Three Nonprofits Challenge House Subpoenas in Singham Funding Investigation, Invoke First Amendment

Two nonprofits connected to communist-aligned tech entrepreneur Neville Roy Singham have formally opposed congressional subpoenas issued by the House Ways and Means Committee, arguing that the inquiry amounts to a constitutionally suspect targeting of their political viewpoints and speech rights. BreakThrough News, a New York-based pro-China media organization, and Peoples Forum Inc., a socialist advocacy group, submitted written objections to the subpoenas through their legal representatives, contending that the committee’s demands exceed legitimate legislative authority.

The organizations claim the July 21 subpoenas violate their First Amendment freedoms by seeking information about journalism, political advocacy and donor networks rather than conducting a genuine investigation into tax law compliance. In identical language in both objections, attorneys characterized the committee’s approach as a “witch-hunt” employing rhetoric reminiscent of Cold War-era anti-communist investigations, comparing the effort to the House Un-American Activities Committee’s work in the late 1940s and 1950s.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith, a Missouri Republican, rejected the organizations’ resistance in a statement to Fox News Digital, declaring that congressional subpoena compliance is mandatory and the committee will deploy all available enforcement mechanisms to investigate whether foreign actors are exploiting tax law provisions to promote division. Smith stated the committee is examining whether existing statutes adequately address funding arrangements that obscure the original sources of contributions.

The committee’s cover letters indicate that approximately $40.3 million flowed from Singham’s financial network to the three subpoenaed organizations: BreakThrough News, Peoples Forum and Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research, which identifies its work as rooted in “national liberation Marxism.” According to the committee, Singham’s network allegedly routed money through shell companies and donor-advised funds designed to conceal contribution sources.

Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, co-founder and executive director of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, signed the Peoples Forum objection, while attorney Andrew Herman co-signed the BreakThrough News letter. Both attorneys are Washington, D.C.-based and have previously represented the organizations in earlier inquiries, drawing explicit parallels between the current congressional effort and historical anti-communist investigations.

The nonprofits contend the committee has exceeded its traditional tax oversight role by venturing into foreign influence and national security matters. They argue the subpoenas demand excessive information unrelated to legitimate financial scrutiny, including records that would expose journalism practices, political activities, donors and organizational associations that merit constitutional protection.

Singham, a 72-year-old American resident of Shanghai who sold software company ThoughtWorks for an estimated $785 million in 2017, has directed at least $278 million into six core nonprofits promoting socialist, communist and pro-China causes. According to previous reporting, Singham provided $22.44 million to Peoples Forum, $16.76 million to Tricontinental and $1.098 million to BreakThrough BT Media Inc., the parent of BreakThrough News, totaling approximately $40.3 million.

The organizations launched public messaging and fundraising campaigns after the subpoenas became public, with supporters characterizing the investigation as McCarthyism targeting independent journalism. BreakThrough News host Rania Khalek appeared on Democracy Now! to argue the outlet faced political persecution and solicited financial support for legal defense, while Peoples Forum sought tax-deductible donations for legal expenses and organizing efforts.

The committee stated that the organizations failed to produce documents in response to earlier requests, while the organizations asserted they faced no legal obligation to comply with improperly framed demands that violate First Amendment protections. The committee has not publicly alleged that any subpoenaed organization engaged in criminal conduct or other illegal activity.