Skip to content
Project Liberty Institute at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Project Liberty Institute

To create a new civic architecture for the digital world that returns the ownership and control of personal data to individuals, embeds ethical values into technology, and expands economic opportunities for web users and developers alike.

$1.9M
Granted FY2025still arriving
12
Grants FY2025still arriving
7
States reached
$1.0M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its fieldRead
04Through PlinthRead

Read this first · the figures below need context

63% of Project Liberty Institute’s FY2025 grant dollars went to Global Impact, not to grantees.

Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2025 names 9 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it.

Organizations named directly on the return

2
’21
3
’22
2
’23
2
’24
9
’25

Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.

01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2021 to 2024.

Education$13MScience & Tech$7.4MPublic Benefit$500kArts & Culture$425kInternational$70kSocial Science$25kPhilanthropy$20k
02FY2025 · 12 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 12 grants below total $1,905,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $1,950,000 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $45,000 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k2 grants · $60k
  • $50k–250k9 grants · $845k
  • $250k+1 grant · $1.0M
$75,000
Median grant
7
States reached
$4.9M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
GLOBAL IMPACT$1,000,000
ETH ZURICH FOUNDATION (USA) INC$200,000
BERKELEY EXISTENTIAL RISK INITIATIVE$150,000
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY$120,000
THE GERMAN MARSHALL FUND OF THE UNITED STATES$100,000
ROCKEFELLER PHILANTHROPY ADVISORS INC$75,000
TECHFREEDOM$50,000
CONSUMER REPORTS INC$50,000
IDI$50,000
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO FOUNDATION$50,000
EXCHANGE POINT INSTITUTE$30,000
NEW AMERICA FOUNDATION$30,000
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY21–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 67% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY: $7.3M → 8%CORTICO: $7.3M → 16%RADICALXCHANGE FOUNDATION LTD: $25k → 9%COMMON SENSE MEDIA: $425k → 10%BERKELEY EXISTENTIAL RISK INITIATIVE: $150k → 14%CONSUMER REPORTS INC: $50k → 9%HETERODOX ACADEMY: $250k → 17%GLOBAL IMPACT: $1.0M → 14%EXCHANGE POINT INSTITUTE: $30k → 13%MEDIATORS FOUNDATION INC: $70k → 12%UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO FOUNDATION: $50k → 12%IDI: $50k → 13%MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY: $120k → 8%HETERODOX ACADEMY: $250k → 17%GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: $2.5M → 14%MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY: $120k → 8%ROCKEFELLER PHILANTHROPY ADVISORS INC: $75k → 17%ISSUE ONE: $500k → 14%ETH ZURICH FOUNDATION (USA) INC: $200k → 17%TECHFREEDOM: $50k → 14%US SCIENCES PO FOUNDATION: $2.2M → 17%THE GERMAN MARSHALL FUND OF THE UNITED STATES: $100k → 14%NEW AMERICA FOUNDATION: $30k → 14%THE HOPEWELL FUND: $20k → 14%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP.
How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving.
03Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
Open Markets Institute

The open markets institute works to help people relearn how to use competition policy to build stronger democracies, more just and equitable societies, more innovative and sustainable economies, and a more secure and peaceful world.

Education
2
Observer Research Foundation America

Organization mission the observer research foundation america orf america is an independent, non-partisan, and nonprofit organization in washington dc dedicated to addressing policy challenges facing the united states, india, and their…

International
3
MRIGlobal

To improve the lives of people through innovative scientific and engineering research.

Science & Tech
4
The Rand Corporation

Help improve policy and decision making through research and analysis.

Public Benefit
5
Center for Democracy and Technology

Advocating for public policies that advance democratic values in the digital age.

Civil Rights
6
Peter G Peterson Institute for International Economics

The peterson institute for international economics (piie) is an independent nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization dedicated to strengthening prosperity and human welfare in the global economy through expert analysis and practical…

Social Science
7
Center for Strategic and International Studies

The center for strategic and international studies (csis) is a bipartisan, nonprofit policy research organization dedicated to advancing practical ideas to address the world's greatest challenges.

International
8
Institute for State Effectiveness

The institute for state effectiveness seeks to close the governance gap and advance inclusive growth so that states and markets deliver to citizens. ise advances practical approaches to strengthen capacity for transformation, through…

International
9
Activate Global Inc

Activate empowers scientists to reinvent the world by bringing their research to market. activate partners with u.s. based funders, research institutions, and other pillars of the hard technology community to help entrepreneurial…

Environment
10
The Mitre Corporation

The primary exempt purpose of the mitre corporation is to conduct scientific research activities in the public interest that ensure the safety and security of the united states, enabling solutions and decisions related to complex…

Science & Tech
11
The George Washington University

The mission of the george washington university (gw) is to educate individuals in liberal arts, languages, sciences, learned professions, and other courses and subjects of study, and to conduct scholarly research and publish the findings…

Education
12
Foreign Policy Research Institute

The foreign policy research institute (frpi) is dedicated to producing the highest quality scholarship and nonpartisan policy analysis focused on crucial foreign policy and national security challenges facing the united states. we educate…

International
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Mediators Foundation Inc; the most unlike its peers is Radicalxchange Foundation Ltd. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

21 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
6
Early backer (in before they grew)
21/21
Grantees still filing
12/21
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Massachusetts Institute of Technology: $7,565,581 · EducationMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyGEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: $2,500,000 · EducationGEORGETOWN UNIVERSITYUS Sciences PO Foundation: $2,200,000 · EducationUS Sciences PO FoundationHETERODOX ACADEMY: $500,000 · Education+1 more: $50,000 · EducationCORTICO CORPORATION: $7,325,581 · Science & TechCORTICO CORPORATION+2 more: $250,000 · Science & TechGlobal Impact: $1,000,000 · InternationalTHE GERMAN MARSHALL FUND OF THE UNITED STATES: $100,000 · InternationalMEDIATORS FOUNDATION INC: $70,000 · InternationalISSUE ONE: $500,000 · Public BenefitCONSUMER REPORTS INC: $50,000 · Public BenefitCOMMON SENSE MEDIA: $425,000 · Arts & CultureBERKELEY EXISTENTIAL RISK INITIATIVE: $150,000 · Public Safety & DisasterROCKEFELLER PHILANTHROPY ADVISORS INC: $75,000 · PhilanthropyHOPEWELL FUND: $20,000 · PhilanthropyIDI: $50,000 · OtherExchange Point Institute: $30,000 · OtherNEW AMERICA FOUNDATION: $30,000 · OtherRADICALXCHANGE FOUNDATION LTD: $25,000 · Other
Education$12,815,581Science & Tech$7,575,581International$1,170,000Public Benefit$550,000Arts & Culture$425,000Public Safety & Disaster$150,000Philanthropy$95,000Other$135,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetMassachusetts Institute of Technology: $7,565,581 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetGEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: $2,500,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetUS Sciences PO Foundation: $2,200,000 over 1y, 74% of budgetGlobal Impact: $1,000,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetHETERODOX ACADEMY: $500,000 over 2y, 8.4% of budgetISSUE ONE: $500,000 over 1y, 6.3% of budgetCOMMON SENSE MEDIA: $425,000 over 1y, 1.7% of budgetMEDIATORS FOUNDATION INC: $70,000 over 1y, 2.0% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF COLORADO FOUNDATION: $50,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCONSUMER REPORTS INC: $50,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetRADICALXCHANGE FOUNDATION LTD: $25,000 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetHOPEWELL FUND: $20,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

National Philanthropi…Vanguard Charitable E…American Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …
National Philanthropic TrustPA9.7× affinity4 shared granteesties to 4 of 4Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: National Philanthropic Trust · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Project Liberty Institute funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Project Liberty Institute. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from government →median 35%
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology: 35% of income from government
  • Cortico Corporation: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–40%
typical government reliance, FY20–25
How this is measured
Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12 to 24 months.
04Through Plinth

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to Project Liberty Institute?

Find your warmest path to Project Liberty Institute through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 21 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

How this is measured
Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears.

Generated from the IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Project Liberty Institute’s filings →

More from the funding graph

The unnamed billions
grants reported with no recipient in the public record
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
The endowment market
who holds foundation money, and what just moved
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home