Congressional scrutiny into the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) continued Wednesday with a hearing of the full House Judiciary Committee focused on “The Southern Poverty Law Center: Manufacturing Hate.” The SPLC faced initial scrutiny in December from the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government, but the hearing before the full committee came weeks after the U.S. Department of Justice indicted the SPLC for fraud, related to its paying $3 million to the leaders of white supremacist organizations.
The witnesses focused on the SPLC’s mission creep from bankrupting the Ku Klux Klan to smearing mainstream conservative organizations, including Family Research Council, Alliance Defending Freedom, Turning Point USA, and Focus on the Family. “Americans once associated the Southern Poverty Law Center with fighting the Ku Klux Klan during the civil rights era. That reputation gave the SPLC enormous moral credibility,” insisted FRC president Tony Perkins.
“But, in November 2010, SPLC shifted its focus beyond violent groups and began targeting Christian organizations opposing efforts to redefine marriage and human sexuality,” Perkins testified. “Family Research Council was among the most prominent of that first wave.”
SPLC-Inspired Attack on FRC Headquarters
Perkins related how, on August 15, 2012, “LGBT activist Floyd Corkins entered FRC headquarters here in Washington carrying a 9mm pistol, 50 rounds of ammunition, and 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches. According to his later confession, his intent was to kill as many as possible and stuff the sandwiches in our mouths.”
In surveillance video played in the hearing, an FBI interrogator asked Corkins the next day, “How did you find it? Did you like, look it up online, or how did you know about—?” Corkins answered readily, “The Southern Poverty Law [Center] lists anti-gay groups. I found them online.”
“There’s no speculation here,” responded Rep. Mark Harris (R-N.C.). “The convicted shooter specifically cited SPLC as his source for finding out about Family Research Council. It speaks for itself.”
“Following the attack,” continued Perkins, “FRC appealed to the SPLC to remove mainstream Christian organizations from its inflammatory classifications. Those requests were rejected.”
Leo the Hero
But Corkins’s murderous rampage was stopped almost before it began by the courageous actions of FRC’s building manager, “Leo the Hero.”
“The gunman — who is now serving [in] prison for domestic terrorism — came into the building with a gun. Leo, who was the building manager, was actually standing at the front asking what he needed,” Perkins narrated. “He pulled the semiautomatic pistol out of the backpack. He began shooting. The first round hit Leo in the arm, shattering his arm. He was still able to take him down.”
“More shots were fired. The bullet holes remained in the walls of our building,” Perkins continued. “Leo was able to disarm him and take him down and even recover the weapon.” Leo the Hero then kept the gun trained on Corkins until help arrived.
“Leo the hero, thank you for your courage,” Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) acknowledged. Leo the Hero attended the hearing right behind Perkins. “After multiple surgeries and months of rehabilitation, Leo returned to work and remains today affectionately known as ‘Leo the Hero,’” Perkins explained.
Afterward, FBI agents who watched surveillance footage of the incident asked Perkins, “He [Leo] was bleeding out. Why didn’t he fire the round into Corkins, to make sure that he could not come back at him?” Perkins didn’t know the answer at first. “As a former police officer, I would have, just as the FBI said. I would have defended myself, not knowing if I was going to pass out.”
“So, I asked Leo. When he came out of surgery that night … my first question was, ‘Leo, why didn’t you shoot him?’ And he said, ‘because God told me not to,’” Perkins testified. Lest the point would be lost, Perkins reiterated, “We’re not here for revenge. We’re here for justice.”
SPLC’s Open Malice
By contrast, the SPLC openly boasts about its ambition to completely platform its political opponents, including by targeting their access to financial institutions. “SPLC officials openly acknowledged this strategy before Congress in January 2020,” Perkins pressed. “SPLC official Lecia Brooks stated: ‘We have lobbied internet companies, one by one. … A key part of this strategy has been to target these organizations’ funding.’”
Just from his own experience, Perkins said, “FRC experienced this from Truist, Financial, Fidelity Investments, GuideStar, Mobile Cause, and other technology-related companies.” The attack and its aftermath also “cost FRC more than $6 million in security-related costs.”
“They want to silence us,” Perkins summarized. But “we will not be silent. We will not shrink back. We will not apologize for biblical truth. We will continue to stand for it.”
When asked by Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) why FRC never sued the SPLC over the harm it caused, Perkins answered, “Partly because information was not available as is now coming forth. … We did talk to some attorneys initially … but their image was so strong until now that it was very difficult. We [that is, other conservative groups] had suits that were brought in court, that did not succeed.”
Beyond the SPLC
However, the “conspiracy … goes way beyond just money. This was about trying to demonize silence and completely eliminate any opposition to the Left when it came to their agenda,” Perkins warned. “In America, citizens should not lose access to banking services, digital platforms, public credibility, or physical safety because they believe in biblical teaching on marriage and human sexuality.”
In fact, he argued that the issue goes beyond even the disgraced organization at the center of Wednesday’s hearing. “SPLC was the hub, but there were many spokes that made up this wheel designed to crush Christians and conservatives — the congressional inquiry should not stop with SPLC,” Perkins said. “Over time, SPLC’s ‘hate’ labels and Intelligence Project became deeply influential as banks, payment processors, and technology companies increasingly relied on SPLC classifications to decide which organizations could maintain accounts, process transactions, or operate online.”
Even the government got involved, as the SPLC got involved in government. “There are members of this committee that were endorsed by SPLC,” said Perkins.
Response from the Left
Progressive members of the committee did not enjoy the hearing’s focus on the misdeeds of the SPLC. They repeatedly tried to change the subject, bringing up decades-old lynchings, the Charlottesville alt-right rally (where an SPLC-funded “informant” was one of the organizers), the January 6 riot, and the Trump administration’s $1.776 billion fund to repay victims of government weaponization. They occasionally disparaged the DOJ’s lawsuit against the SPLC and very rarely got around to defending the organization.
In fact, Rep. Deborah Ross (D-N.C.) exclaimed, “I kind of hope this lawsuit, the specious lawsuit, results in more contributions to the SPLC. [It] might be a silver lining to the lawsuit and this ridiculous hearing.” The word “ridiculous” came out with a snarl.
However, Chairman Jordan had a ready response, “I’m not sure Leo thinks the hearings are ridiculous. Actually, I’m pretty sure he thinks it isn’t.”
Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) made perhaps the best argument, not in defense of the SPLC’s behavior but against the lawsuit. “The DOJ says that the SPLC defrauded its donors by paying undercover informants to infiltrate and collect intelligence on these racist groups,” he said. “But where are all the donors complaining about having been defrauded?” President Trump made the same argument when New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) sued him for real estate fraud in a victimless case.
The simple answer to Raskin is that SPLC’s (left-leaning) donors probably never found out what the SPLC has done, because the mainstream media has worked so hard to cover up their offenses.
Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) advanced another argument. “The Southern Poverty Law Center is on the front lines fighting anti-Semitism.” But so is Family Research Council, and the SPLC has smeared FRC by placing it on its infamous “hate map,” right alongside anti-Semitic groups.
SPLC’s Absence
In every committee hearing, the minority party is entitled to call a witness of their choosing. As Rep. Bob Onder (R-Mo.) noted, the Democrats did not call a representative from the SPLC to defend the organization’s indefensible hate group listings. Instead, they called Maya Wiley, president and CEO of Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. At the December hearing, the Democrats’ witness did not represent the SPLC either.
The reason for this choice was quickly made apparent. When asked to comment on the SPLC’s “hate” group designations of groups like ADF, Wiley evaded the questions, saying she didn’t “do designations” and didn’t know enough about the entities involved. She was only there to talk about civil rights.
Wiley even declined to say whether it was appropriate for the SPLC to label one of their paid informants as “extremist of the month,” then fundraise off of the fear this incited. After repeated attempts by Chairman Jordan to nail her down, Wiley’s only defense was, “As I said, the donors have spoken. And, in fact, they’re trying to send more money now, and their financial institutions [are] refusing to send the money.”
FRC has never called for the SPLC to be debanked — justice, not revenge — but Perkins did comment, “It’s funny, they’re crying now that they’re getting their own medicine, that Fidelity is not giving money to them. How about the thousands of conservative groups that were denied donor-driven funds because of SPLC’s labeling? Is there fairness in that? I think not.”
In numerous exchanges, Wiley was able to avoid defending the SPLC’s behavior simply because she was not affiliated with the SPLC. If an SPLC witness had been present, defending the organization’s misdeeds would have been impossible.
The U.S. Congress’s system for committee hearings offers legislators on both sides of the aisle equal opportunities to make their points and cross-examine opposing witnesses. The takeaway from the hearing — which lasted almost four hours — was that the SPLC’s behavior — from targeting conservatives to propping up racist extremists — is so disgraceful that neither Democrats nor their chosen witness was able to defend it.
In fact, as Rep. Mark Harris (R-N.C.) said, “It’s disgraceful that FRC has [been] put [on] such a hate map to begin with.”
AUTHOR
Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.
RELATED ARTICLE: SPLC’s Tactics to Silence Put Freedom at Risk
EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2026 Family Research Council.
The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.
