In recent years, the Young People’s Alliance (YPA) has emerged as a highly visible player in youth-driven political organizing, branding itself as a coalition of “grassroots leaders empowering the next generation.” But behind the youthful enthusiasm and idealistic messaging, questions are mounting about what YPA really represents — and who, exactly, is steering the movement.
Beneath the surface: YPA’s progressive policy agenda
The Young People’s Alliance (YPA) claims to educate and empower young Americans to engage in civic life. The group discusses topics such as the dangers of AI algorithms, the influence of chatbots and the fading accessibility of the American Dream for young adults: tapping into genuine anxieties about homeownership and the cost of living.
Yet beneath the surface, the organization is not as mainstream as it appears, often promoting policy “solutions” that mirror the priorities of the progressive Left.
Housing regulation: YPA supports zoning reforms that replace single-family neighborhoods with multi-unit dwellings under the banner of “equity.” In practice, these policies invite more government control over local development and undermine community choice. A better solution is to cut red tape and lower inflation so that people can afford their own homes.
Tech regulation: YPA advocates for sweeping federal oversight of digital platforms to “protect children.” While the intent sounds noble, the fine print authorizes the government to access vast amounts of personal data — trading privacy for a false sense of safety. It’s a familiar pattern, echoing the post-9/11 Patriot Act, which expanded government surveillance under the guise of security.
Business regulation: YPA also pushes for restrictions on so-called “manipulative corporate practices.” But who defines what’s manipulative — the consumer or the bureaucrat? Every new layer of regulation strengthens government power while weakening individual and market freedom.
Recommended
In the end, YPA’s proposals raise a fundamental question: Are these policies truly about helping young people thrive or about expanding government control under the language of compassion and equity?
A closer look at the group’s partnerships and funding suggests the organization is more politically sophisticated — and partisan — than its public image implies.
In 2024, YPA reported operating on “55 colleges and high schools across the country,” reaching “60,000 students with high-quality, in-person mobilizations” primarily through Democracy Day, a campus-based civic engagement initiative. While these events are officially nonpartisan, their programming often reflects progressive themes; for example, Stanford’s Democracy Day has addressed “Global Democracy” and the “Rise of the Far Right.”
Unlike conservative youth groups, such as Turning Point USA, that openly promote a conservative Christian agenda, YPA presents itself as nonpartisan and focused on “youth issues.” In practice, its messaging frequently blends social justice themes with partisan narratives, using emotionally charged digital campaigns to shape voter attitudes. This focus is reflected in two YPA board members who also founded the Georgia Youth Justice Coalition and the Kentucky Student Voice Team, both of which emphasize DEI and LGBTQ initiatives.
Determining YPA’s agenda is challenging, but an examination of its funding sources provides some insight.
The Young People’s Alliance receives funding from the Responsible Technology Youth Power Fund (RTYPF), which finances youth-led groups focused on the intersection of technology, social impact and equity. RTYPF prioritizes issues like artificial intelligence, mental health and climate change, particularly where technology plays a role. Yet, as with many such initiatives, questions arise about agenda-setting: Who decides which causes deserve funding, and who defines what qualifies as “responsible technology”?
Who’s behind the youth power fund?
The Youth Power Fund is backed by more than a dozen major organizations — many with deep ties to global philanthropy and progressive policy circles. These include:
- The Archewell Foundation (Prince Harry & Meghan Markle): Prince Harry and his wife are providing grants for projects centered on digital well-being, gender equity and refugee support.
- The Omidyar Network (Pierre and Pam Omidyar): This fund has committed nearly $2 billion to initiatives at the intersection of technology and societal change. Omidyar’s vast funding influence has raised concerns about its ability to shape public policy through philanthropy.
- The Susan Crown Exchange: This group focuses heavily on Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) — a framework often used to reshape children’s values and beliefs to align with a global citizen worldview. SEL programs are also collecting and analyzing massive amounts of data from public school students, under the banner of “measuring emotional growth.”
Together, these funders are doing more than supporting youth education — they’re shaping the cultural and policy conversations that influence how the next generation thinks, learns and leads. With partners of this scale, it’s fair to ask whether YPA’s “grassroots” identity is truly organic — or whether it’s a carefully crafted extension of wealthy progressive donors.
Aundrea Gomez is a Policy Research Associate at AFA Action.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member