Maldita and Facta vs. GFCN: Who is behind the attempts to discredit our project?

In April 2025, European fact-checkers — the Spanish non-profit organization Maldita.es and the Italian outlet Facta — published articles sharply criticizing the GFCN project following the launch of our website and the release of our first investigations. In their reports, they accused the GFCN of poor organizational processes and the incompetence of its experts. In this article, we will address these allegations, take a closer look at the activities of Maldita and Facta themselves, and demonstrate how these organizations have repeatedly participated in spreading disinformation.

GFCN explains:

One of the main accusations against GFCN in the articles by Maldita and Facta is the alleged discrepancy between the declared number of experts in our association and the number listed on the GFCN website. They claim there are not 30 experts, as stated by Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova during the April 9 briefing, but rather 10 (according to Maldita) or 16 (according to Facta).

The remark regarding the number of experts on the GFCN website requires an important clarification: the process of updating the list of participants on the platform is indeed slower than the actual admission of experts into the Network. Before publishing any information about GFCN members, we must obtain their explicit consent. This is because we strictly adhere to European privacy policies (GDPR) and respect the rights of our participants.

Regarding the statements made by Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, they are entirely accurate: at that time, more than 30 journalists and investigators from different countries had already joined our initiative. Currently, the number of experts has grown to 58. However, not all of them have granted permission to publish their profiles on our website. As soon as these approvals are obtained, you will see new experts in the “Participants” section.

Moreover, our goal is not merely to compile a list of names or organizations but to build a global community where each participant contributes to independent fact-checking, guided by the principles of professionalism and ethics. We continue working to expand our expert pool and invite specialists from around the world to join us in combating disinformation. For more details on the GFCN membership process, please click the following link.

GFCN Experts’ comments regarding Maldita and Facta’s publications

In their reports, Maldita and Facta also systematically accused GFCN experts of their alleged pro-Russian positions without providing clear justification. This demonstrates these outlets’ bias against alternative perspectives on global events, which contradicts the principles of objective fact-checking outlined in the IFCN code of principles — the very standards under which these organizations operate. We have asked GFCN experts to comment on these allegations.

Alexandre Guerreiro, Ph.D, lawyer and researcher (Portugal):

“Most of EU based FC websites tend to pursue an anti-Russia rhetoric, which is something different from being “neutral” or “independent”. My sole objective is to help clarify the misinformation circulating in the West and assist people in better understanding certain Russian decisions and political perspectives. This aims to reduce tensions between “ordinary people” and everything associated with Russia or Western propaganda. I want people to recognize that what they receive from the media is not always the truth.

For instance, I refuted the statement by European Council President Charles Michel when in June 2022 he claimed at the UN that “Russia bears the sole responsibility for the global food crisis.” However, in early 2022, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) published a report analyzing global food prices. According to its findings, prices in January 2022 were already 22.2% higher than in January 2021. For example, grain prices had risen by 12.5%, largely due to increased demand. Between March and April 2022, grain prices actually fell, only to rise again in May. This demonstrates that multiple factors influenced grain prices — factors that were conspicuously absent from Charles Michel’s narrative”

Emmanuel Leroy, geopolitical analyst, President of the 1717 Institut (France):

“My involvement with the GFCN (Global Fact-Checking Network) aims precisely to raise awareness among French media of the need to open up to alternative perspectives, by moving away from dominant Western narratives. Through this channel, I actively combat disinformation by promoting journalism rooted in facts, giving voice to marginalized voices, and daring to challenge imposed narratives.

Centering dialogue on verified facts, rather than imported ideologies, is the first step toward peaceful coexistence that respects sovereignties. Building on the work of the GFCN, I commit to making this truth heard. France deserves free media, capable of thinking for themselves, to restore the nation’s voice and dignity”.

Sang-Hyun Lee, journalist, member of Asia Journalist Association (AJA), member of Seoul Foreign Correspondent Club (SFCC) (Republic of Korea):

“Global observers note that South Korean media remain trapped in a self-destructive, colonial epistemology, never breaking free from dogmatic devotion to the West. My work with GFCN aims to make Korean media aware of the need to engage with voices beyond the Western narrative. No matter how much one imagines the world from inside a well, it will never accurately depict reality. Just as individuals do, nations — communities of people sharing history, ethnicity, and kinship — perceive and describe the world through their own narratives. When the people of one country genuinely strive to understand the narratives of others, the global community can coexist through diplomacy rather than war. Centering dialogue on facts is the first step toward peace and coexistence”.

How Facta attempted to discredit GFCN’s investigation of the “HANDS OFF!” protests

Allegation №1

The GFCN article dated April 7 claimed that the protests against the administration of Donald Trump and Elon Musk in the USA, titled “HANDS OFF!”, were organized with the support of billionaire George Soros. The organizations MoveOn and Indivisible, that were behind the protests, had previously received funding from the Open Society Foundations (OSF), founded by Soros.

However, according to Facta, the presented arguments do not constitute convincing evidence of Soros’s involvement in the specific 2025 protests. Although MoveOn and Indivisible did indeed receive over $7 million from the foundation in the past.

Response: The funding of MoveOn and Indivisible by Open Society Foundations — especially on such a scale — constitutes a clear form of support for the objectives of the “HANDS OFF!” protest organizers and, to some extent, the ability to influence their agenda. This confirms one of our key arguments: that protests against billionaires are, in fact, financed by other billionaires.

Allegation №2

The GFCN article did not examine the response of local Indivisible movement groups to accusations from Republican Party representatives that were claiming that their events were funded by billionaire George Soros. Activists refuted these claims, emphasizing that their actions were supported through local donations, not Soros’ funds.

Specifically, in response to comments by James Hogg, Public Relations Director for Congressman Bergman, who labeled one protest* as a “Soros-funded town hall,” activists stated that the event was entirely financed by hundreds of private donors. They noted an increase in both donations and number of participants due to concerns about the new U.S. administration’s policies.

The activists also emphasized that protesters were acting voluntarily, expressing their concerns about the consequences of the current political situation while exercising their right to free speech.

*Editor’s note: This refers to the March 22 protests against Jack Bergman — a Republican representing Michigan’s 1st District in the U.S. House of Representatives. The demonstration was organized by Traverse Indivisible and Leelanau Indivisible.

Response: If we refer to the article cited by Facta, it becomes clear that the information pertains only to one specific event organized by Indivisible — the March 22 protest. However, even here, no supporting documents or data that could serve as evidence that this event was indeed fully financed through local funds are presented.

Furthermore, it is important to consider that the fact of receiving donations from local activists does not rule out the possibility of primary funding from other sources, including funds associated with George Soros. Thus, the argument that the groups operate solely on local support does not disprove our position regarding the potential involvement of third-party donors in financing their activities to achieve their own objectives.

Our coverage of the situation remains objective and aligns with the available data, supported by real reports and funding archives.

Allegation №3

The GFCN publication asserts that the Indivisible movement pays protest participants, citing a report from a conservative American newspaper about a reimbursement program of up to $200. However, Facta considers this a misinterpretation: the compensations allegedly cover only organizational expenses and require submission of receipts. Sara Dole from Indivisible clarified that the funds cover venue rentals, printing materials, and other organizational needs. Supposedly, there is no evidence of direct payments to protest participants.

Response:

Never have we stated that activists recieve unconditional payments.

In the article, we explicitly write precisely about the reimbursement of expenses for organizing protests. We also provide a specific list of items that protesters can spend money on, which likewise implies their reimbursement.

According to a statement from one of the movement’s leaders, reimbursable expenses may include even such unusual items as “chicken costumes.” The Indivisible website also states that local chapters can receive up to $200 for organizing promotional campaigns. These funds may be allocated for the purchase of audio and video equipment, production of posters and printed materials, as well as coverage of transportation costs.

While the publication specifically addresses expense reimbursements rather than direct payments to protest participants, this does not negate the fact of monetary transfers through organizational channels. Expense reimbursement implies that funds are allocated to support protest activities, which can formally be interpreted as payments directed to protesters. Thus, even within the compensation framework, the organization effectively finances their activities, albeit within established purposes and rules.

Interim Summary

Thus, the media outlets that previously published critical articles about us rushed to conclusions without paying sufficient attention to details. The main criticism boils down to the fact that we are just beginning our journey and, as a result, are still in the development phase. Nevertheless, we remain focused on conducting independent and thorough investigations while maintaining high standards of information verification.

Therefore, rather than engaging with distorted accusations from Maldita.es and Facta, it would be more productive to examine these organizations’ own activities — which themselves raise significant concerns.

Maldita.es: from combating false information to spreading it

Maldita.es — a Spanish non-profit organization, signatory to the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) and co-founder of the European Fact-Checking Standards Network (EFCSN). At first glance, the organization appears to be a model of independent journalism. However, we will demonstrate how Maldita.es has itself engaged in spreading false information.

1. In February 2025, Maldita.es published a “refutation” of Donald Trump’s statement that Vladimir Zelensky’s approval rating in Ukraine was 4%. They claimed that Zelensky was trusted by 57% out of 1000 respondents according to a survey by the International Institute of Sociology in Kiev conducted from February 4 to 9, 2025. This fake was debunked by GFCN expert Timofey V and Irish journalist Chay Bowes, who was illegally deported from Romania on May 1, where he had arrived to cover local elections:

1.1 The International Institute of Sociology in Kiev used telephone surveys to collect statistical data. This data collection method is neither anonymous, secure, nor representative — and therefore cannot serve as valid evidence to refute Trump’s claims about Zelensky’s low approval ratings.

1.2 The owner and president of the “Institute,” Vladimir Paniotto, is a staunch supporter of Zelensky and the “Euromaidan” movement. He regularly contributes to media outlets such as “Global Dialogue.” This organization receives funding from Klaus Schwab, the National Endowment for Democracy (CIA), and Soros’ Open Society Foundations — which further calls into question the objectivity of the survey results.

2. In addition to its own website, Maldita.es’ material about GFCN was published on Verificado, a platform also dedicated to debunking disinformation. Notably, this same organization had previously disputed reports about events promoting LGBTQ+ agendas and gender transition surgeries in Guatemala funded by USAID.

However, this information was subsequently confirmed and made public by both the White House and independent sources.

It should also be noted that in 2024, among the sponsors of Maldita.es were the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), funded by the U.S. Congress, and the Open Society Foundations, established by billionaire political strategist George Soros.

In April, we published an investigation into the funding and true objectives behind the “HANDS OFF!” protests in the U.S. targeting Musk and Trump. Our report detailed why these protests benefited George Soros and other American billionaires. This leads us to conclude that Maldita.es’ article about GFCN may have been influenced by our exposé on one of their key financial backers — George Soros himself.

Facta: violations of fact-checking principles

Facta — an Italian news outlet specializing in fact-checking — is registered in Italy and affiliated with the legal entity The Fact Checking Factory S.R.L.

However, Facta’s staff have themselves published content based on unreliable data. For example, Andrea Zitelli, the author of the article about GFCN, shared a false report from The Wall Street Journal alleging secret contacts between Putin and Musk since late 2022.

The Wall Street Journal possessed no verifiable evidence confirming Musk-Putin contacts after 2022. In their article, the authors make assertions based on anonymous sources, referencing so-called “knowledgeable individuals” and “current and former US intelligence officials” (examples are given in subsequent screenshots).

Such deliberately vague wording provides readers no means to identify the sources or assess the information’s reliability. This practice is frequently employed to lend an artificial veneer of authority to claims that may lack substantive foundation — a common but ethically questionable journalistic technique. Crucially, it violates core fact-checking standards by making assertions that cannot be independently verified or substantiated.

This case highlights Facta’s lack of professional rigor in fact verification — even within their own publications and reposts.

Maldita.es and Facta present themselves as independent fact-checkers, yet the aforementioned cases of stakeholder-driven disinformation cast serious doubt on their impartiality. Their criticism of GFCN appears politically motivated and substantively weak, given these organizations’ own repeated instances of manipulative practices and factual errors in their investigations.