Lawmakers, Experts Spar Over Southern Poverty Law Center’s Role in Shaping Civil Rights Policy and Labeling Faith-Based Groups
WASHINGTON, D.C. — On Tuesday, the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government convened a hearing titled “Partisan and Profitable: The SPLC’s Influence on Federal Civil Rights Policy” to examine the Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) research practices, federal influence, and the real-world impact of its “hate” designations on conservative and religious organizations.
The hearing brought together lawmakers and expert witnesses, including representatives from Turning Point USA, Family Research Council (FRC), The Daily Signal, and the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty. While FRC President Tony Perkins testified, the broader focus was on how SPLC classifications have been used — and disputed — by public officials and institutions.
ReadMore
SPLC Influence and Federal Ties Under Scrutiny
Witnesses criticized the SPLC’s “hate map” and related research as overly broad and politically motivated, arguing that it has been used to justify adverse actions against mainstream faith-based and conservative organizations.
Tyler O’Neil, senior editor of The Daily Signal, told the subcommittee that the SPLC has labeled well-known conservative and religious groups as “hate” organizations and that those labels have contributed to a “hostile climate” that chills free speech and association. O’Neil said that even groups like Focus on the Family were added to the SPLC’s map earlier this year, which he described as evidence that the SPLC’s classifications have expanded beyond traditional targets of extremism.
Lawmakers also highlighted instances where the SPLC’s research was cited by federal agencies. O’Neil pointed to past references to SPLC material in a now-withdrawn FBI memo that suggested “radical-traditional Catholics” could be extremists.
Divided Views Among Lawmakers
Republican members of the subcommittee pressed witnesses on whether federal agencies should rely on the SPLC’s lists, framing the organization as politically biased. Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) emphasized that the SPLC started with a civil rights mission but has become “a political fundraising machine” built on fear and continually expanding hate classifications.
Democratic members offered pushback on that characterization. Ranking member Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) noted that no one associated with the SPLC has been convicted of violent crime and said the organization has played a role in combating violent extremism across the political spectrum.
Turning Point USA and Other Groups Highlighted
The hearing also featured testimony from Turning Point USA’s executive vice president of field operations, Andrew Sypher. Sypher reiterated concerns about the SPLC’s designation of Turning Point USA on its hate list. He referenced the September assassination of TPUSA founder Charlie Kirk and said Kirk had warned that SPLC rhetoric could create a dangerous environment for conservative activists — a claim that underscored the emotional stakes of the debate for many participants.
What’s Next
The hearing did not produce immediate legislative action but underscored growing congressional interest in reevaluating how nonprofit research organizations influence federal policy and public perception. The panel’s investigation into SPLC practices and federal relationships could foreshadow future oversight or probe efforts, especially regarding civil rights enforcement and classification methodologies.
Why It Matters
For many faith-based and conservative organizations, the hearing highlighted deep concerns that ideological labeling by influential nonprofits can translate into social marginalization or even influence government policy. Critics argue that such designations, when perceived as unfairly applied, can chill First Amendment freedoms.
