A Los Angeles immigrant-rights organization that staged one of the first anti-ICE rallies before the city erupted into violent unrest collected nearly $34 million in government grants in a single fiscal year, state financial records show. Now two separate congressional investigations want to know whether any of that money helped fuel the chaos.
The Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, known as CHIRLA, is facing document demands from both the House Judiciary Committee and Sen. Josh Hawley's crime and terrorism subcommittee. The probes center on a simple question with serious legal consequences: Did a taxpayer-funded nonprofit cross the line from advocacy into aiding criminal conduct?
CHIRLA's own audited financial statements lay out the numbers plainly. During the fiscal year ending June 30, 2023, the organization pulled in $33,966,572 in government contract revenue. Of that total, $32,526,542, roughly 96 percent, came from the State of California to provide immigration-related services, Just The News reported.
Federal dollars added another layer. The Biden administration awarded CHIRLA two "Citizenship and Integration" grants in 2023 totaling $193,030. Committee Republicans on the House Judiciary panel put the broader federal figure higher, stating CHIRLA received nearly $1 million in federal grants between 2021 and 2023. That included roughly $450,000 from the Department of Homeland Security earmarked for citizenship education and training.
The Trump administration cut the cord. DHS spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin confirmed on X that the federal funding was terminated in March 2025.
"Under Trump and Secretary Kristi Noem we terminated this in March."
IRS records reviewed by Fox News placed CHIRLA's total government grant haul at $34 million, a figure consistent with the organization's own disclosures. The question confronting investigators is not whether the money flowed. It plainly did. The question is where it went once it arrived.
CHIRLA helped organize early anti-ICE demonstrations in Los Angeles and participated alongside groups in the L.A. Rapid Response Network, a coalition that alerts immigrants about ICE activity in their neighborhoods. The initial rallies were described as peaceful.
What followed was not. Later protests escalated into riots that included assaults on law enforcement officers, fires set in city streets, rocks thrown at police, and disruptions that shut down highways. The timeline matters because it frames the central dispute: CHIRLA claims it was present only at the front end, while investigators suspect the group's infrastructure may have enabled the back end.
The pattern of organized groups staging initial demonstrations that later spiral into broader unrest has drawn federal scrutiny in other contexts as well. One pending federal trial involves testimony about protest activity at an immigration facility, underscoring how seriously prosecutors are treating the question of coordination.
A CHIRLA spokesman drew a firm line in the group's public response.
"We have not participated, coordinated, or been part of the protests being registered in Los Angeles other than the press conference and rally cited above."
That denial will now be tested against whatever documents Congress can extract.
The House Judiciary Committee fired the first formal shot, sending CHIRLA a letter demanding records on its federal funding and any communications related to protests against ICE, DHS, Customs and Border Protection, and immigration enforcement operations generally.
"This raises concerns that CHIRLA may be using federal funds to support violent criminal activity that impedes the enforcement of federal immigration law."
That language carries weight. "Violent criminal activity" is not a phrase congressional committees use casually in official correspondence. It signals that members believe they have enough predicate information to justify a full-scale document production, and potentially subpoenas if CHIRLA resists, the New York Post first reported.
Sen. Hawley's parallel investigation takes an even harder tone. The Missouri Republican, who chairs the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism, alleged in his own letter that CHIRLA may have financially and materially supported the coordinated protests and riots.
Hawley requested internal communications, financial records, donor information, contracts, and travel records. The breadth of that demand suggests his staff is looking not just at what CHIRLA spent money on, but who else was in the loop.
"Let me be clear: bankrolling civil unrest is not protected speech. It is aiding and abetting criminal conduct."
That framing puts CHIRLA on notice that Hawley views the legal exposure as criminal, not merely administrative. Whether the facts ultimately support that characterization remains to be seen. But the senator clearly intends to build a record.
No charges have been filed against CHIRLA or any of its officers. The congressional investigations are oversight actions, not criminal proceedings. But the distinction between oversight and prosecution can narrow quickly when federal grant money is involved.
If investigators establish that grant funds were diverted to support activity that obstructed federal law enforcement, the consequences could range from clawback demands and debarment from future grants to criminal referrals for fraud or conspiracy. Federal grant agreements carry strict terms about permissible uses, and immigration-service contracts are no exception.
The broader political context adds pressure. The Trump administration has made immigration enforcement a centerpiece of its domestic agenda, deploying ICE to airports while Democrats have fought over DHS funding. Groups that position themselves as obstacles to that enforcement are drawing attention from every level of government.
Investigators will need to determine several things that remain publicly unresolved. Did CHIRLA's rapid-response network, designed to warn immigrants about ICE operations, play any logistical role in organizing or sustaining the protests that turned violent? Did any government grant funds pay for staff time, communications infrastructure, or materials used in connection with the demonstrations? And did CHIRLA leadership have advance knowledge that peaceful rallies might escalate?
Authorities have not publicly confirmed whether any internal CHIRLA communications suggest coordination beyond the initial rally the group acknowledges attending. That gap is precisely what the document demands aim to fill.
CHIRLA is not the only entity facing legal consequences for interfering with immigration enforcement. A Milwaukee judge was convicted of helping a man evade ICE and is now fighting the felony on appeal. Courts across the country have weighed in on the boundaries of state and local resistance to federal immigration operations, with an appeals court recently rejecting restrictions on federal agents in Minnesota.
The legal landscape is shifting. What was once treated as routine progressive advocacy is now being examined through a lens of potential criminal liability. The question is no longer just whether groups like CHIRLA oppose ICE. It is whether they used public money to do it, and whether that opposition crossed into territory the law does not protect.
CHIRLA's denial is on the record. So is $34 million in taxpayer funding. Congress now has the subpoena power to find out whether those two facts are connected in ways the group insists they are not.
When the government hands an advocacy group eight figures in public money and that group's cause ends up at the center of street violence against federal officers, taxpayers deserve a full accounting. Two congressional committees seem inclined to get one.
