a foreign entity funded Vera, this would be:

• A national security issue
• Potentially criminal (foreign agents working against U.S. law enforcement)
• A scandal that would destroy Vera's credibility

Even if the donor is domestic, their interest in obstructing immigration enforcement deserves scrutiny.

4. VERA PROMOTES SPECIFIC POLICIES

Vera doesn't just study criminal justice—it actively lobbies for:

• Ending cash bail
• Closing jails and prisons
• "Decarceration" (releasing current inmates)
• Diversion programs instead of prosecution
• Alternatives to immigration detention

These aren't academic positions. They're political advocacy.

When a mystery donor gives $188 million to advance these specific policies, voters deserve to know who's trying to change their criminal justice system from behind a curtain of anonymity.

WHAT THE LAW ALLOWS

Is this legal?

Yes. Current IRS rules allow nonprofits to keep donors anonymous if:

• The contribution exceeds $5,000
• The donor isn't a major officer or board member
• Certain other limited exceptions apply

But legal doesn't mean ethical.

The Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan watchdog, argues that major donations to politically active nonprofits should require disclosure:

"When organizations engage in policy advocacy that affects millions of Americans, the public has a right to know who's funding that advocacy. Anonymous mega-donations to policy organizations are 'dark money' whether they're on the right or the left."

THE BROADER PATTERN

Vera's $188M is part of a larger trend: anonymous mega-donations to politically active nonprofits.

Recent examples:

• $1.6 billion to Arabella Advisors network (2020)
• $410 million to Sixteen Thirty Fund (2020)
• Unknown amounts to various criminal justice organizations

This "dark money" isn't illegal—but it's corrupting the policy process.

Here's how it works:

1. Wealthy donor wants policy change
2. Donor funds a nonprofit to advocate for that change
3. Nonprofit appears to be "grassroots" or "research-based."
4. Media and politicians treat nonprofits as neutral expert
5. Policy changes happen
6. The public never knows who paid for it

In Vera's case:

• Mystery donor gives $188M
• Vera partners with prosecutors to reduce incarceration
• Violent criminals are released
• Six people die in Waukesha
• Senate investigates
• Federal grants are terminated
• But Vera continues operating on mystery money

The public deserves to know: who wanted this outcome badly enough to spend $188 million?

“It is the spirit and not the form of law that keeps justice alive.”
— Earl Warren,

TRANSPARENCY MATTERS

Nicholas Turner, Vera's $602,333-a-year president, frequently speaks about the need for transparency in criminal justice:

"The system must be accountable to the communities it serves. Decisions made in secret, without public scrutiny, inevitably lead to injustice."

By that standard, Vera should disclose its $188 million donor.

The organization that demands transparency from police departments, prosecutors' offices, and ICE won't reveal who's funding its own operations.

The irony is remarkable. The hypocrisy is worse.

Six people died in Waukesha after a violent criminal—released under policies Vera promoted—drove through a Christmas parade.

Senate investigators called Vera's work "disastrous."

The federal government terminated $167 million in grants.

And through it all, a mystery donor's $188 million keeps Vera operating, advising, influencing policy, and shaping criminal justice decisions that affect millions of Americans.

Who is that donor?

And why won't Vera tell us?

to be continued...

EDITOR'S NOTE: The Vera Institute of Justice declined to comment for this article. The identity of the $188 million donor remains unknown.