CodePink launches China tour as grand jury investigation into Singham network funding continues
CodePink co-founder Medea Benjamin is leading a 12-day tour of China that promotes the country’s revolutionary history and socialist development. The trip has drawn attention because the organisation has received funding from US businessman Neville Roy Singham, whose network is under a US grand jury investigation.
The tour is advertised at an estimated cost of $3,000 to $4,000 per person and includes visits to six locations, with CodePink co-founder Jodie Evans also taking part. A Fox News Digital investigation reported that Singham channelled $278 million to a network of nonprofits since 2017, including CodePink. Singham and CodePink deny taking direction or funding from China’s government, and no charges have been filed in connection with the allegations.
- CodePink co-founder Medea Benjamin is leading a 12-day China tour.
- The trip is estimated to cost $3,000 to $4,000 per person.
- Singham and his network face a grand jury investigation; no charges have been filed.
New here? Start with this
CodePink is a US-based anti-war group co-founded by Medea Benjamin and Jodie Evans. It campaigns on foreign policy and organises events and travel, including trips that focus on China’s history and political system.
Neville Roy Singham is a US businessman who has funded several non-profit organisations, including CodePink. US investigators are examining funding connected to his network; an investigation by Fox News Digital reported that it has received money from Singham since 2017.
The case has drawn attention to questions about the sources of political organisations’ funding and whether donors influence their work. Singham and CodePink deny taking direction or funding from China’s government, and no charges have been filed in connection with the allegations.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters could argue that the tour is a legitimate effort to understand China’s history and society firsthand, and that receiving funds from a private US donor does not by itself show that CodePink is directed by a foreign government. They may also stress that an ongoing grand jury investigation is not a finding of wrongdoing and that no charges have been filed.
The case against
Critics could argue that substantial funding from Singham’s network creates a reasonable concern about transparency and whether the organisation’s advocacy is shaped by its donors, even without proof of Chinese government direction. In that context, a tour promoting China’s revolutionary history and socialist development may appear to blur the line between independent study and political messaging, warranting scrutiny while the investigation continues.