Neville Roy Singham is not a conventional political donor. An American-born technology entrepreneur who made his fortune in the software industry, Singham has spent years supporting socialist and communist causes through a sprawling network of nonprofit organisations, media platforms, think tanks and activist groups.
His name came into public focus in August 2023, when The New York Times published an investigation alleging that a network of organisations associated with Singham had received hundreds of millions of dollars and promoted narratives aligned with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The report traced financial connections spanning the United States, India, Brazil and South Africa.
In India, the investigation brought renewed attention to NewsClick, the digital news portal founded by Prabir Purkayastha. In the United States, Singham’s financial connections have been examined in relation to organisations including The People’s Forum, Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research and Code Pink, the activist group co-founded by his wife, Jodie Evans.
More recently, the scrutiny has escalated. In June 2026, Fox News reported that a federal grand jury in New York was investigating alleged financial improprieties involving Singham’s funding network. A US congressional committee has also pursued records from several organisations linked to him.
The central question is no longer simply why a wealthy Marxist funds left-wing causes. It is how money moves through this international network, what activities it supports, and whether the structures used to distribute it comply with the law.
From ThoughtWorks To A Fortune Used To Fund Political Causes
Singham’s route to becoming a major political financier began in the technology industry.
The son of Sri Lankan Tamil scholar and political scientist Dr Archibald Singham, Neville Roy Singham studied at Howard University, where his father taught. He subsequently established a consulting business that developed into ThoughtWorks, a software consultancy founded in 1993.
ThoughtWorks grew into an international technology company known for software development and consulting. Singham eventually sold the company in 2017 in a transaction reported to be worth approximately $785 million.
That sale gave him substantial financial resources to pursue his ideological interests.
Singham has long identified with Marxism and revolutionary socialist politics. His earlier political associations included the League of Revolutionary Black Workers, a Detroit-based organisation influenced by Maoist thought and focused on labour and racial discrimination. His ideological commitments have continued to shape his philanthropic activities.
Following the sale of ThoughtWorks, Singham’s funding of political and activist organisations became increasingly significant. According to The New York Times, money connected to him flowed through American nonprofit entities and intermediaries before reaching organisations engaged in political advocacy, media production and international activism.
The newspaper reported that Singham acknowledged providing money to intermediaries matching the description of some of these nonprofit entities. Several organisations that received funding identified him as its source.
The resulting network is important because it connects organisations that operate in different countries and under different names, but share overlapping ideological positions and, in some cases, funding relationships.
The Shanghai Connection: A Network Promoting Chinese Communist Party Narratives?
Singham is based in Shanghai, China. His location and relationships with Chinese organisations have become central to the scrutiny surrounding his funding activities.
The 2023 New York Times investigation reported that Singham shared office space with Maku Group, a Chinese media company whose stated mission included communicating China’s story to international audiences. It also reported financial links between nonprofit intermediaries associated with Singham and Maku.
The newspaper further described cooperation between organisations in Singham’s orbit and Chinese institutions, including a project involving Tricontinental and a Shanghai university to communicate China’s story in Chinese and English.
Another initiative, Dongsheng News, publishes material about China in multiple languages. The Times reported that its editors had links to Tricontinental and that its address led to The People’s Forum, an activist space in Manhattan that has also received funding associated with Singham.
These relationships have drawn scrutiny because Chinese state media and the Communist Party actively seek to shape international perceptions of China. Financial support for organisations that repeatedly advance Beijing’s preferred narratives can provide a means of influence beyond conventional state-to-state diplomacy.
The distinction, however, matters: shared ideological positions, financial relationships and cooperation with Chinese institutions do not, by themselves, establish that every organisation involved is controlled by the Chinese government. Singham has denied operating under the direction of the Chinese government, while organisations associated with him have defended their activities as lawful political advocacy.
Nevertheless, the documented connections have made his funding network a subject of continuing investigation.
NewsClick: The Indian Connection That Put Singham Under The Spotlight
Singham’s name became particularly controversial in India after The New York Times identified financial links between his network and NewsClick.
The 5 August 2023 investigation reported that corporate documents indicated that Singham’s network had financed the Indian digital news outlet. The newspaper also pointed to NewsClick content that, in its assessment, echoed Chinese government narratives.
One video highlighted in the report stated that China’s history continued to inspire the working classes. The wider investigation examined how organisations across several countries combined progressive advocacy with narratives favourable to Beijing.
NewsClick’s founder and editor-in-chief, Prabir Purkayastha, has denied that the outlet received funding or editorial instructions from the Chinese government or Chinese entities. NewsClick has also rejected allegations that it published content at the behest of Singham.
The controversy was not limited to the question of funding. Reports subsequently drew attention to email exchanges involving Singham, Purkayastha and Indian communist leaders, including CPI(M) leader Prakash Karat.
One exchange, dated 6 January 2021, concerned a map showing the India-China border and the disputed status of Arunachal Pradesh. Singham wrote that India and China would need to have two maps within their respective countries. Purkayastha responded by sharing a map from The Diplomat showing China’s claim over Arunachal Pradesh.
I think we missed the dotted line b/w India & China to the left (east of Bhutan). Clearly, China & India will have to have two maps inside their countries: Neville Roy Singham to Editor in Chief & Founder of NewsClick.
＠padmajajoshi walks us through the email, dated 6 Jan. 2021, which has been exclusively accessed by TIMES NOW.
— TIMES NOW (@TimesNow) August 7, 2023
The exchange attracted attention because it involved a foreign financier and the head of an Indian news outlet discussing a sensitive territorial dispute with China. It raised questions about the nature of their relationship, although the exchange alone does not establish that Singham directed NewsClick’s editorial decisions.
The wider correspondence and reported financial links helped bring the relationship between Singham’s network and Indian left-wing organisations under greater scrutiny.
NewsClick’s Funding And The Indian Investigations
NewsClick had already faced scrutiny from Indian investigative agencies before the 2023 controversy erupted.
On 9 February 2021, the Enforcement Directorate raided Purkayastha’s residence as part of an investigation into the outlet’s funding. Reports at the time said NewsClick had received approximately ₹10 crore through foreign direct investment from an American company.
In October 2023, the Delhi Police arrested Purkayastha and NewsClick’s human resources head, Amit Chakravarty, in a case involving allegations of unlawful activities and the dissemination of pro-China propaganda. Investigators alleged that funds had been channelled to promote content intended to undermine India’s sovereignty and that the network had sought to influence political developments.
The Central Bureau of Investigation subsequently initiated a separate case alleging violations of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA). The allegations included the receipt and distribution of foreign funds in circumstances that investigators considered unlawful.
NewsClick rejected the allegations, describing the action against it as an attempt to suppress independent journalism. The outlet said it had neither received funding nor instructions from China or Chinese entities and denied promoting violence or illegal activity.
In May 2024, the Supreme Court ordered Purkayastha’s release after ruling that the procedure followed in informing him of the grounds of his arrest was legally invalid. That ruling concerned the legality of his arrest; it was not a final determination that all allegations relating to the outlet’s funding were true or false.
The distinction is important. The allegations against NewsClick, the questions surrounding its foreign funding, and the legality of particular investigative actions are separate issues.
For Singham, however, NewsClick remains one of the most consequential Indian connections in the wider debate about his international network.
The Covid-19 Narrative: How NewsClick Covered China During The Pandemic
The funding controversy also brought renewed attention to NewsClick’s coverage of China during the early stages of the Covid-19 pandemic.
In March 2020, Purkayastha appeared in a video discussing China’s handling of the outbreak. He described measures including genome sequencing, the development of test kits, the lockdown of Wuhan, quarantine arrangements and community support. He referred to the work of Bruce Aylward, who had participated in the WHO-China Joint Mission on Covid-19.
Such coverage presented China’s response favourably while giving insufficient weight to questions about the Chinese authorities’ early handling of the outbreak and the transparency of information coming out of Wuhan.
The controversy gained a new dimension after the 2023 reporting connected NewsClick financially to Singham’s network, which the Times said had promoted Chinese government narratives.
The key issue is not that reporting on China’s pandemic response is inherently propaganda. News organisations routinely examine how different countries handle crises. The question raised is whether coverage that consistently favours Beijing’s account was produced independently or within a broader ideological and financial ecosystem that promoted similar narratives.
NewsClick has denied that its reporting was dictated by Chinese interests. Establishing editorial control would require evidence beyond the ideological alignment of particular reports or the existence of a financial relationship.
Tricontinental And Vijay Prashad: The Think Tank Link
Another important organisation in Singham’s network is Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research, a Marxist research institute whose executive director is historian Vijay Prashad.
The New York Times reported that Tricontinental was among the organisations that received financial support from intermediaries associated with Singham. It also described cooperation between the institute and Chinese academic institutions.
Prashad’s own public statements have acknowledged his relationship with Singham. On 21 December 2021, Prashad described him as “A Marxist with a massive software company!” and wrote that Singham had decided to direct money from the sale of his company towards political education for a new generation of radicals.
Prashad is also the nephew of CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat, a connection he has publicly acknowledged.
These relationships illustrate how Singham’s funding reaches organisations devoted to political education, research and ideological advocacy—not merely conventional campaign organisations.
Tricontinental has said it follows the law and does not receive funds or instructions from any government or political party. The institute’s funding relationship with Singham, however, has placed it within the wider scrutiny of how private wealth supports international political movements.
Jodie Evans And Code Pink: From Anti-War Activism To Pro-China Advocacy
Singham married Jodie Evans in 2017. Evans is a former Democratic political adviser and co-founder of Code Pink, the women-led activist organisation established in 2002 in opposition to the Iraq War.
Code Pink has campaigned on peace, social justice and foreign policy. Its positions on China have become a point of controversy, particularly after the organisation launched its “China Is Not Our Enemy” campaign in 2021.
The campaign argued that escalating American military pressure on China risked provoking conflict and called for opposition to what it described as a policy of encirclement.
Code Pink’s approach had gone beyond opposition to war and has increasingly defended Beijing’s positions. The 2023 New York Times investigation also reported that Chinese state media accounts had repeatedly reshared posts from individuals and groups associated with Singham’s network, including accounts linked to Code Pink and No Cold War.
The connection between Singham and Evans has therefore become central to questions about how his money supports political advocacy in the United States.
It is important to distinguish between funding an organisation, agreeing with its political positions and directing its activities. Those are not automatically the same thing. But when the same financier supports several organisations that collaborate, share messaging and maintain relationships with Chinese institutions, the cumulative pattern becomes a legitimate subject of investigation.
The People’s Forum And The International Activist Infrastructure
The People’s Forum, based in New York City, is another prominent organisation linked to Singham’s funding network. It functions as a venue for political events, education and organising, and has hosted speakers and groups associated with socialist and anti-imperialist movements.
The organisation has also been linked to other media and activist initiatives. The New York Times reported that Singham-associated funding supported The People’s Forum and described connections between the venue, Dongsheng News and other organisations in the network.
In June 2026, Fox News reported that its investigation had mapped 223 transactions between 2017 and 2025, involving $591 million moving through 67 core groups across five continents. The report said that at least $278 million had flowed directly from Singham into organisations it identified as part of the network.
These figures are findings reported by Fox News, not judicial determinations that all the transactions were unlawful. They nevertheless illustrate the scale of the financial ecosystem now under scrutiny.
The network’s reach matters because its activities span several different fields: research and political education, media production, demonstrations, anti-war campaigns, labour activism and electoral advocacy.
Such an ecosystem can amplify a shared political outlook through many channels at once. Whether that represents ordinary transnational political solidarity or an improperly concealed foreign influence operation is among the questions investigators are examining.
The 2025 Los Angeles Anti-ICE Protests: Was Singham’s Network Connected?
The 2025 protests against US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Los Angeles brought renewed attention to the role of activist organisations in American street politics.
In its 10 June 2025 report, we reported on the involvement of groups including the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL), the ANSWER Coalition and the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA). The protests should be viewed in the context of a broader activist ecosystem rather than as an entirely spontaneous mobilisation.
Singham was a figure whose funding connections intersect with parts of the international left-wing activist infrastructure. The relationships between socialist organisations, activist hubs and media initiatives associated with his wider network also needed to be scrutinized.
The Zohran Mamdani Campaign: A Wider Network Of Socialist And Political Organisations
Singham’s name has also featured in the political ecosystem surrounding Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic socialist who emerged as a major figure in New York City politics.
A Fox News investigation published in October 2025 described a network of 110 organisations involved in or connected to Mamdani’s political rise, including socialist groups, Muslim and South Asian advocacy organisations, and Democratic Party affiliates. The report argued that these groups helped build the political infrastructure behind his campaign.
Separately, The New York Post reported that Mamdani’s campaign had received donations from individuals with addresses outside the United States, some of which had not been returned at the time of its investigation. The campaign said it would return donations that were not compliant with campaign-finance rules.
2026: A Federal Grand Jury And Congressional Scrutiny
The latest developments have intensified scrutiny of Singham’s financial activities.
On 29 June 2026, Fox News reported that a federal grand jury in the Southern District of New York was investigating alleged financial improprieties involving Singham’s funding network. According to the report, investigators were examining whether Singham, organisations he funded or their leaders had committed offences such as wire fraud, bank fraud or money laundering.
Fox News reported that investigators were examining the movement of funds through intermediaries, including shell companies and a Goldman Sachs donor-advised philanthropy fund. The report said that $285 million had moved from Shanghai into a Goldman Sachs philanthropy fund and two shell corporations, which then channelled money into nonprofit organisations and activist groups.
Congressional scrutiny has also expanded. In July 2026, the House Ways and Means Committee subpoenaed three organisations linked to Singham: The People’s Forum, BreakThrough News and Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research. The committee has sought records concerning foreign-linked funding, financial arrangements, communications with Singham and overseas grants.
Fox News reported in October 2026 that the committee had warned the organisations that their leaders could face depositions if they failed to comply with its demands. Singham is listed as chairman of Tricontinental’s international advisory board.
The committee has raised concerns that shell companies and donor-advised funds may have obscured the original sources of contributions. The organisations have challenged the investigation, arguing that lawmakers are targeting their political views and activities protected by the First Amendment.
The Money Trail Remains
Neville Roy Singham’s network stretches from NewsClick in India to media platforms, think tanks and activist organisations across continents. The financial links, the shared ideological messaging and connections with Chinese institutions have raised serious questions about the reach of his influence. Now, a US federal grand jury investigation and congressional scrutiny have brought the network’s finances under sharper examination. Singham and the organisations linked to him have defended their activities. But the central question remains: who funds this sprawling ideological ecosystem, where does the money go, and what does it ultimately serve?
Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
