The Impersistence of Memory
How the SPLC shaped the past—and how the past shapes it
The response has polarized along familiar lines. Some knew all along the SPLC was stirring up unrest so they could report on it. Others are equally certain the indictment is lawfare against a prominent civil rights organization. Few voices, on any side, have called for restraint while the facts are sorted out.
Many critics have long claimed the SPLC is a dangerous organization that shapes social narratives by bullying and blackmail. For them, this indictment is concrete proof that it manipulates the public by simultaneously fighting and funding racism.
Longtime SPLC supporters point to decades of criticism from conservative politicians and news outlets—and abuse from self-identified racists—as proof that the government is using its power to silence or bankrupt a longtime enemy.
The narratives are clear. The facts are not. Here’s what we know so far.
On April 21, 2026, the Justice Department indicted the Southern Poverty Law Center on 11 counts, including wire fraud, false statements to a federally insured bank, and conspiracy to commit concealment (money laundering).
According to Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche:
[T]he SPLC … purports to fight white supremacy and racial hatred by reporting on extremist groups and conducting research … with the goal of dismantling these groups … [T]he SPLC was not dismantling these groups. It was instead manufacturing the extremism it purports to oppose by paying sources to stoke racial hatred.
The SPLC has strongly denied the allegations. Interim President and CEO Bryan Fair said in a written statement:
We are outraged by the false allegations levied against SPLC — an organization that for 55 years has stood as a beacon of hope fighting white supremacy and various forms of injustice to create a multi-racial democracy where we can all live and thrive.
One element of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s defense is that funds were directed toward paid informants, not toward supporting extremist activity. In that context, a line from Fair’s statement stands out:
When we began working with informants, we were living in the shadow of the height of the civil rights movement, which had seen bombings at churches, state-sponsored violence against demonstrators and the murders of activists that went unanswered by the justice system.
“Living in the shadow” alludes to the overt and frequently lethal racial violence we saw during and immediately after the Civil Rights era. But it also implies distance. This is not to say that racism, or the threat of violent extremism, has disappeared. But it has shifted significantly in scale and in context.
In 1981 Alabama Klan members beat and lynched a 19-year-old Black man, Michael Donald. In 1987 SPLC lawyers helped his mother, Beulah Mae Donald, win a $7 million civil judgment against the United Klans of America. The verdict bankrupted the organization. Later the SPLC organized similar lawsuits against White Aryan Resistance and the Aryan Nations.
The lawsuits dismantled groups that were already becoming marginalized. In 1987 the Ku Klux Klan had little of the political power it held in the 1920s or even in the 1960s. Two of Michael Donald’s attackers received lengthy prison sentences in a criminal trial; another was sent to the electric chair.
This kind of overt, organized racial violence is much less common today than it once was. But the legacy of that period remains central to the SPLC’s identity and rhetoric. That legacy, and the ways in which it has been reinterpreted, helps explain the sharply divided perceptions of the modern Southern Poverty Law Center.
By the late 20th century, overt and organized racial violence had declined significantly. Some took this as a sign that racism was finally a thing of the past. That was an error, but an understandable one. Racism still existed, but it had become less visible and less dramatic.
We’re all familiar with the old images: fire hoses, police dogs, mob violence, cross-burnings. They are direct, arresting, and morally unambiguous. Redlining, glass ceilings, housing discrimination, and sentencing disparities are less immediately visible. The work—and the targets of SPLC attention—became more ambiguous and harder to capture in simple narratives.
It’s easy to spot racists wearing white hoods or swastika armbands. Racism in the 21st century is more diffuse and more open to interpretation. That creates more room for disagreement—and error—about who or what qualifies as racist. This helps explain why conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation came to see the SPLC not as a watchdog but as a “left-wing smear factory.”
The Southern Poverty Law Center’s “Hate Map” organizes groups into 21 categories. One glaring issue is that the map provides each organization’s location and classification, but gives no explanation of the criteria used to designate it as a hate group. Here are randomly chosen examples taken from a few categories.
Anti-Immigrant
Anti-immigrant hate groups are the most extreme of the hundreds of nativist and vigilante groups that have proliferated since the late 1990s, when anti-immigrant xenophobia began to rise to levels not seen in the U.S. since the 1920s.
One group listed as “anti-immigrant” is Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC). Based on its public materials, ALIPAC advocates positions that are common among restrictionist voters: support for immigration-critical candidates, emphasis on crimes committed by undocumented immigrants, and opposition to open-border policies.
Many readers will strongly disagree with these positions. But disagreement alone does not establish that a group encourages or condones violence.
Conspiracy Propagandists
Conspiracy propagandists aim to delegitimize government institutions or government officials by stoking fears concerning door-to-door gun confiscations, martial law, supposed takeover of the U.S. by the “New World Order” or “Deep State,” and anxieties around the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
These are definitely controversial ideas. Some might even call them kooky ideas. But this is not a Controversial Map or a Kooky Map: it’s a Hate Map. Let’s take a look at one listed group of “Conspiracy Propagandists,” the John Birch Society.
The JBS was founded in 1958 by Robert G. Welch, a man who suspected that Dwight D. Eisenhower was a secret Communist agent. Today it seeks “Less government, more responsibility, and—with God’s help—a better world.”
There’s no obvious hate to be found on a quick perusal of their website. And the only thing I learned from Google was that the John Birch Society is “listed by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group.”
Male Supremacy
Male supremacy is a hateful ideology rooted in the belief of the supposedly innate superiority of cisgender men and their right to subjugate women, trans men and nonbinary people.
My home state of New Jersey has only one Male Supremacy listing, Broadstone Media. As its owner, Donovan Sharpe, describes himself on his YouTube channel:
Donovan Sharpe® is the creator of Womanese and hosts a podcast about relationships for Men and women... Donovan supports unapologetic masculinity and supports the personal development of Men in all areas including dating, finance, and fitness.
I’m happily married and have been out of the dating scene for a while, so I can’t comment on the efficacy of Mr. Sharpe’s “Daily Dating Wisdom.” I did not, however, see any videos on how to subjugate women, trans men, and nonbinary people.
Landing on these lists can cause reputational damage, job loss, even de-banking. That kind of power comes with responsibility. And yet the reasons behind its hate map listings remain opaque. This sets the SPLC up for disagreement—and distrust.
The SPLC’s critics generally see this indictment as decisive action against an NGO that has abused its power for years. Its supporters see it as lawfare. As with the critics, many of their concerns are rooted in history.
From the 1950s through the 1970s, the FBI’s COINTELPRO program targeted and infiltrated organizations like the Black Panthers and Southern Christian Leadership Conference. After 9/11 federal agents visited many mosques in an effort to find threats. In 2011, FBI informants showed up at several Occupy Wall Street camps.
Conservative politicians and commentators have long criticized the SPLC. Many of those same commentators are now cheering the indictment. For supporters, this further cements concerns that this action is not a neutral enforcement—it is payback.
Others are concerned about precedent. A government institution with the power to compel, prosecute, and punish has acted on the grounds that the SPLC is misleading, manipulative, and politically harmful. That ambiguous standard may be applied broadly, and differently, by future administrations.
The indictment may also have indirect consequences. Organizations that have been listed or criticized by the Southern Poverty Law Center may be more inclined to pursue legal action. Some cases may be dismissed; others might result in large payouts. The SPLC has substantial funding, but it also has many opponents. In the past, they used these litigation tactics against groups like the Aryan Nations. They may now find themselves facing similar legal pressures.
Perhaps the greatest issue is institutional credibility. Discovery is likely to bring internal communications and practices into the public record. This will certainly reveal things the SPLC would rather keep private. Those disclosures will be amplified across partisan media and social platforms.
They will shape how the organization is perceived by supporters and critics alike. Corporate and individual donors may reassess their association. Journalists may become more cautious about relying on SPLC claims. That damage may not go away even if the case is resolved in their favor. Loss of reputation is a significant problem for an organization that presents itself as a source of moral certainty.
Two very different narratives have formed around this indictment. Both narratives are grounded in genuine concerns. Each has extended those concerns into a broader conclusion—often supported more by preconceptions and prejudices than data. The facts of the case remain incomplete, but many have already rendered their verdict.
The question is not simply who is right in United States of America vs Southern Poverty Law Center. It is whether the standards being applied are clear, consistent, and resilient enough to withstand changes in political power and public perception.
Those questions are harder to answer.
They are also more important.