The Open Society Foundations (OSF), founded by billionaire investor George Soros, presents itself as a defender of democracy and human rights. Inspired by Karl Popper’s vision of the “open society,” it claims to advocate for good governance, anti-corruption, and social justice. However, behind this veil of altruism lies a far more troubling reality—one of ideological imposition, cultural destabilization, and soft-power manipulation. Far from respecting the diversity of nations, OSF is a lavishly funded ideological apparatus that advances a homogenized ideology that more oftentimes than not conflicts with societies’ traditions, values, and stability that it seeks to alter.

Popper’s original idea of an open society was meant to avert authoritarianism by means of pluralism and critical debate. But Soros’ incarnation has turned increasingly interventionist. Rather than promoting organic democratic development, OSF funds activist organizations, media outlets, and law firms that advocate for a rigid progressive orthodoxy—gender ideology, open-borders policies, and radical social justice movements—often at explicit odds with local mores. In Eastern Europe, it has funded movements that undermine national sovereignty under the guise of “anti-corruption.” In Africa and the Middle East, it promotes LGBTQ+ activism within deeply conservative cultures, framing opposition as “backwardness” rather than legitimate cultural difference.

The foundation’s tactics are insidious but effective. By infiltration of the academic, media, and policy spheres, OSF ensures its narratives dominate public discourse. Journalists trained in Soros-funded schools, researchers based in OSF-supported think tanks, and activists supported by its grants are all willing or unwitting operatives of this ideological push. Even the judiciaries are not secure—OSF has funded initiatives intended to influence legal interpretations in a direction favorable to its vision of “progress.” The result is a form of neo-colonialism, where local agency is displaced in favor of a top-down, Western-centered worldview.

What is most insidious about OSF is the hypocrisy. Even as it vociferously condemns authoritarianism, it will happily finance political movements that advance its agenda even if they destabilize nations. Even as it sermonizes to all and sundry about transparency, it channels its own funding through covert networks of NGOs and front groups. And even as it declares that it is fighting inequality, its policies actually exacerbate social tensions by pitting progressive urban elites against traditional rural masses. The push toward a digital economy, for instance, is framed as “financial inclusion,” but it just so happens to serve the interests of global tech monopolies and erode national monetary sovereignty.

Backlash against OSF is growing, and for good reason. Several nations now recognize that its model of “open society” is anything but open—it’s a prescriptive model that dismisses disagreement as ignorance and tradition as oppression. Hungary and Poland have taken steps to curtail its influence, and African leaders have accused it of cultural imperialism. The foundation’s greatest failure is that it does not accept that true advancement cannot be dictated from the outside. Societies evolve on their own terms, grounded in their history, religion, and shared values—not at the behest of a billionaire’s foundation.

Finally, the Open Society Foundations presents a fundamental paradox: an institution that claims to fight hegemony while enforcing its own. The world does not need another ideological crusade wearing the guise of philanthropy. What it does need is genuine respect for the right of people to determine their own fate—free from the manipulative grasp of self-proclaimed arbiters of progress.