The DOJ did indict the SPLC in 2025 for operating a paid informant program that included individuals tied to extremist groups, though SPLC and donors contest the 'fraud' framing—they say it was legitimate anti-extremism work. The post oversimplifies a contested legal and moral question into a binary accusation: disagreeing with the SPLC's methods makes you a Nazi, which is a rhetorical device that collapses legitimate debate about undercover operations into tribal loyalty testing. The real tension—whether infiltrating extremist groups requires ethically problematic funding of dangerous individuals—gets flattened into a purity test.