from The Okra Project‍ ‍

VIDEO: The Okra Project responds to claims made by Dominique Morgan

"We have stayed largely quiet while a false narrative was being constructed about this organization and the people who run it. That ends today. The receipts exist. The record is clear. We terminated Dominique Morgan for documented cause, and what followed in the courts confirmed why. Our obligation is to the community we serve — Black trans people who depend on us to be here and to be honest."

— Gabrielle Souza, Executive Director

Below are documentation of takeaways from our responses to each claim. We understand that this is a lot of information; much of it industry specific. We want to provide these summaries for clarity and simplicity. 

CLAIM 1 TAKEAWAYS

→ Okra was subpoenaed — Google Drive, phones, bank accounts, as well as computers accessed by investigators.

→ Gabrielle and Alana appeared separately for questioning and grand jury testimony alongside established legal counsel (in place since 2022, continuously retained).

→ No request was made by Okra to prosecution regarding remand or any other legal proceedings.

→ We never contacted Dominique Morgan's employer. Borealis reached out to us directly, was immediately connected to our legal team, and the Executive Director of Borealis reached out to, and spoke to Gabrielle personally — they spoke once.

CLAIM 2 TAKEAWAYS

→ Grand larceny = state criminal charge. Not civil, not something an organization files.

→ Okra had zero role in bringing any of the charges against Dominique Morgan.

→ Note: The falsifying business records charges were dropped not due to lack of evidence, but because the Brooklyn District Attorney's Office was unable to establish jurisdiction over records and transactions that originated in Omaha and Atlanta.

CLAIM 3 TAKEAWAYS

→ Both Okra and ABC were subpoenaed due to her own conduct — specifically, mandatory IRS, charity bureau, and Delaware state reporting.

→ ABC CFO Joshua Beauchemin documented in writing: bail funds = taxable income grants; 1099s required; SSNs needed for all recipients; without documentation, funds become taxable expenses for Okra and would need to be reported.

→ Dominique Morgan refused to produce the documentation, claiming she'd never had to before. No documentation was produced.

CLAIM 4 TAKEAWAYS

→ Again, Okra filed no charges against anyone.

→ The only Black and Pink communication post-tenure was about an unauthorized funding promise she had made on Okra's behalf.

→ That commitment was not honored — consistent with the broader pause on financial commitments to the other organizations made during her tenure.

→ Baltimore Safe Haven was the one commitment that was honored, amounting to $100,000.

CLAIM 5  TAKEAWAYS

→ Multiple occasions on record where she stated she was looking for NYC housing.

→ Residing in / regularly commuting to NYC was a contractual expectation of the ED role at the time of her tenure.

→ She received a NYC living stipend while not residing or securing housing in New York.

CLAIM 6 TAKEAWAYS

→ Salaries were communicated via a group text message, sent by her.

→ No board set those figures. She set them. HR completed salary benchmarking in which she ignored.

→ Reflected on 1099s accordingly.

CLAIM 7 TAKEAWAYS

→ She submitted the receipts in question.

→ Gabrielle did not see or receive them until they were shared with staff during a legitimacy review. Dominique shared the falsified receipts with one staff member via text message.

→ The falsified records were addressed and questioned directly in a staff and legal counsel meeting — with counsel she had hired.

→ City of Omaha and Atlanta's Douglas County confirmed to legal counsel: receipts were fabricated. Individuals listed had never been incarcerated and no bail payments had ever been received from Ms. Morgan.

CLAIM 8 TAKEAWAYS

→ Gabrielle had an apartment in St. Louis with a roommate before taking the role and was not homeless.

→ Gabrielle gave up her housing in St. Louis to take the position.

→ Any reference to staying with a partner around the time of Gabrielle and Dominiques first meeting does not constitute homelessness.

→ June 2021, Gabrielle was actively crowdfunding for her breast augmentation surgery and was serving as an advisory board member for Black and Pink at the time. Dominique initiated an email to Black and Pink's then-Director of Finance requesting they cover the remaining $1,400 balance — funds that were sent directly from Black and Pink to Gabrielle's surgeon in Atlanta. Dominique did not pay for this surgery entirely or out of her own pocket. The funds came from Black and Pink.

CLAIM 9 TAKEAWAYS

→ Alana was not fired for taking $500,000.

→ Post-departure period involved first-ever financial guardrails and board establishment — any discrepancy was scrutinized closely given organizational history. A reimbursement discrepancy took place, resulting in Alana’s termination.

→ The $500K figure, likely equals hydroponic grow pods, signed off by her during her tenure, effectively gifted to Alana.

→ Gabrielle opposed the project at the time. Pods remain an ongoing liability — land, electricity, water, staffing required.

→ That cost belongs to her tenure, not Alana’s.

CLAIM 10 TAKEAWAYS

→ There is no restitution to be paid: Factually incorrect per the Southern District of New York.

→ Okra's legal counsel has been specifically briefed on restitution going forward.

→ Okra kept informed as the affected organization — not as an active party.

CLAIM 11 TAKEAWAYS

→    Aug 3, 2022 meeting: staff, legal, HR, her present. Ms. Morgan was asked to substantiate receipts. Could not. Terminated.

→    Post-termination: multiple soft-touch emails from legal counsel requesting funds be returned or substantial evidence be provided. No response.

→    Detailed IRS excess benefit warning email: full itemization, full transparency, explicit consequences outlined. No response.

→    Two certified letters to Georgia home: explicit opportunity to return funds. No response.

→    Transformative justice practitioner outreach on Okra's behalf. No response.

CLAIM 12 TAKEAWAYS

→    Initial public post: left on own accord, still in good standing. Inconsistent with what all Okra staff experienced on Aug 3.

→    Prolonged period of public targeting aimed at Alana — caused internal scrutiny of Alana's role and motives.

→    On record: Ms. Morgan is directly asked if Gabrielle was involved — said no.

→    As case concluded: public targeting shifted to Gabrielle.

→    Claims of love/care for Gabrielle are contradicted by: zero private outreach, zero information offered, sustained public false statements.

CLAIM 13 TAKEAWAYS

→ Cooley: pro bono, used to dissolve LLC and convert to C Corp (Delaware incorporation) only. Not 501(c)(3) work.

→ Cooley reached the pro bono hour ceiling by 2022 — she brought on new counsel before departing.

→ 501(c)(3) delayed on accountants' advice: 2022 financials (her tenure) would have resulted in denial. Audit required first.

→ Audit completed. Raised significant concerns about spending during her tenure.

→ Gabrielle obtained 501(c)(3) status with legal counsel once financials were in order. Matter of public record.

CLAIM 14 TAKEAWAYS

→ Eva considered for board circa 2022 — difficult period for board recruitment given organizational history.

→ Propublica listing notwithstanding, the appointment never came to fruition.

→ Eva Reign is not and has not been a functioning Okra board member.

CLAIM 15 TAKEAWAYS

→    Accurate payment: $3,500 for interview and attendance.

→    Okra Fest was intimate in scale — close friends, interviews, dinner party format.

→    $15,000 figure is factually incorrect by more than four times the actual amount.

CLAIM 16 TAKEAWAYS

→ Fiscal sponsor (ABC) filed for bankruptcy — publicly documented, directly communicated by Okra. Wiped 600+ recurring donors.

→ 2022 financials already showed money going out faster than coming in — during her tenure.

→ Two separate tax compliance and accounting firms have reviewed the books and cannot fully reconcile them.

→ ABC's financial instability visible as early as 2021: payroll invoices late, new CFO brought in mid-year to fix bookkeeping.

→ Multiple fiscally sponsored organizations left ABC in 2021. Okra stayed under Ms. Morgan’s executive decision — not Gabrielle's decision at that level.

CLAIM 17 TAKEAWAYS

→    The PayPal situation predates Dominique's tenure — she raised it to imply pre-existing financial mismanagement and deflect from her own situation.

→    Gabrielle personally investigated: worked directly with PayPal, tracked down former staff member connected to the situation.

→    Funds were accounted for — moved from PayPal to the fiscal sponsor (ABC). A small remaining amount was subsequently moved to Okra Project.

→    Money was not missing or stolen. It moved through the fiscal sponsorship structure.

CLAIM 18 TAKEAWAYS

→ During Dominique's tenure, Dominique offered Ianne money to step away fully. Ianne declined.

→ On record: email from Ianne explicitly declining any payment from the project.

→ Prior correspondence shows Ianne transparently documenting all payments received in her role — nothing concealed.

→ When Ianne first stepped back, she took a drastic pay cut and moved to an advisory role.

→ Full departure followed — likely due to inability to reach agreement with Dominique. No payout was made.

CLAIM 19 TAKEAWAYS

→ Alana had a full time job, a home, and had just been recognized in national headlines for being elected to a Public School board in Illinois.

→ Alana never accompanied Dominique Morgan to do bail support. She did reach out to Dominique to ask to accompany her, Dominique told Alana that she would need to undergo training prior to assisting.

→ Alana only received a $5,000 educational stipend, which was not enough to complete her degree from Morehouse College.

ADDITIONAL ACCOUNTS OF THIS PATTERN

Account of a Former Black & Pink Staff Member

Account of an Additional Black and Pink Staff Member 

Q&A and Updated Statements

Q: “Why didn’t you handle this in-house?”

A: It was attempted. Here is what that actually looked like.

July 2022

Our fiscal sponsor requested Form 1099 documentation for the individuals who had allegedly been bailed out using over $90,000 of The Okra Project’s funds. Ms. Morgan had requested and received a cash advance to conduct this alleged bail bond program in Nebraska and Georgia. At the time, Ms. Morgan was the Executive Director of The Okra Project and also one of two Board members. The financial controls and oversight that currently exist at The Okra Project were not in place in July 2022. In July 2022, no one at The Okra Project had the authority to review or question Ms. Morgan’s cash advance when it was issued.

After receiving the fiscal sponsor’s request for the Forms 1099, staff learned that this documentation was not in The Okra Project’s records.

Staff was internally notified of missing supporting documents. Internal conversations and questioning began. Documentation to substantiate the expenditures was requested from Ms. Morgan and she provided receipts purportedly issued by the two sheriff offices in Nebraska and Georgia identified by Ms. Morgan as having been involved in the release of the individuals who were bailed out.

There were inconsistencies noted by staff related to these receipts. Specifically, officials in both Nebraska and Georgia stated that the receipts were not bona fide – the individuals named on the receipts were not in the court databases, there were no records of the bail payments noted on the receipts, and/or the format of the receipts did not align with the receipts for bail payments that are issued by the courts in Nebraska and Georgia. For example, the receipts for the bail payments supposedly made in Georgia included a sheriff’s signature, but officials in Georgia informed legal counsel and The Okra Project that the sheriff does not sign those receipts.

August 3, 2022

A formal meeting was held with the former executive director, staff, and legal counsel.

The opportunity was given to explain and either return the diverted funds or provide bona fide receipts to account for the expenditures, as well as the Forms 1099 of those who were allegedly bailed out. Ms. Morgan did not explain the discrepancies in the documentation and did not provide any further documentation, despite repeated written requests. This was also the date in which Ms Morgan’s contract was terminated.

August 2022

Legal counsel subsequently conducted an extensive online search to locate the individuals identified on the paperwork provided by Ms. Morgan and could not find any of them. Legal counsel concluded that all of the names on the receipts provided by Ms. Morgan were fictitious.

September 21, 2022

After several emails to Ms. Morgan went unanswered in August, The Okra Project’s legal counsel sent a formal letter to Ms. Morgan, outlining in detail the funds that had been unlawfully diverted and offering an opportunity to repay the funds or provide legitimate documentation. The letter included the legal consequences of failing to report to the IRS requirements. This communication represented a final good faith attempt to resolve the matter. Ms. Morgan failed to respond.

September 22, 2022

The Okra Project engaged a transformative justice practitioner as an additional avenue for resolution. That effort too went unanswered.

January 2023 — External Legal Contact

We were subpoenaed by the Brooklyn District Attorney, and we cooperated fully because we were legally obligated.

Q: Could The Okra Project have refused to cooperate with or respond to the Brooklyn District Attorney’s subpoena?

A: No. A subpoena is a legally binding court order. Refusing to comply with a subpoena is a criminal offense that can result in contempt of court charges, fines, and potential imprisonment. There was no legal basis upon which The Okra Project could have refused to cooperate. It is also important to clarify a common misconception. The Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination protects individuals from being compelled to testify against themselves in a criminal proceeding. The Okra Project and its staff, was not a suspect in this investigation. The Fifth Amendment was never applicable to our situation.

In addition, The Okra Project’s two Board of Directors and officers were under a fiduciary duty per state law to exercise their best efforts to support the recovery of the funds. As a registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, The Okra Project has legal obligations to the IRS, to the state of New York, and to its donors to maintain financial transparency and cooperate with lawful investigations into the misuse of charitable funds. Refusing to cooperate would not only have been illegal, it would have been a violation of our fiduciary duty.

Q: What is fiscal sponsorship and how did it apply to The Okra Project?

A: In short, during this period, The Okra Project was not only accountable to the IRS, its state of incorporation, but it was also accountable to its fiscal sponsor.

Fiscal sponsorship is an arrangement by which an organization that does not yet have its own 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status is supported by an organization that already has its 501(c)(3) determination letter from the IRS. In this case, The Okra Project’s fiscal sponsor received donations, held them, and then dispersed them on behalf of The Okra Project when requested. In other words, the fiscal sponsor committed to making a pre-approved grant to The Okra Project, accepted donations to fund that pre-approved grant, and then paid expenses as requested for the benefit of The Okra Project’s charitable operations.

In connection with this, the fiscal sponsor needed the appropriate receipts and documentation (payroll, vendors, contractors, and reimbursements) to substantiate the grant payments.

The Okra Project operated under this fiscal sponsor arrangement prior to obtaining its own independent 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status in January 2024. This is why the fiscal sponsor’s oversight was part of this process.

Q: What is The Okra Project’s current fundraiser?

A: Our current fundraising campaign that was launched March 31st (TDOV) exists for two specific reasons:

1. Our former fiscal sponsor filed for bankruptcy at the end of 2023. When we obtained our 501(c)(3) status in January 2024, our former fiscal sponsor’s bankruptcy left the organization financially depleted. In other words, the fiscal sponsor spent the funds that were donated for the support of The Okra Project for unauthorized purposes. We reached a court ordered settlement agreement but the fiscal sponsor has defaulted on it.

2. Our former donor platform also filed for bankruptcy in December of 2025, taking with it over 600 of our recurring donors, as well as money owed to us.

These events struck at the core of our ability to deliver necessary programming. These events occurred in a funding landscape that is already unforgiving and unsupportive—of not only the communities we serve, but for Black trans and queer led organizations like ours. The current fundraising campaign is how we are attempting to rebuild the philanthropic infrastructure our community depends on. We hope that you feel called to join us or share those efforts.

The legal matter involving former organizational leadership is an entirely separate situation. The two simply overlap in timing. One has nothing to do with the other.

Q: Why did The Okra Project choose to release a statement on the date of sentencing?

A: As a registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization The Okra Project is accountable to our funders, to our donors, to the foundations that invest in our work, and to the community we serve. That accountability is not selective. It does not only apply when things are going well. When a matter of this significance reaches a legal conclusion, it is our responsibility to provide clarity and context to the people who have trusted us with their support. Staying silent was not an option. Silence in moments like this can create space for even more misinformation, narrative manipulation, and further erosion of the trust we are working to rebuild.

The release of our initial statement on April 29, 2026 was guided by our legal counsel and grounded entirely in documented, publicly available legal facts. This second rollout exists because we heard you. The questions being asked, both publicly and privately, deserve honest and thorough answers. That is what transparency actually looks like in practice. Not just when it is easy, but especially when it is hard.

It is also important for us to name directly, that over the course of the last four years, there has been harmful rhetoric and damaging narratives circulating about The Okra Project and its leadership and staff that have caused real harm. Not only to individuals, but to the organization and to the people who depend on it. We have largely remained silent in the face of that rhetoric out of respect for the legal process that was underway and all parties involved. Our statements are in no way disparaging. They are not retaliatory. They are not an attack on anyone’s character. They exist solely to provide factual context and documented information to the people who are not only asking for it, but who deserve to have it—our community, foundations, our donors, and our supporters. We ask that these statements be read in that spirit.

Q: Why did The Okra Project choose to launch a new program after the sentencing? 

A: The timing of The Black Trans Joy Fund application launch on May 1st, 2026 was in no way connected to the sentencing proceedings. Since 2024, The Black Trans Joy Fund’s annual launch date has been May 1st.

Our commitment is that as we begin to restabilize the organization and receive incoming support, we will continue to address the needs of our community. This means slowly and responsibly restarting the programming we have built and consistently delivered throughout The Okra Project’s existence, especially since new leadership was installed in 2023.

The needs of our community do not stop or pause due to unfortunate circumstances. They never have. They are constant. It is now and has always been The Okra Project’s responsibility to address these needs to the best of our ability and capacity, regardless of whatever else the organization is navigating.

In summary, the legal process involving Ms. Morgan and The Okra Project’s fundraising initiatives are separate. One is an unfortunate, very public legal process. The other involves The Okra Project keeping its promise to the community it exists to serve and to those that rise to the occasion to support that work.