What is Trump doing to US nonprofits and philanthropies?

In the last few months, progressive nonprofits and philanthropies have found themselves in the crosshairs of the Trump administration, which critics say is attempting to dismantle liberal opposition. From the likes of terrorism to tax evasion, it has lodged a number of criminal allegations against organizations in the sector. Far-reaching and on precarious legal footing, experts say such attacks threaten the U.S. First Amendment. “Let’s be very clear: baseless criminal and civil investigations into non-profits are not about preventing violence—they are about silencing organizations and individuals with which the administration disagrees,” Diane Yentel, president and CEO of the National Council of Nonprofits, the largest network of nonprofits in the United States, said in a statement. What’s currently happening to nonprofits and foundations is what law offices and universities in the U.S. have already experienced. “It’s a coordinated attack on lots of aspects of American society that this administration feels threatens it,” said Tanya Greene, U.S. program director at Human Rights Watch. In March, U.S. President Donald Trump issued several executive orders against law firms he believed were working to undermine America’s interests. Those targeted worked on immigration and transgender rights, as well as cases related to the Jan. 6 insurrection. Come September, the president began defunding universities he called antisemitic and has offered nine universities an agreement that would give them preferential funding in exchange for changes to their policies — seven of which have rejected the offer. Now it seems progressive nonprofits and foundations are in the firing line. So what exactly has happened? In September, The New York Times reported that lawyers had been instructed by the Justice Department to investigate Open Society Foundations, a grantmaking philanthropy founded by George Soros with the mission of “strengthening democracy and upholding constitutional freedoms.” The Justice Department suggested potential charges might include arson, wire fraud, support of terrorism, and racketeering. OSF denies these claims. “These accusations are politically motivated attacks on civil society, meant to silence speech the administration disagrees with, and undermine the First Amendment right to free speech. When power is abused to take away the rights of some people, it puts the rights of all people at risk,” OSF wrote in a statement. OSF’s activities, which include awarding grants to organizations such as Americans for Contraception, Asia Democracy Network, and the Center for U.S. Global Leadership, are “peaceful and lawful,” OSF said. Trump, however, has said Soros, a major donor to the Democratic Party, is funding “leftwing terrorism.” Broadening out the attacks, an executive memorandum was issued by the White House at the end of September, instructing law enforcement to clamp down on NGO networks it deems to be supporting domestic terrorism. It also instructs the commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service to ensure no tax-exempt entities, such as nonprofits, are directly or indirectly financing political violence or domestic terrorism. This came two weeks after the murder of far-right activist Charlie Kirk, which Trump has said was driven by a culture of violence perpetuated by organizations such as OSF and the Ford Foundation. The memorandum cites “heinous assassinations and other acts of political violence” as the need for “a new law enforcement strategy that investigates all participants in these criminal and terroristic conspiracies — including the organized structures, networks, entities, organizations, funding sources, and predicate actions behind them.” It specifically references NGOs, with Vice President JD Vance saying the government would “go after the NGO network that foments, facilitates and engages in violence.” There is no evidence, said Yentel, that charitable nonprofits are “radicalizing Americans” and fueling political violence. Can Trump legally do this? The IRS, as it stands, cannot “go after” organizations for partisan political purposes, said Beth Gazley, a professor specializing in U.S. nonprofit management and civil society policy at Indiana University. In fact, coercing the IRS commissioner or the Treasury secretary to investigate certain organizations for partisan political purposes, labeling them as domestic terrorists, is illegal, she said. “Richard Nixon tried to do this. John Dean [White House counsel] handed the IRS commissioner an enemies list and asked the IRS commissioner to see what dirt he could dig up. The commissioner was smart enough to stick it away and consider it to be evidence of illegal activity and … not act on it.” But it’s hard to say what the current IRS commissioner will do, Gazley added. And that may not matter as Trump plans to make changes to the IRS to allow for this pursuit, as reported by The Wall Street Journal. The president allegedly plans to install his own appointees to positions of power within the criminal investigations division to better allow for the targeting of Democrats. “Any attempt to use the Internal Revenue Service to target lawful work simply because political leaders disfavor the work or the organization is an affront to our long-established First Amendment right to free speech and expression, including expression through charitable giving,” Kathleen Enright, president and CEO of the Council on Foundations, and Dr. Akilah Watkins, president and CEO of Independent Sector, said in a joint statement. This follows efforts in 2024 by Republicans in Congress to pass a bill that would have granted the IRS commissioner greater leeway in characterizing organizations as domestic terror organizations and, therefore, terminating their tax-exempt status. That law didn't pass. When it comes to the executive memorandum as a whole, it is legal but, as noted by Hina Shamsi, director of the National Security Project at American Civil Liberties' Union, it doesn’t override “First Amendment-protected freedoms of belief, speech, and association; our Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures; our Fifth Amendment right to due process; and our right to Equal Protection under the laws of this country.” The term “domestic terrorism organizations,” included in the memorandum, also lacks any legal footing because there is no federal law designating domestic terrorism as a crime. It conflates ideology with criminal conduct, explained Shamsi, and freedom of speech protects people’s right to believe what they want. “The president cannot rewrite the Constitution by memo or otherwise,” Shamsi writes. Are there distinctions between the threats against nonprofits and foundations? Within the U.S, there are about 30 different kinds of nonprofits under IRS section 501(c) that have different political rights. “Foundations are separated from public charities, which are separated from churches,” Gazley explained. Some of those organizations can lobby, and others cannot. Despite their various distinctions, Gazley believes the Trump administration is looking at them as a collective of progressive groups. “I don’t think they really care whether they’re foundations or charities. They’re intent on calling them out and making them scapegoats for progressive activities that are carried out by a lot of different kinds of groups, including Antifa groups, which are not really organized groups,” she said. As it stands, though, the Ford Foundation and OSF are the two main organizations to have been named by the administration. What will be the impact? If some of the charges and investigations — tax fraud, racketeering, terrorism, or otherwise — against individual organizations come to fruition, there will be practical implications that may render the foundations unable to financially support causes in the same way or at the same level. Even if they don’t, the situation is already diverting time and money away from addressing development challenges. “It might chill people from being active in civil society groups. It might chill groups from existence. Direct attacks might bankrupt groups because of the need to fund legal representation to defend themselves,” said Greene. At the same time, it pushes organizations to self-censor on important issues, said Gazley. “That's a net loss for everyone, conservatives and progressives alike, because when people self-censor, they're not participating in the public forum. … And I think it diminishes our democracy.” “Silencing us and attacking us is a threat to democracy,” said Greene. “No matter what happens next month, next year, in terms of these specific types of attacks on civil society, I think we may be changed forever, because we see how close to the edge of anti-democracy we are.” How can nonprofits and foundations fight back? So far, the response has been a series of statements either from individual organizations or collectively. Over 3,700 nonprofit organizations, for example, put their names on an open letter condemning the “unjust and illegal” campaign by the Trump administration to intimidate and silence charitable groups via executive action. The coalition signatories pledged unwavering solidarity with those targeted, reaffirming their commitment to speaking truth to power and defending the rights of all Americans, “no matter who occupies the White House.” The number of organizations speaks to what the sector has learned, said Greene, as it watched attacks on others this year, “about how important it is to stand in solidarity with each other.” Over 730 charitable giving organizations, organized by the Council on Foundations, signed another joint statement in defense of the freedom of charitable giving and the First Amendment, reminding people of the crucial role that nonprofits play in U.S. society. “Together, we support new parents and elders, veterans and school children, hospitals and libraries, churches and food kitchens, artists and researchers, throughout rural, suburban, and urban communities in every state and territory,” it states. “Yet in this moment, we face the threat of governmental attacks on our ability to carry out this vital mission, when the communities, organizations, and individuals we support need it most.” Another, signed by philanthropies including the Bush Foundation, Ford Foundation, and the MacArthur Foundation, has racked up 198 signatories condemning attempts by politicians to exploit recent acts of political violence to mischaracterize charitable work, criminalize free speech, and restrict the freedom to give. “These are basically organizations coordinating a joint statement back to the public, saying, ‘We won't be bullied and we won't be picked off one by one. We're going to stand in solidarity.’ That's how you stand up to bullies,” said Gazley. The Philanthropy Roundtable — the movement of philanthropists who typically donate in line with conservative values — also released a statement highlighting that “philanthropy is free speech.” It defends the freedom to donate, explaining that “charitable giving puts conservative values into action.” These statements follow an opinion piece published in Nonprofit Quarterly in April by three foundation presidents: Tonya Allen of the McKnight Foundation, Deepak Bhargava of the Freedom Together Foundation, and John Palfrey of the MacArthur Foundation. In it, they urged organizations to join a solidarity campaign called Unite in Advance that would avoid them being “sitting ducks,” awaiting what they viewed as the inevitable attacks to come. “We must prepare and unite to defend our freedom to support the millions of people who rely on charitable foundations to build stronger, healthier communities and opportunities for all,” it read. It called for nonprofits and foundations to prepare crisis plans and legal teams, to speak up, and to increase giving. “Foundations must lead — not just with grants, but with guts,” it read. Amid all of that, Greene pushed for organizations to communicate. “Organizations need to educate each other about what each other do and how they need and can support each other,” she said, adding that the unity will help send a message. “We are doing nothing wrong.”