A political action committee controlled by Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut donated $100,000 to Indivisible, the progressive organization that served as the primary organizer of the No Kings protests and has been at the center of anti-ICE demonstrations that have roiled cities from Newark to Minnesota.
Federal Election Commission records show Murphy's newly rebranded PAC, American Mobilization, made the donation in December 2025 through two separate payments, one from its political account and one from its non-contribution account. Murphy's own website describes the funds as helping Indivisible "ramp up for their next chapter of work and build up durable mass mobilization capacity across the country."
The financial link between a sitting U.S. senator and an organization that has helped drive confrontational street protests against federal immigration enforcement raises pointed questions about the line between political opposition and the deliberate funding of disorder. Just the News first reported on the connection, tracing the money through FEC filings and detailing Indivisible's expanding role in the protest ecosystem.
Murphy, first elected to the Senate in 2012, once built a reputation around bipartisan dealmaking on guns and immigration. That brand is gone. By March 2025, he told NBC News he had pivoted sharply.
"This may look a little schizophrenic, having gone from spending two years writing big bipartisan deals on guns or on immigration to now being out front in trying to fight for the survival of the democracy and using really tough language about my Republican colleagues."
The senator framed the shift in apocalyptic terms. He told NBC News that "our democracy might be gone in six months" and that "the only way to stop a, you know, would-be tyrant from cratering, from destroying a democracy is mass mobilization."
Those weren't idle words. Murphy's PAC spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in 2025, with recipients including Democratic candidates, immigrant rights groups, and environmental organizations, FEC records show. But the $100,000 sent to Indivisible stands out, because of where Indivisible's work has led.
Indivisible was formed in the wake of President Donald Trump's first election in 2016. It describes itself as a group that "drives coordinated campaigns, powering the grassroots Indivisible movement to defeat the rightwing takeover of American government." It claims "an alliance of white nationalists and the ultra-rich have been actively working to further undermine democracy."
That rhetoric has translated into action on two major fronts.
First, Indivisible served as the primary organizer for the No Kings protests in 2025, coordinating demonstrations in nearly every U.S. state. The NoKings.org website identifies Indivisible as a founding coalition partner.
Second, and more consequentially for public safety, Indivisible has been at the forefront of organized anti-ICE demonstrations at Delaney Hall, the ICE detention facility in Newark, New Jersey. Those protests have been ongoing for weeks. A Fox News Digital investigation reported signs of advanced planning behind the Newark demonstrations. The local New York chapter of Indivisible teamed up with groups including Palestine Solidarity Working Group, Al-Awda, and 50501 in connection with the Newark protests.
The anti-ICE protest movement has not been limited to signs and chanting. In Minnesota, confrontations between protesters and immigration officers resulted in two shootings. The Trump administration eventually scaled back its operations in the state in response to the pushback.
Groups involved in promoting or organizing the Minnesota-based anti-ICE protests and boycotts included the Party for Socialism and Liberation and BreakThrough News. These are not mainstream civic organizations. They represent a hard-left fringe that views federal immigration enforcement as an enemy to be resisted physically.
When a senator's money flows to an organization that operates in the same protest ecosystem where federal officers have been shot at, the question of accountability is not abstract. It is concrete.
Murphy's own website does not hide the purpose of the Indivisible donation. It describes the funds as supporting "training staff and volunteers, paying for materials, recruiting volunteers, acquiring permits, and more." The phrase "durable mass mobilization capacity" appears on the site, language that reads less like civic engagement and more like infrastructure for sustained disruption.
Murphy told NBC News he believed the moment demanded a break from conventional Democratic politics:
"I mean, every Democrat could just continue to run in the same direction they've been running for the last 10 years. Or you could realize that this moment is different, that this threat is unique, and to me, you know, we don't have another year to fight this attempt to destroy democracy. Our democracy might be gone in six months."
American Mobilization PAC did not respond to a request for comment from Just the News.
Indivisible's coalition partnerships extend into territory that has already attracted congressional attention. Some partners in Indivisible's network have drawn scrutiny from lawmakers for alleged foreign ties to China and Cuba, as well as possible violations of nonprofit laws.
The Manhattan-based People's Forum, funded by self-proclaimed Marxist Neville Roy Singham, has been a particular focus. Just the News previously reported on a subpoena targeting Singham. The People's Forum has also been linked to opposition to a U.S. military operation to capture Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro earlier this year.
None of this means Murphy personally directed protests or endorsed violence. But it does mean a United States senator chose to send six figures to an organization embedded in a protest infrastructure that has produced real-world confrontations with federal law enforcement, and he did so while publicly calling for "mass mobilization" against the sitting president.
Murphy frames his activism as defending democracy. But the organizations his PAC funds frame federal immigration enforcement as illegitimate. The protests those organizations help run have, in at least one state, coincided with shootings of immigration officers. And the broader coalition includes groups with alleged ties to foreign adversaries and a track record of hard-left agitation that goes well beyond standard political opposition.
A senator has every right to fund political organizations. Voters can judge whether those organizations reflect their values. But when the money moves from a Senate office-holder's PAC to a group that builds protest capacity against federal law enforcement, and when the results include weeks of demonstrations at detention facilities and violence in Minnesota, the public deserves a clear accounting.
Murphy's PAC didn't respond to questions. His website, however, already answered the most important one: the money was meant to build "durable mass mobilization capacity." That's not a denial. It's a mission statement.
When elected officials bankroll the infrastructure of disorder and then wonder why order breaks down, the rest of us are left to live with the consequences they'll never face.
