The Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) Metroplex has been a focal point for anti-ICE protests in January and February of 2025, with hundreds taking to the streets to oppose the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement policies.
From the January 26 gathering near the Margaret Hunt Hill Bridge to the February 2 rally at Dallas City Hall, these demonstrations showcase a sustained resistance to mass deportations and ICE raids.
Yet, as we move into mid-March, the frequency of such protests appears to have tapered off.
Could this shift be tied to recent cuts in government funding to non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that may have supported these efforts?
The correlation raises a provocative question: Were these protests, at least partially propped up by taxpayer dollars funneled through NGOs?
The timeline is interesting. On January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump began his second term, swiftly enacting executive orders to ramp up ICE operations nationwide.
In Dallas, this sparked an immediate backlash, with protests on January 26 and February 2 drawing significant crowds—up to 2,000, according to local reports.
The “March Fourth for Democracy” event on March 4 at Dealey Plaza, organized by the 50501 Movement, marked another notable demonstration, though it wasn’t exclusively anti-ICE in focus.
However, as of today, March 13, no major anti-ICE protests have been documented in Dallas since then. What changed?
One potential factor is the Trump administration’s early moves to slash federal funding to NGOs, particularly those tied to immigration advocacy.
On his first day in office, Trump signed an executive order halting funds to organizations like the Rocky Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Network in Colorado, which could signal broader cuts nationwide.
While specific cuts to Dallas-based NGOs aren’t fully detailed in public records yet, the administration’s broader agenda—including reducing support for sanctuary jurisdictions and refugee resettlement programs—suggests a clampdown on groups that might organize or sustain protest movements.
Catholic Charities in Dallas, for instance, laid off over 60 workers in early 2025 due to a federal funding pullback, hinting at the local ripple effects.
Groups like the Next Generation Action Network, which spearheaded the February 2 Dallas protest alongside the Dallas Brown Berets and others, rely heavily on donations and grants.
Historically, some immigration advocacy NGOs have received federal or state funding for legal aid, community outreach, or resettlement efforts—resources that could indirectly support mobilization efforts like protests.
If such funding streams dried up post-January 2025, it’s plausible that the organizational capacity for sustained protests took a hit.
The absence of scheduled anti-ICE protests in Dallas for the rest of March, as noted in local activist updates, aligns suspiciously with this funding shift.
This isn’t to say NGOs were the sole drivers of these protests—grassroots passion was evident, with teenagers like Joselin Ibarra and Ximena Bassilo organizing alongside established groups.
Nor does it prove that government funds directly bankrolled megaphones and march permits.
But the timing prompts scrutiny: consistent protests in January and February, a funding squeeze starting in late January, and a quieter March. Correlation doesn’t equal causation, but it’s a pattern worth exploring.
Critics might argue that protest fatigue, colder weather, or shifting public focus explain the lull. Yet, the January 26 rally braved frigid temperatures, and the immigration debate remains red-hot nationally.
Another possibility is that organizers are regrouping and planning larger actions that have not yet been publicized. Still, the funding angle lingers.
If NGOs were a quiet engine behind the scenes—perhaps using government grants to cover logistics or staff time—their sudden resource scarcity could stall the momentum.
The question isn’t just academic. If taxpayer money, even indirectly, fueled anti-ICE activism, it flips the narrative of these protests as purely organic uprisings.
It also raises ethical debates: Should public funds support advocacy against government policy? And if those funds are cut, does it silence dissent or expose its reliance on the very system it critiques?