The Adolph Coors Foundation contributed funds to 22 Project 2025 advisory groups between 2020 and 2023, including a $300,000 donation to the Heritage Foundation. This initiative directly supports far‐right efforts aimed at dismantling government oversight and replacing public sector roles with politically-aligned allies.

The Adolph Coors Foundation has been identified as an active donor to the Heritage Foundation, which is promoting Project 2025—a plan associated with far-right and authoritarian policies. This donation, highlighted in recent reports, underscores the foundation’s role in supporting a conservative agenda that includes substantial governmental restructuring.

An investigation confirms that the Adolph Coors Foundation has consistently funded the Heritage Foundation, including a documented $1,325,000 contribution from 2008 to 2022. The Heritage Foundation is a cornerstone donor in the controversial Project 2025 initiative, which is associated with policies that could undermine protections for marginalized groups and advance an authoritarian, far‐right agenda.

A 2002 Snopes fact-check article debunks claims that the Coors family — linked to the Adolph Coors Foundation — financially supports Nazi or neo‐Nazi groups. While dismissing direct ties to fascism, the report highlights the longstanding association of the Coors family with overtly conservative and right‐wing political causes, which under anti‑fascist analysis raises concerns about ideological alignment despite the clarification that funding flows are private and not corporate.

On April 7, 1977, 1500 union members initiated a strike against the Adolph Coors Company over unfair labor practices that led to the de-certification of their union representation. The event is historically linked to the company’s broader association with far-right political stances, including support for right-to-work legislation and extremist policies that undermined progressive and labor rights.

The article details the longstanding boycott of the Coors brand, highlighting its controversial political contributions, anti-union practices, and discriminatory hiring policies that have been central to protests since the 1960s. Critics point to the company’s support for conservative politicians, union busting, and biased employment practices as evidence of its complicity in authoritarian and exclusionary practices.