In this recent viral X post, Carolyn Phippen, a prominent commentator, highlighted a staggering revelation from the Federal Reserve: U.S. non-governmental organizations (NGOs) hold combined assets exceeding $14.2 trillion.
WOAH 🚨 The taxpayer money laundering that’s taken place is INSANE
— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) December 18, 2025
“The Federal Reserve has revealed that US NGOs have more in assets than the combined 2025 GDP estimates for Japan, Germany and India combined — The combined assets held by US NGOs equals $14.2 trillion of your… pic.twitter.com/F2eoSZZjdP
This figure surpasses the projected 2025 gross domestic product (GDP) of Japan, Germany, and India combined, which totals around $13.5 trillion. Phippen’s impassioned video clip underscores the immense economic footprint of these entities, framing it as a form of taxpayer-funded excess that burdens future generations.
NGOs, often operating as tax-exempt nonprofits under 501(c)(3) status, encompass a wide array of organizations including charities, universities, hospitals, and advocacy groups. Their assets include real estate, endowments, investments, and cash reserves built through donations, grants, and operational revenues. According to Federal Reserve data, the total assets of nonprofit organizations reached approximately $14.1 trillion as of Q2 2025. This vast scale reflects decades of growth, fueled partly by government subsidies and tax incentives that allow these groups to amass wealth without the fiscal oversight applied to private businesses.
To put this in perspective, Japan’s 2025 GDP is forecasted at about $4.28 trillion, Germany’s at $5.01 trillion, and India’s at $4.13 trillion. Together, these economic powerhouses represent diverse industries from manufacturing to technology, yet their output pales against the aggregated holdings of U.S. NGOs. Critics like Phippen argue this inversion—where citizens labor to support bureaucratic behemoths—explains rising unaffordability, as resources are diverted from public needs like infrastructure and social security.
The implications are profound. While NGOs perform vital services, such as disaster relief and education, their unchecked expansion raises questions about accountability. Government grants to NGOs totaled billions annually, blending public funds into private-like operations. This “soft power” network influences policy globally, from environmental initiatives to humanitarian aid, often without direct voter input.
Phippen’s callout sparks debate on reforming the system: perhaps through stricter audits or limits on asset accumulation. As America grapples with inflation and debt, understanding NGOs’ colossal scale is crucial. It’s not just numbers—it’s a mirror to how taxpayer dollars shape an unseen empire, one that rivals nations in wealth but operates in the shadows of civil society.