What happened#
On October 9, 2026, the Tor Project issued a brief statement about its relationship with Mullvad, the Swedish company that runs Mullvad VPN and co-develops the Mullvad Browser. The statement came after a long debate, and it answered a question that had divided part of the privacy community since the summer.
Here’s the background. In July 2026, The Register reported that Mullvad co-founder Daniel Berntsson had personally donated SEK 5 million, about $519,000, to the Örebro Party, which it described as a controversial populist party standing in Sweden’s general elections for the first time. The donation was first revealed by the Swedish newspaper Flamman. Some Mullvad customers said they were leaving, and the discussion spread across blogs and forums. Mullvad said publicly that the donation was a private one and not part of the company’s values or mission. Berntsson then published blog posts explaining his position.
Because the Tor Project builds the Mullvad Browser together with Mullvad, members of the Tor community asked whether the collaboration should continue. The October statement was the Tor Project’s answer. It’s keeping the technical collaboration, pausing joint promotion, and changing how it describes the relationship.
Most reporting presented this as a story about values. That’s true, but for people who use Tor there’s a more practical question underneath, and it’s the one this article looks at. What can a company working with the Tor Project actually change about Tor, and what can’t it? Once that’s answered, you’ll know what the statement really affects, and you’ll be in a position to form your own view on the rest.
We’ll look at what the statement says, what the relationship actually involves, what any funder or partner can and can’t influence, and the main arguments made on each side. We don’t take a position on the political question. That’s for readers to decide.
What the statement says#
The statement is brief, and worth reading in full. Here’s a summary of what it covers, in our own words.
The decision. The Tor Project isn’t ending its relationship with Mullvad. It’s continuing the technical collaboration, under what it calls a narrowly scoped agreement, while setting clearer boundaries around it.
How it decided. The statement says the decision followed a due diligence process that included in-depth discussions with community members, staff and the board, a survey of staff, and detailed financial analysis and scenario planning. It says the Tor Project heard both calls to end the relationship and concerns about what ending it would mean for Tor’s work.
Where it stands on speech. The statement restates the Tor Project’s mission of advancing human rights and freedoms. It says that while Tor supports free speech, not all speech is equally compatible with its mission, and that it firmly opposes rhetoric that threatens other people’s rights. It doesn’t mention the donation or the party directly.
Why it’s continuing. The statement gives four practical reasons.
- The collaboration has improved the structure, maintainability and auditability of Tor Browser’s code.
- It has brought feedback from users outside Tor Browser’s usual audience.
- It gives the team a lower-risk place to test features that may later reach Tor Browser users.
- It gives more people a free, open-source privacy tool that meets different needs.
It also acknowledges that the benefits Mullvad gets from the collaboration are hard for some in the community to accept, and says its duty is to make sure the collaboration doesn’t undermine its mission or independence.
What changes. Two things. The Tor Project has paused proactive co-branding with Mullvad, meaning joint promotional activity, while the technical work continues. And it has reviewed how Mullvad Browser is described and endorsed on its own channels, clarifying language that implied a wider alignment of values between the two organisations. The stated aim is to describe the relationship more accurately and avoid any impression of implied endorsement.
What it admits. The statement is unusually open about the cost. It says the decision won’t satisfy everyone, that continuing carries a cost to trust for some in the community, and that the concerns people raised are shaping what happens next.
What changed and what didn’t#
| Changed | Not changed |
|---|---|
| Joint promotion and co-branding, paused | The technical collaboration on Mullvad Browser |
| How Mullvad Browser is described on Tor Project channels | Tor Browser, the Tor network and their code |
| Language implying shared values, clarified | The Tor Project’s stated mission |
What the statement doesn’t say#
It’s also worth noticing what’s missing. The statement refers to a “funding relationship” in its summary, but it gives no figures and doesn’t publish the terms of the agreement. It also doesn’t say whether the decision will be reviewed, or when. Those are reasonable questions to ask, and the Tor Project’s overall funding is set out on its sponsors page and in its published financial reports.
What the relationship actually is#
Many online comments assumed things about the relationship that weren’t true, so it helps to be precise.
The Mullvad Browser#
The main link between the two organisations is the Mullvad Browser, launched in 2023. It’s developed by the Tor Project’s browser team in cooperation with Mullvad, from the same code as Tor Browser. Like Tor Browser, it protects against tracking and fingerprinting, for example by making every user look as alike as possible and keeping websites separate from each other, but it doesn’t connect to the Tor network. Instead, it’s designed to be used with a VPN you trust, whether that’s Mullvad’s or another provider’s. As with any privacy tool, download it only from its official site, because fake versions of popular privacy apps are common, as we explain in Fake ‘Dark Web’ Apps in 2026.
Mullvad Browser is free and open source, and its releases follow Tor Browser’s closely. When Tor Browser gets a Firefox security update, Mullvad Browser usually gets a matching one. That’s why the Tor Project can say the collaboration has improved Tor Browser’s own code. Building two browsers from one codebase pushes that code to be cleaner and more modular, and lets features be tested in one before they reach the other.
Mullvad VPN#
Mullvad VPN is Mullvad’s own commercial product. The Tor Project doesn’t run it, endorse it as part of Tor, or route Tor traffic through it. A VPN and Tor work very differently. A VPN sends your traffic to one company’s servers, so you have to trust that company. Tor spreads that trust across three volunteer-run relays, so that no single relay knows both who you are and where you’re going.
Tor VPN is something else again#
One common confusion is worth clearing up. The Tor Project has its own Android app, Tor VPN Beta, which sends selected apps through the Tor network. It has nothing to do with Mullvad. We cover it in our Tor VPN beta overview.
| Product | Made by | Uses the Tor network? | Affected by the statement? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tor Browser | The Tor Project | Yes | No |
| Mullvad Browser | The Tor Project with Mullvad | No, designed for use with a VPN | Collaboration continues, joint promotion paused |
| Mullvad VPN | Mullvad | No | Not a Tor Project product |
| Tor VPN Beta | The Tor Project | Yes | No |
The money#
The statement calls it a funding relationship, which means money flows from Mullvad to the Tor Project in connection with this work. It doesn’t say how much, or what share of the Tor Project’s budget it represents. The Tor Project is a nonprofit with many funders, including government grants, foundations, companies and individual donors, and it lists its sponsors publicly. If the exact figures matter to you, its published financial reports are the place to look, and it’s fair to ask the Tor Project directly.
What a funder can and can’t change#
This is the most important question for anyone who uses Tor, and it has a fairly clear answer. Tor was designed so that nobody, including the people who build it and the people who pay for it, has to be trusted with your anonymity. That design limits what any partner or funder can do, whoever they are.
| Part of Tor | Could a funder or partner change it quietly? | Why |
|---|---|---|
| The source code | No | It’s public, and changes are made and reviewed in the open |
| The software you download | No | Builds are reproducible and releases are signed, so changes would be detectable |
| The network | No | It’s run by thousands of independent volunteers in many countries |
| Who sees your traffic | No | No single relay knows both who you are and where you’re going |
| What gets built first | Yes, to a degree | Funded work tends to move faster |
| The project’s public image | Yes | Association and endorsement are exactly what the statement addresses |
| The organisation’s independence | Possibly | Any large funder can create pressure, which is why spreading funding matters |
What’s protected by design#
Tor’s code is open source. Anyone can read it, and changes go through the Tor Project’s public GitLab, where they’re discussed and reviewed. Tor Browser’s builds are reproducible, which means independent people can rebuild the browser from its source code and confirm they get exactly the same files the Tor Project published. Releases are signed, so you can check that what you downloaded is what the Tor Project released. Our guide How to Download and Install Tor Browser Safely explains how to do that check yourself, and our Tor Browser 15.0.24 release notes explain how reproducible builds fit in.
The network is just as hard to influence. It’s made up of thousands of relays run by volunteers, universities, nonprofits and companies all over the world. Your traffic passes through three of them, and none of them alone can see both ends. No single organisation, including the Tor Project, controls which relays you use.
So the honest answer to “could Mullvad’s involvement make Tor less private?” is that the design makes that very hard to do without being noticed, and nobody has suggested it has happened. The debate is about something else.
What a funder can influence#
Money does shape priorities. Work that’s funded tends to happen sooner, and a team’s attention is limited. The Tor Project’s statement argues that, in this case, the work has improved Tor Browser itself, through cleaner code and more testing. That’s a claim people can check over time, by looking at the code and the release notes.
Money also shapes reputation. When an organisation’s name appears next to a company’s, people read it as an endorsement, whether or not that’s intended. That’s exactly the part the Tor Project changed, by pausing joint promotion and rewording how it describes Mullvad Browser.
And any large funder can put pressure on an organisation’s independence, simply because losing its money would hurt. The statement’s mention of financial analysis and scenario planning suggests the Tor Project weighed exactly that. The general protection against this is having many funders rather than a few, which is one reason nonprofits like the Tor Project ask for individual donations.
The arguments on each side#
People reached very different conclusions about this, and many of them did so in good faith. Here are the main positions as their supporters would put them. We’re setting them out, not ranking them.
The case for ending the relationship#
Those who wanted the Tor Project to end the relationship argued that Tor’s mission is about human rights, and that many of the people who rely on Tor belong to groups that feel threatened by the politics the donation supported. In their view, taking money from a company whose co-owner funds such politics sits badly with that mission, whatever the company’s official stance. Some critics, including bloggers quoted in the coverage, described the party as far-right.
They also argued that money is fungible. Even if the donation was private, a company’s profits are its owners’ wealth, so a partnership that helps the company succeed also helps its owners. The Tor Project’s statement acknowledged this point indirectly, saying the benefits to Mullvad are hard for some in the community to accept.
Finally, they argued that trust is Tor’s most valuable asset. A privacy project that appears to compromise on its values for money risks losing the people who believe in it most, and those people are often its volunteers, relay operators and donors.
The case for continuing as before#
Others argued that the donation was one person’s private decision, and should be treated that way. Mullvad said publicly that the donation wasn’t part of the company’s values or mission, and according to coverage of the dispute, the other co-founder said he didn’t like it. In this view, penalising a company and its staff for one owner’s private politics sets a worrying precedent.
Some made a principled argument about pluralism. Privacy tools exist to protect everyone, including people whose political views others find objectionable, and Tor has always said it serves people across the political spectrum. A privacy project that chooses partners by their owners’ politics, they argued, risks becoming a political organisation itself. Some of these critics objected to the statement’s line that not all speech is equally compatible with Tor’s mission, seeing it as a step in that direction.
They also pointed to the practical stakes. The collaboration produces a free, open-source browser that many people use, it helps fund the team that builds Tor Browser, and digital rights work has always been badly underfunded. Ending it would have real costs for real users, just to make a point.
The middle position, and the Tor Project’s choice#
The Tor Project’s decision sits between those two. It keeps the technical work and the funding, but drops the joint promotion and the language suggesting shared values. Its argument is that this protects the work users rely on while making clear that the collaboration isn’t an endorsement.
That compromise has been criticised from both sides. Some say it doesn’t go far enough, because the money and the collaboration continue. Others say it goes too far, by treating a private political donation as something the Tor Project needed to distance itself from at all. The statement itself anticipated this, saying the decision wouldn’t satisfy everyone.
Whichever side you’re on, it’s worth noticing what the disagreement is actually about. Nobody in this debate has claimed that Tor’s code, its network or its privacy protections were weakened. The dispute is about values, association and trust. Those matter, but they’re different from security, and it’s worth keeping the two apart when you decide what to use.
What it means for you#
In practice, far less than the noise around it might suggest. Here’s what it means depending on what you use.
- If you use Tor Browser, nothing changes. Its code, network and updates are unaffected. Keep updating as usual, as covered in our Tor Browser 15.0.24 release notes.
- If you use Mullvad Browser, it will keep being developed and updated, because the technical collaboration continues. Whether you keep using it is your call. Remember that it’s a privacy-hardened browser meant to be used with a VPN, not a way onto the Tor network. If you need Tor’s protection, use Tor Browser.
- If you use Mullvad VPN, that’s a separate decision about another company’s product, and it isn’t something the Tor Project’s statement covers. If you’re weighing a VPN against Tor, our guide to Using Tor on Android and iPhone explains how they differ on a phone.
- If you donate to the Tor Project, your donation helps reduce its reliance on any single funder, which is the most direct protection against this kind of dilemma happening again.
- If you run a relay, nothing about your relay or the network changes.
If the controversy has made you rethink which tools you use, that’s a reasonable choice either way. The important thing is to make it for the reasons that actually apply. Values and trust are good reasons. Worries that Tor itself has been compromised aren’t backed up by anything in this story.
How we handle this on our own site#
People sometimes assume a directory endorses everything it lists. We don’t. We list official onion services because their owners publish their addresses, and we check those addresses against that proof, as you can see in our Official Onion Mirrors Directory. Listing a service says nothing about its owners’ politics, and no service can pay to be listed, which is one of the ways we differ from the lists described in Why Most ‘Hidden Wiki’ Lists Are Full of Scams. Our rules are set out in About thehidden.wiki. Tor itself takes a similar view of its users. It protects people of every political view, and expects them to use it within the law, as we explain in Is Tor Legal? Using Onion Services Responsibly.
What to watch#
- More detail on the agreement. The statement describes the agreement as narrowly scoped but doesn’t publish it. More openness about its terms and the amounts involved would answer many of the open questions.
- The Tor Project’s financial reports. They show how much of its budget comes from which kinds of funder, and over time they’ll show whether its reliance on any one partner grows or shrinks.
- How Mullvad Browser is presented. The statement says the language on the Tor Project’s channels has been reviewed. You can check how it’s described now on the Tor Project’s own sites, which are also reachable over onion, as listed in Tor Project’s Official Onion Sites.
- The community discussion. The Tor Project’s forum is where staff and community members have been discussing the decision, and where any further changes are likely to be announced first.
- Whether the decision is revisited. The statement doesn’t say it will be. If circumstances change, it may be.
Where to go next#
- Want to know what’s in the current Tor Browser? Read our Tor Browser 15.0.24 release notes.
- Choosing between Tor and a VPN on your phone? See Using Tor on Android and iPhone and our Tor VPN beta overview.
- Want to check your download is genuine? Follow How to Download and Install Tor Browser Safely.
- Curious about who runs this site and how we list services? See About thehidden.wiki.
- Thinking about Tor and the law? Read Is Tor Legal? Using Onion Services Responsibly.
- Want the Tor Project’s own sites over onion? See Tor Project’s Official Onion Sites.
- Following Tor’s other recent news? Read Arti 2.7.0: Tor’s Rust Rewrite Explained.
Sources#
- A statement on the Tor Project’s relationship with Mullvad, Tor Project blog, October 9, 2026
- Some Mullvad VPN customers tunnel for exit after co-founder donates millions to populist party, The Register, July 21, 2026
- Mullvad Browser and VPN options after the controversy, PiunikaWeb, including Mullvad’s public statement and the co-founder’s response
- Mullvad Browser, Mullvad
- Sponsors, Tor Project
- Tor Project forum, news section