SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
nonprofits
Trump Is Winning The War on Nonprofits
The administration has created an unprecedented crisis for nonprofits by cutting funds that have been duly congressionally allocated and by targeting organizations with which it disagrees.
Jun 24, 2026
Since President Donald Trump returned to office in January 2025, his administration has waged war on nonprofits. Actions have included federal funding cuts to the tune of billions of dollars, targeting of specific organizations with investigations or indictments, and threats to tax-exempt status. While some efforts have been turned back by the courts, the administration has been unrelenting and, sadly, every American community will suffer as a result of this sustained attack.
Presidential announcements warn of “anti-American NGOs” and allege without any credible evidence that networks of nonprofits are acting as “domestic terrorist organizations.” Recently, the administration issued proposed regulations intended to impose sweeping new restrictions on nonprofits that receive federal funding—including that such organizations not advance diversity, equity, and inclusion or assist in voter registration.
The consequences of these attacks are dire. New data from a survey our organization conducted earlier this year show that nonprofits, which employ 1 in 10 Americans, are reeling. We see a dramatic increase in burnout among nonprofit leaders, whose stresses often include new worries about the safety of their staff and those they serve; financial distress as more organizations book deficits; increased difficulty raising funds from foundations (which are facing unprecedented demand as nonprofits look to replace lost government funding); and cutbacks to programs and staff in order to keep their doors open. On top of all this, demand for nonprofits’ services has increased as communities struggle amid higher inflation and cuts to federal programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
Fully two-thirds of nonprofit leaders say they have concerns about their organizations’ financial sustainability. We’re seeing a growing number pause operations, scale back services, or close altogether. This is happening to organizations that provide vital services to people of every geography, party affiliation, and political ideology—services such as food, housing, and substance abuse prevention; assistance for survivors of sexual assault; teen violence prevention; and general community support.
The time is now to make your support known publicly by giving whatever you can to the nonprofits in your community that you care about.
This attack on the nonprofit sector is unprecedented. In his 1988 Republican National Convention speech accepting the nomination for president, George H.W. Bush famously talked about local nonprofits as “a brilliant diversity spread like stars, like a thousand points of light in a broad and peaceful sky.” In a similar vein, nonprofit leader and former Democratic cabinet official John Gardner once quipped, “If you can’t find a nonprofit institution that you can honestly disrespect, then something has gone wrong with our pluralism.”
This vision of organizations pursuing varied and diverse objectives has its roots in the origins of this country and in the First Amendment, and was famously observed by French philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville in 1835 who remarked, with admiration, that Americans are “forever forming associations.” He saw these organizations as a ballast to a strong democracy—and a deterrent to despotism.
Whether they know it or not, every American’s life is touched for the better by nonprofits: through an after-school program, visits to a museum or a trail created by a local land conservation nonprofit, or help provided by frontline human services organizations like food pantries or domestic violence shelters. Nonprofits provide job training to veterans and other populations needing support. They do crucial research on diseases. They staff crisis hotlines, clean up parks and streets, and rush in to help after a natural disaster. “Nonprofits have been taken for granted in American society as institutions that will always be there to catch us when we fall,” notes Akilah Watkins of Independent Sector.
Most nonprofits are small and community based, and they are the infrastructure of American communities. They are, by law, nonpartisan; many are religiously affiliated. In practice, local nonprofits are one of the few places that volunteers and staff come together in pursuit of the common good without regard to political party or ideology.
This crisis is unlike anything either of us have seen in our 25-year careers working in philanthropy. Nonprofits experienced a similar increase in demand in 2020 during the pandemic, but, at that time, the federal government increased funding to nonprofits to help them navigate the crisis. This time, it is the government that has created the crisis, by cutting funds that have been duly congressionally allocated and by targeting organizations with which it disagrees.
The federal government has historically relied on nonprofits to deliver a range of essential services to people in communities across the country, regardless of their political affiliation. While the government has targeted specific nonprofits before—during the civil rights movement, for example—this administration is going after the entire sector as a whole.
It is this attack on nonprofits that is, in fact, anti-American.
Every American should be concerned about the health of the American nonprofit sector. The time is now to make your support known publicly by giving whatever you can to the nonprofits in your community that you care about—whether that’s money, time, or both.
As Diane Yentel of the National Council of Nonprofits says: “Nonprofits are the backbone of this country, providing critical support to improve communities and save lives. Defending and supporting them should not divide us along political lines—it should unite all Americans.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Donor-Advised Funds Banning the Southern Poverty Law Center Threaten Democracy
The actions of these DAFs directly undermine democracy by excluding a group the administration has targeted and potentially denying funding to other targeted groups.
May 22, 2026
We know the Trump Department of Justice has threatened individuals they consider political opponents. Echoing authoritarian regimes worldwide, they’re now indicted Southern Poverty Law Center, or SPLC.
In response, major Donor-Advised Funds (DAFs), including Vanguard, Fidelity, and Schwab, have prevented clients from donating to SPLC, cutting the organization off from funding without even a shred of due process. If the DAFs follow this precedent, it could eliminate a key source of funding for any nonprofits this—or any future—administration chooses to attack.
The funds claim their action is necessary because, according to the administration, it constituted fraud for SPLC to have paid hate group informants. But federal and state law enforcement agencies have known about the infiltrations for years, using information they provided to help secure indictments and convictions. So the charges are spurious.
Fidelity justified its actions by citing a policy of pausing DAF giving if an organization “is being investigated for alleged illegal activities… such as terrorism, money laundering, hate crimes or fraud,” or if “state and federal agencies” are investigating a charitable organization. Schwab’s fund quietly removed SPLC from its list of eligible nonprofits, and a representative read me similar boilerplate, saying the fund was deciding on next steps.
If the Trump administration and its enablers can do this to SPLC, they can do it to far smaller and more vulnerable nonprofits.
The danger is far larger than the SPLC case. The listed criteria would let federal or state authorities cripple any nonprofit they choose, simply by launching an investigation. The organization doesn’t have to be convicted, or even indicted. They just have to be investigated, which makes this a perfect way to target political opponents. The administration has already issued a memorandum promising investigations of groups that promote “anti-fascism,” “anti-Christianity,” or “hostility” toward “traditional American views on family, religion, and morality.” It’s threatened Wikipedia, the Vera Institute for Justice, and the governmental watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, not to mention major universities. All the federal government, or even a state government, would need to do to launch a DAF freeze is to open an official public investigation. And these major DAFs would then block the targeted organization from receiving funding.
The implications aren’t confined to the Trump administration. Under this precedent, Democrats holding power could do the same to disfavored nonprofits. Just launching an investigation would cut off a significant part of a targeted organization’s money flow. The defunding or banning of targeted NGOs is exactly what Vladimir Putin did in Russia, Viktor Orbán in Hungary, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in Turkey, and Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela. It’s a classic way to eliminate opposition and consolidate power. And the anticipatory compliance of Vanguard, Fidelity, and Schwab is the exact kind of response that empowers would-be dictatorships, whatever their politics.
If a nonprofit is convicted of fraud or money laundering, it’s of course legitimate to remove or suspend their 501(c)(3) nonprofit status. But SPLC has neither been tried nor convicted, so the DAFs are letting a hostile administration’s mere accusation of wrongdoing become an excuse to block funding. The $326 billion of money that DAFs hold is part of the lifeblood of nonprofits. The actions of these DAFs directly undermine democracy by excluding a group the administration has targeted and potentially denying funding to other targeted groups. That’s true whatever you think of SPLC.
If there’s a nonprofit that could weather this, it’s SPLC, with its $786 million endowment. I don’t give to them because I think other groups are more impactful for the money they spend. But if the Trump administration and its enablers can do this to SPLC, they can do it to far smaller and more vulnerable nonprofits. For instance, they could target nonpartisan voter engagement groups, drying up funding (including pledged contributions) at the point when these groups need it the most to engage citizens in democracy. Damaging attacks on nonprofit funding also don’t have to come from the federal Department of Justice. Under Fidelity’s criteria, attacks could come from state governments as well, with potential targets including either conservative or liberal groups depending on which party runs a particular state.
But ordinary citizens have the power to change this. The campaigns that got ABC to reinstate Jimmy Kimmel offer a model. This issue has less visibility, but for the nonprofits it could affect is equally critical. If we have money in a DAF, our calls or emails could well make the difference. Schwab told me that they’d been getting lots of critical responses. But even if we don’t have a DAF, nearly 60% of us have retirement or other investment accounts, with most housed at the major affiliated brokerages. So we can reach out as well, threatening to switch our investments to brokerages that don’t empower authoritarian initiatives, like TIAA-CREF (at least for now Merrill Lynch-Bank of America is still putting through grants as well), and, if we have DAF’s, transfer them to ones that haven’t banned SPLC contributions, like Amalgamated Bank, Impact Assets, or Daffy. A group of socially responsible investment advisers have created a sign-on letter. New York’s historic Riverside Church just divested $12 million from Vanguard. A long-time activist friend created a leavefidelity.com site with cut and paste templates to send to the companies involved.
The goal is to echo what people did in the Kimmel situation when they boycotted the channels, advertisers, and theme park properties of national ABC-Disney and local Sinclair and Nextstar stations. People also protested in front of affiliated ABC stations—something they could do at the headquarters of the relevant brokerage houses. While DAFs are technically separate entities, they share investment management, administration, and the parent brand, which offers them as an incentive for clients. So we’re far from powerless.
The job of the brokerage houses is not to police client giving. Their affiliated DAFs need to allow donations to all legitimate nonprofits, whether or not the Trump administration—or any administration—agrees with what they do.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Future Is Collective: Structuring Organizations That Reflect Our Values
Workers are reorganizing their workplaces, yes—and they’re also building something more. They’re pushing for deeper, systemic changes that go beyond just wages and benefits. They’re pushing for a culture of fairness, transparency, and collective power.
Oct 25, 2025
As we look to the future, the path forward is clearer than ever. The world of work is shifting, and with it the way we govern ourselves, care for each other, and build organizations. In this new era, our future is collective. The rise of worker-led organization—those where shared leadership and shared responsibility are the backbone of decision-making—is not a mere trend; it’s a transformation in how we understand power and community. The change has already begun, and the seeds planted in collective governance are sprouting in real time.
But for these models to thrive, they need commitment from all sides. It requires those at the top and those coming down from the top to be vocal in their support, to model the behaviors of shared power, and to make space for others to lead. Workers, too, need to lean in, both to do their jobs and to take responsibility for the whole. It’s uncomfortable at times—asking people to take ownership of something that isn’t just theirs but all of ours, and allowing leaders to step back and let others lead. But in this discomfort, growth happens. The challenges are real, but so are the possibilities. When we create spaces where everyone is invited to participate, to have a say, and to lead in their own way, it opens up a whole new world of possibility. It’s not just about fairness or equality; it’s about creating a better, more supportive way of working together. And we’re seeing this already in places like the nonprofit sector, where workers are pushing back against the “do more with less” mentality that has so often dominated our culture, even in social justice spaces.
Workers are reorganizing their workplaces, yes—and they’re also building something more. They’re pushing for deeper, systemic changes that go beyond just wages and benefits. They’re pushing for a culture of fairness, transparency, and collective power. The rise in worker-led governance models in the non-profit sector (along with a renewed surge in public-sector union organizing) is showing us that people are ready to reclaim power, not only in how much they’re paid or what benefits they receive, but in how decisions are made and how they’re treated. Nonprofits especially are looking at their internal structures and realizing that they need to change. It’s a slow, steady process, but it’s happening. Workers are taking control, demanding fair treatment, and saying, “We deserve better—and we can create it.” But as the great thought leader Audre Lorde reminds us, achieving real liberation takes more than a fight against oppression; it requires a thorough deconstruction and rebuilding of the systems that perpetuate it. The challenge here is not only to fix the problems we see but also to dismantle the structures of power that created them in the first place. This is why shifting from a strictly hierarchical, top-down system to one of participatory, collective governance isn’t just about equity and inclusion—it’s about the profound and necessary act of rebuilding how we work, how we lead, and how we treat one another. It’s about justice. We are not simply asking for better conditions within the old systems. We are evolving into something new.
But let’s be real: it’s not going to happen overnight. It takes time—at least three to five years of sustained effort—for real transformation to occur within an organization. And we can’t expect perfection from the start. Transforming how we work, how we lead, and how we make decisions is a long-term investment. It takes time, patience, and a willingness to be uncomfortable. It takes experimenting, making mistakes, learning from them, and trying again. The kind of collective governance we dream of doesn’t happen in one big leap; it happens through incremental progress. We start with small changes, perhaps by creating a new decision-making process in a team, or introducing a regular meeting for everyone to voice their concerns. It’s in the small, intentional shifts that we begin to build something bigger.
This is our generation’s work: to create organizations that are efficient and serve an immediate need while also being holistic and human-centered—organizations where everyone has a voice and every person feels empowered and accountable.
I’ve seen this up close. When I was part of Pangea Legal Services, we took a step toward formalized co-governance, and it was far from easy. At first, I found myself reluctant to relinquish control and let others take the lead, especially when I thought I knew better. I had to learn to trust others, reconcile my ego, lean back, and allow mistakes to happen. But over time we saw how much stronger we became. When leadership was shared and decisions were made collectively, we found new ways of doing things—sometimes better ways than I could have imagined. And the results were there: The year after I left, my colleagues continued to thrive and raised millions of dollars in new, unrestricted funding—an extraordinary achievement for a twenty-person nonprofit, especially after a founder transition. We continually proved to ourselves that this model works, and it was because we made the decision to embrace collective leadership, even when it was hard.
When we look to history for guidance, we can see how seemingly small and thoughtful actions have led to enormous change. In the 1960s, the Black Panther Party launched its Free Breakfast for Children program, not as a temporary fix but as a way to meet basic needs and challenge systemic inequalities. What began as free school breakfasts in local communities eventually inspired state-wide programs and national policies. Meaningful change often starts small—one organization, one community, one movement at a time. If we want to transform the future, we have to start where we are and build from there. We have to live the change we want to see now. We have the power to create the future we envision; the key is to begin practicing it every day in our workplaces, our homes, and our communities.
This is our generation’s work: to create organizations that are efficient and serve an immediate need while also being holistic and human-centered—organizations where everyone has a voice and every person feels empowered and accountable. We will create spaces where workers can lead and decision-making is shared, and we will build systems that reflect our deepest values of care, respect, and justice. This vision is not a distant dream. It’s happening now, and each of us has a role to play.
So where do we begin? There are as many starting points as there are individuals and organizations, but one thing is clear: We begin with values and points of unity. We ground ourselves in shared values, we build relationships, and we create what we can with what we have. We don’t wait for the perfect conditions. And in this practice, in this steady, deliberate work of transforming our workplaces from the inside out, we create a future that reflects our highest aspirations.
Change starts with the choices we make and the values we commit to embodying. Each time we prioritize collaboration over competition, equity over expediency, and care over control, we lay the groundwork for something transformative. As these principles take root in our actions and relationships, the change deepens and expands, offering not just a new way of working but a new way of being together. We may not have all the answers yet, but we have the capacity to shape the future. And that future is collective.
From The Future Is Collective by Niloufar Khonsari, published by North Atlantic Books, copyright © 2025 by Niloufar Khonsari. Reprinted by permission of North Atlantic Books.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Progressive NGOs Consider Radical Options to Survive Upcoming Trump Administration Onslaught
“The only way through this moment is with collective action,” said Vanita Gupta, who was a senior DOJ official under former Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden.
Oct 02, 2025
Progressive nonprofit groups are girding for a coming legal onslaught from President Donald Trump's administration in the wake of the assassination of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk.
Wired reported on Thursday that many nongovernment organizations are considering taking radical steps to stay alive amid reports that the Department of Justice (DOJ) is preparing to launch a probe of Open Society Foundations, the global grant network founded by billionaire George Soros that helps fund prominent organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union and Amnesty International.
Sources within the NGO world who spoke with Wired said that many groups are discussing steps such as setting up emergency funds, merging together, moving outside the United States, or even dissolving themselves and restarting as limited liability corporations (LLCs).
Rusty Stahl, founder and president of Fund the People, told Wired that none of these options are ideal. For instance, he said that organizations that restart as LLCs would significantly reduce transparency into both who is donating money to them and how that money is being spent. Moving outside the US, meanwhile, might make it harder for organizations to fund on-the-ground campaigns inside the country.
A Thursday report from NBC News revealed that several NGOs are forming a NATO-like alliance in which they would provide strategic and legal advice to one another, and where they would share staff members and resources to help one another stay afloat while dealing with Trump administration lawsuits.
Vanita Gupta, who was a senior DOJ official under former Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden who is helping to lead the effort, told NBC News that collective solidarity among nonprofits is the only thing that can possibly prevent the collapse of the entire sector.
“The only way through this moment is with collective action,” Gupta said. “When you have an administration that tries to silence people through the cudgel of the federal government, the only way through is to work together.”
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen, said that NGOs are trying to avoid the mistakes made by big law firms and universities who have been targeted by the administration individually and have capitulated to its demands.
"One of the most important things we can do in this moment is make clear that our sector stands together in contrast to the law firms, where some capitulated and were picked off," she said.
Norm Eisen, co-founder of the Democracy Defenders Fund, told NBC that he hopes other institutions take notes on the way NGOs are planning to respond to the Trump administration's actions.
"We do hope that other sectors, should they become the target of unfair bullying, will also stand strong," he said. "And they can learn from this example."
But Brian Reich, a strategist for consulting firm Little M Media, said in an interview with Wired that the coming onslaught by the administration means NGOs "are going to have to think radically differently" about how they function just to stay alive, and that big changes are coming, no matter which strategy they use to fight back.
“The Trump administration is going to set the [NGO] sector on fire,” he said. “It’s going to need to be rebuilt.”
In the days after Kirk's murder last month, Trump adviser Stephen Miller vowed to launch a holy war against progressive nonprofits, whom he baselessly blamed for inciting Kirk's killing.
“The last message that Charlie Kirk gave to me before he joined his creator in heaven,” Miller said during a Fox News interview, was “that we have to dismantle and take on the radical left organizations in this country that are fomenting violence, and we are going to do that.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Supporting Survivors: A Spark of Hope In A Climate of Violence
All communities must realize that funding for domestic violence resources is not just charity—it’s an investment in public safety, community health, and the future stability of families.
Sep 21, 2025
Another school shooting? Shooting of a social media conservative advocate? In a nation where children can be murdered at church or school, an activist like Charlie Kirk can be assassinated at a campus event, and a man can kill a pregnant teen because of “road rage,” it is a daily challenge to prepare for the worst and simply hope for the best.
I wonder if I will become a victim to my circumstances or a survivor with a cautionary tale.
Despite US President Donald Trump recently dismissing domestic violence as "a little fight with the wife," 1 out of every 2 women are subjected to gender-based violence by an intimate partner in the US. This means every employer employs survivors and we all know someone affected.
Despite its prevalence, the silence and stigma surrounding this issue continue to isolate survivors. Equally concerning, survivors face overwhelming financial obstacles, unlivable wages, reduced access to essential services, and now recent funding cuts to domestic violence services. Nonprofit organizations that support survivors are being asked to do more with fewer resources.
The fact is economic security for survivors is not just about preventing them from returning to abusers—it’s about investing in a safer, healthier, more resilient society for everyone.
In this political climate, it feels audacious to hope for government budgets to include the kind of holistic, wraparound services that support communities’ most vulnerable populations. From the highest levels of government there have been thousands of layoffs including the US Agency for International Development, the Internal Revenue Service, the Education Department, the Defense Department, health agencies, the National Park Service, and the Department of Veterans Affairs.
In light of these devastating layoffs and funding cuts, survivor-serving organizations have lost most, if not all, government funding and must pivot to sustain themselves. In an ideal situation this may transpire into leveraging complimentary community resources, exchanging services, and collaborating to build grassroots, organic networks of support.
This can also look like survivors of domestic violence left alone with shame, fear, and confusion on what to do next. The window of opportunity for survivors to access support is narrow.
Without immediate emergency support, survivors are forced to return to unimaginable circumstances and some never make it out. Research is clear: Economic security is one of the greatest pathways to helping individuals break free from the cycle of abuse; without stable housing, income, or childcare, survivors are often forced back into unsafe situations.
As a survivor, I acknowledge the privilege I have by being the breadwinner. Once I broke free from the mental bondage and fear of physical abuse, I was fortunate enough to have my career (although I almost lost it), a home with my name on the lease (and $15,000 in back rent), and just enough fight left to obtain a restraining order and full custody of my son.
I tried utilizing what services existed in my area but ran into agencies with reduced staffing and hours. The providers did their best to support me over the phone, but they were also overwhelmingly busy and forgot to send follow-up emails, so I did the best I could on my own with a lot of faith and just a little spark of hope. Statistics and experiences show most survivors aren’t that lucky.
All communities must realize that funding for domestic violence resources is not just charity—it’s an investment in public safety, community health, and the future stability of families. When someone makes the courageous decision to leave an abusive environment, their path forward must not be blocked by scarcity and closed doors.
I share my experience to help others. I speak up to destigmatize talking about domestic violence and its correlation to economic security. I offer to take care of survivors' children while they figure out what to do next and sometimes just provide a safe space to process.
No one wakes up and decides to become a victim, nor does a person wake up and decide to be a batterer—however this happens at a frequency equal to 24 people per minute and 10 million people per year in the United States.
By focusing on the most vulnerable populations, there will be positive residual consequences for everyone. There is an estimated $7.73 billion cost of domestic violence in my home state of California alone.
Nationally, “One study estimated the cost of intimate partner violence against women to US society, including health costs and productivity losses," would be $12.1 billion n 2025 dollars.
This affects everyone as economic insecurity is widespread: 77% of US adults report they don’t feel fully financially secure. The fact is economic security for survivors is not just about preventing them from returning to abusers—it’s about investing in a safer, healthier, more resilient society for everyone.
By providing stable economic foundations, it is possible to create a world where leaving isn’t a leap into the unknown—it’s a step toward a future filled with hope and opportunity.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Nearly 600 Groups Denounce Trump for 'Weaponizing the Government' Against Political Opponents
"It is un-American and wrong to use this act of violence as a pretext for weaponizing the government to threaten nonprofit and charitable organizations, other perceived adversaries, or any class of people. They did not commit this murder."
Sep 19, 2025
Nearly 600 nonprofits, labor unions, charitable organizations, and advocacy groups in the United States have issued an open letter directed at the administration of President Donald Trump that calls for an end to the exploitation of Charlie Kirk's recent murder by saying it is both "un-American and wrong to use this act of violence as a pretext for weaponizing the government to threaten" groups, individuals, or "any class of people" in the wake of a lone crime which they had nothing to do with and have condemned unequivocally.
In the days following Kirk's assassination in Utah, allegedly carried out by a lone gunman identified as Tyler Robinson, whose exact political ideology and motivations remain murky, Trump himself and many of his top lieutenants in the executive branch—including Vice President JD Vance, White House advisor Stephen Miller, and Attorney General Pam Bondi—have sought to blame what they characterize as the broad "radical left" for the violent attack.
But in their open letter published Thursday evening, the vast coalition of groups—including the ACLU, Public Citizen, Common Cause, Communication Workers of America, the Sunrise Movement, and Veterans for Peace—said Trump's "perceived enemies" that he and his GOP allies have named or suggested as responsible for Kirk's killing "did not commit this murder, and the vast powers of the government should not be abused to threaten their constitutionally-protected free speech and other rights."
"Political violence has targeted those of every political persuasion and of no political persuasion," the groups said, reiterating.
Under direct threat from FCC chairman Brendan Carr, ABC on Wednesday suspended late-night comedian Jimmy Kimmel and took his show off the air for remarks he made about the right-wing reaction to Kirk's killing. Trump on Thursday doubled down with the attack on free speech by saying broadcasters perhaps should have their licenses pulled if they are too critical of him.
President Trump said that regulators should consider revoking the licenses of broadcasters that air negative coverage or commentary of him, indicating that his assault on critics’ language is motivated at least in part by personal animus. nyti.ms/3W2Jz8p
[image or embed]
— The New York Times (@nytimes.com) September 19, 2025 at 4:30 AM
"As we’ve said before, the assassination of Kirk was a tragedy for his family and a danger for the nation,” said Lisa Gilber, co-president of Public Citizen. “It is unconscionable to exploit this dangerous political moment to further divisions and violate rights, when what we desperately need right now is to lower the temperature of our discourse and bring the country together.”
With a broad GOP underway to stifle free speech, the coalition warns of a very dangerous road if the federal government's powers are turned on people or groups whose only alleged infraction is expressing an opinion that those in power dislike.
"This moment of tragedy does not call for exploiting a horrific act to further deepen our divides and make us less safe," the letter concludes. "It calls for unity–unity against violence and unity of purpose as Americans."
Keep ReadingShow Less
New 'Thought Policing' Bill May Let Rubio Strip Passports from US Citizens Over Political Speech
“Marco Rubio has claimed the power to designate people terrorist supporters based solely on what they think and say,” said one free speech advocate.
Sep 13, 2025
Free speech advocates are sounding the alarm about a bill in the US House of Representatives that they fear could allow Secretary of State Marco Rubio to strip US citizens of their passports based purely on political speech.
The bill, introduced by Rep. Brian Mast (R-Fla.), will come up for a hearing on Wednesday. According to The Intercept:
Mast’s new bill claims to target a narrow set of people. One section grants the secretary of state the power to revoke or refuse to issue passports for people who have been convicted—or merely charged—of material support for terrorism...
The other section sidesteps the legal process entirely. Rather, the secretary of state would be able to deny passports to people whom they determine “has knowingly aided, assisted, abetted, or otherwise provided material support to an organization the Secretary has designated as a foreign terrorist organization.”
Rubio has previously boasted of stripping the visas and green cards from several immigrants based purely on their peaceful expression of pro-Palestine views, describing them as "Hamas supporters."
These include Columbia protest leader Mahmoud Khalil, who was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) after Rubio voided his green card; and Rumeysa Ozturk, the Tufts student whose visa Rubio revoked after she co-wrote an op-ed calling for her school to divest from Israel.
Mast—a former soldier for the Israel Defense Forces who once stated that babies were "not innocent Palestinian civilians"—has previously called for "kicking terrorist sympathizers out of our country," speaking about the Trump administration's attempts to deport Khalil, who was never convicted or even charged with support for a terrorist group.
Critics have argued that the bill has little reason to exist other than to allow the Secretary of State to unilaterally strip passports from people without them actually having been convicted of a crime.
As Kia Hamadanchy, a senior policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, noted in The Intercept, there is little reason to restrict people convicted of terrorism or material support for terrorism, since—if they were guilty—they'd likely be serving a long prison sentence and incapable of traveling anyway.
“I can’t imagine that if somebody actually provided material support for terrorism, there would be an instance where it wouldn’t be prosecuted—it just doesn’t make sense,” he said.
Journalist Zaid Jilani noted on X that "judges can already remove a passport over material support for terrorism, but the difference is you get due process. This bill would essentially make Marco Rubio judge, jury, and executioner."
The bill does contain a clause allowing those stripped of their passports to appeal to Rubio. But, as Hamadanchy notes, the decision is up to the secretary alone, "who has already made this determination." He said that for determining who is liable to have their visa stripped, "There's no standard set. There’s nothing."
As Seth Stern, the director of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, noted in The Intercept, the language in Mast's bill is strikingly similar to that found in the so-called "nonprofit killer" provision that Republicans attempted to pass in July's "One Big Beautiful Bill" Act. That provision, which was ultimately struck from the bill, would have allowed the Treasury Secretary to unilaterally strip nonprofit status from anything he deemed to be a "terrorist-supporting organization."
Stern said Mast's bill would allow for "thought policing at the hands of one individual."
“Marco Rubio has claimed the power to designate people terrorist supporters based solely on what they think and say,” he said, "even if what they say doesn’t include a word about a terrorist organization or terrorism."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Climate Justice Is Under Siege; Help Us Defend It
Why we can’t afford to lose the progress frontline communities have built.
Aug 26, 2025
The climate justice infrastructure dedicated to serving vulnerable communities across the United States took decades to build. And it is now at risk.
After nearly 20 years working in frontline communities on environmental justice and community development, I joined Emerald Cities Collaborative as president and CEO in April 2022. Hope around renewed commitments to climate justice, community resilience, and economic opportunities was palpable, as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and Inflation Reduction Act had just been signed into law shortly after my start. With an influx of federal investments and mandates for racial equity, the promise of that moment energized the climate justice and environmental justice movements.
Today, a coordinated attack on the environmental nonprofit sector and diversity, equity, and inclusion threatens to dismantle the physical and social support networks that serve frontline communities. It is imperative that we understand what’s at stake, who benefits from the current infrastructure, and what the consequences of inaction could be.
Climate justice infrastructure provides the framework for implementing equitable climate investments for all that advance racial justice, economic justice, and environmental justice. This infrastructure includes the physical investments—such as green buildings, solar panels, green infrastructure—and the social supports necessary to ensure their equitable implementation. From community organizing to capacity building for grassroots nonprofits and workforce development programs, environmental nonprofits serve as the backbone of this social infrastructure. These efforts address both climate change and the systemic inequality that leads to disproportionate impacts on vulnerable communities.
We must stand up for nonprofits and the future that they help build—a climate future that is not only green but just.
Significant public and private investments in greener, more resilient energy, water, food, and housing infrastructure—driven by the urgency of climate change—created an unprecedented opportunity to address the environmental, income, wealth, and health disparities within low-income communities and communities of color. Realizing the full potential of these rapidly accelerating investments required a coordinated strategy that integrated local coalition building, policy, project, workforce, and small business development support. This is where the environmental nonprofits stepped in. Environmental nonprofits provided their expertise, on-the-ground leadership, capacity building, and connective tissue to support community-led climate projects, advocacy, and policy.
The breadth of organizations building this critical climate justice infrastructure is remarkable—from national nonprofits and statewide advocacy groups to grassroots organizations and volunteer community groups. We are grateful for their commitment! At Emerald Cities Collaborative (ECC), our history, experience, and dedication to climate justice, along with our support for coalitions and partnerships, equity-centered clean energy policies, and economic inclusion efforts, uniquely positioned us to serve as an intermediary within the broader ecosystem. ECC deployed a coordinated strategy of local coalition building, policy education, project implementation, workforce initiatives, and contractor development to connect disadvantaged communities nationally and in our primary regions (Northwest, Northern California, Southern California, DC-Maryland-Virginia, and Northeast) to the growing clean energy economy. We connected federal and state funding to grassroots implementation and translated new federal initiatives into community-accessible dialogue. The overarching goal was to ensure that the climate and economic benefits of the emerging clean economy were reachable to low-income communities and communities of color.
As a result of the efforts of national nonprofits, community-based organizations, and institutions, many organizations and communities historically left out were able to access federal funding for community climate investments, many for the first time. Communities that have borne the brunt of environmental injustice have benefited from stronger leadership, enhanced organizational capacity, and new tools for community education and organizing.
These gains are all at risk due to the growing attack on environmental nonprofits, the rollback of climate policies, and the disintegration of environmental justice funding. Legal and reputational attacks, such as naming Emerald Cities Collaborative in the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Exploring the Green Group Giveaway Behind the Biden-Harris Environmental Justice Programs report, demonstrate how politically motivated attacks are being used to sway public opinion. This, coupled with the outright illegal termination of environmental justice grants, has had a chilling effect on our work.
However, the impacts are not evenly distributed. Grassroots organizations and BIPOC-led nonprofits are disproportionately vulnerable to these attacks compared with large national organizations with greater resources and political capital. Fear and misinformation have caused some philanthropic funders to pull back. Organizations are being forced to divert resources from mission-critical work to legal defense and crisis communications. And this does not include the mental and emotional toll that environmental justice and climate justice leaders are experiencing.
The stakes are high. Without the valuable work of these organizations, climate solutions may revert to top-down, extractive models that center profit over community. The loss of high-road jobs, apprenticeships, and clean energy workforce programs, along with increased vulnerability to extreme climate events, will unduly affect frontline communities already facing the greatest risk. At the same time, the voices of Black, Indigenous, and immigrant-led movements are in danger of being systematically excluded from the climate conversation.
For us to meet our national climate goals and the just transition agenda, we need strong local, community-driven infrastructure. How can we ensure that the momentum for equitable climate investments in frontline communities is not entirely lost? Will we use this moment to accelerate climate justice—or allow fear and misinformation to dismantle it?
Now is the time for philanthropy, government, and the public to stand in solidarity with national and frontline organizations. Philanthropy must fund general operating support and legal protections for national BIPOC-led and frontline nonprofits. We must resist and roll back state-level attacks on nonprofit speech and operations, as well as the easing of climate policies. And we must educate audiences, donors, and lawmakers about the irreplaceable role of climate justice organizations.
The attack on climate justice infrastructure is about PEOPLE, PROGRESS, and PRINCIPLES! We must stand up for nonprofits and the future that they help build—a climate future that is not only green but just. We must stand up for communities that are resilient and thriving, not just surviving. The alternative is not an option.
Keep ReadingShow Less
DHS Strips Security Grants From Muslim Nonprofits Based on Report From Islamophobic 'Hate Group'
The Council on American-Islamic Relations says the Muslim groups being targeted "were smeared as 'Hamas-aligned'... because of their opposition to Israeli human rights abuses."
Aug 20, 2025
The Department of Homeland Security announced Wednesday that it has suspended more than $8 million in grants to Muslim organizations it claims have "alleged terror ties" following a report from a notorious anti-Muslim group.
The money comes from FEMA's Nonprofit Security Grant Program (NSGP), which provides aid to religious groups at risk of hate-based terrorist attacks, including security alarms, cameras, and armed guards.
DHS said it made the decision following a report from the Middle East Forum (MEF), a pro-Israel group, which alleged that DHS had given $25 million to "terror-linked groups" between 2013 and 2023. According to DHS, it has already suspended the funds to 49 different projects based on this report.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) describes MEF as an "anti-Palestinian and anti-Muslim hate group" and its leader, Daniel Pipes, as "racist."
The foreign policy commentator was nominated to the board of the United States Institute of Peace by former President George W. Bush in 2003 despite a long history of anti-Muslim rhetoric.
This has included referring to Muslims as "brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and maintaining different standards of hygiene" and blaming the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, which was committed by a US-born white supremacist, on Muslim "fundamentalists."
In 2004, after being nominated to the position, Pipes said he did "support the internment of Japanese Americans in World War II," and suggested it as a model for dealing with Muslims.
In the report, MEF described CAIR, which it says received $250,000 from FEMA, as a "Hamas-aligned" group. But the only evidence it cites is the organization's naming as an "unindicted co-conspirator" in the 2007 trial of the Holy Land Foundation for allegedly funnelling money to Hamas.
CAIR was never charged with a crime, but that case has nevertheless been used to tie it and many other Muslim nonprofits to terror groups with little to no evidence of wrongdoing.
MEF also singled out other organizations like the Islamic Society of Baltimore, merely because it was once "previously under FBI surveillance."
Others MEF singled out for their harsh rhetoric towards Israel. For instance, it described Michigan's Islamic Institute of Knowledge as an "outpost for Iran's revolutionary brand of Shi'a Islamism" because its leaders have allegedly "echoed Iranian regime rhetoric regarding Israel, including comparing Israel to the Nazis and blaming it for October 7."
It also suggested that other mosques and organizations have terrorist affiliations because leaders have family members who were, at some point, Iranian clerics or government officials.
According to DHS, merely "alleged" terrorist ties are enough for funding to be pulled, and that includes the allegations made by the MEF.
While DHS said it is conducting its own review to determine which groups to strip funding from, it told Fox News: "We take the results of the MEF report very seriously and are thankful for the work of conservative watchdog groups."
MEF previously told the New York Post that it is working with DHS to "rescind grants to extremist groups."
CAIR says the groups being targeted "were smeared as 'Hamas-aligned' by MEF because of their opposition to Israeli human rights abuses."
During his second term, Trump and congressional Republicans have aggressively targeted nonprofit organizations that criticize his policies, particularly those critical of Israel.
Trump has attempted to coerce universities, including Harvard, into cracking down on pro-Palestinian speech by students by threatening their nonprofit status.
In May, Republicans also snuck a provision into their giant reconciliation bill that would have given the treasury secretary unilateral authority to strip the nonprofit status of any organization he deemed to be supportive of a terrorist organization, which, to the Trump administration, often simply means voicing solidarity with Palestinians. However, that "nonprofit killer" measure was struck from the final version of the law.
This month, DHS updated its terms for providing grants to nonprofits. One new section now requires nonprofits to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Another requires them to swear off boycotts of Israel, which CAIR describes as "a political test targeting supporters of Palestinian rights."
"Our civil rights organization has no active federal grants that the Department could eliminate or cut," a CAIR spokesperson told Fox. "The government cannot ban American organizations from receiving federal grants based on their religious affiliation or their criticism of Israel's genocide in Gaza."
CAIR also condemned DHS Secretary Kristi Noem for "making decisions based on the ravings of the Middle East Forum, an Israel First hate website."
Keep ReadingShow Less
1,000+ Nonprofits Tell Trump: Cancel Plans to Let Churches Endorse Politicians
"The Trump administration's radical reinterpretation of this federal law is a flagrant, self-serving attack on church-state separation that threatens our democracy," said one supporter of the Johnson Amendment.
Jul 30, 2025
As The New York Times reported on how an Easter dinner may have given "Christian conservatives their most significant victory involving church political organizing in 70 years," over 1,000 charitable nonprofits on Wednesday collectively urged President Donald Trump not to allow churches to endorse political candidates.
A provision of the U.S. tax code named for former President Lyndon B. Johnson conditions tax-exempt status on an organization not participating or intervening in campaigns for public office. However, in a bid to settle a federal lawsuit earlier this month, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) proposed an exemption for houses of worship.
As the proposed exception to the Johnson Amendment awaits court approval, groups including the American Humanist Association, Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU), Freedom From Religion Foundation, Independent Sector, Interfaith Alliance, National Council of Nonprofits, and Public Citizen on Wednesday launched the sign-on letter to Trump.
"For more than 70 years, it has ensured that all tax-exempt charitable nonprofits—including houses of worship—do not become conduits for partisan politics, protecting public trust in religious institutions and preserving the integrity of elections," the letter says of the Johnson Amendment. "Weakening the provision threatens to erode public trust, risk policy capture by special interests, and dilute regulatory oversight."
The letter warns that "if the court approves this settlement, houses of worship would be subject to intense political pressure to engage in electoral politics from downballot races and primaries to the presidency, distracting them from their missions. It would also create a loophole for the political donors to enjoy tax-deductible donations for their political campaign contributions, exploiting houses of worship for political gains."
As Public Citizen co-president Lisa Gilbert put it in a Wednesday statement, "We are witnessing in real-time the creation of a new and dangerous dark money channel."
The coalition warned that "weakening the Johnson Amendment would jeopardize the integrity of the entire nonprofit community," not just houses of worship.
"This is not a matter of religious freedom or speech. It is about fundamentally reshaping how political money flows through our system," the letter states. "Charitable nonprofits are among the last institutions where people from all walks of life come together to tackle local challenges. Undermining the legal safeguards that preserve their neutrality could seriously erode public trust and compromise the sector's ability to carry out its mission."
The groups urged the Trump administration "to immediately end its attempt to ignore the Johnson Amendment, reaffirm clear limits on partisan politicking in houses of worship, ensure impartial enforcement across sectors, and protect civil society."
Although the IRS already often does not enforce the Johnson Amendment against houses of worship, killing it has long been "one of the biggest political goals for conservative Christian activists," as the Times detailed Wednesday.
The Times reported that Robert Jeffress, pastor of First Baptist Dallas, attended an April dinner with the president and evangelist Billy Graham's son, Franklin Graham. According to the newspaper:
At Mr. Trump's request, Mr. Jeffress' church sent the White House Faith Office a seven-page letter outlining what it called "wrongful weaponization" of the law and the "unlawful targeting of our church." The letter, obtained by The New York Times, included recommended actions, and a mention of a Texas lawsuit, which offered a vehicle to declare that the law was wrong.
Three months later, conservative Christians scored a major victory.
In a signal of how the new letter may be received, a White House spokesperson told the Times that "President Trump is very proud of this victory for leaders of faith across the country protecting their First Amendment rights."
Still, nonprofits that oppose weakening the Johnson Amendment are working on various fronts to stop the settlement. In addition to promoting the letter, AU has requested to intervene in the case in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
"This long-standing, commonsense rule protects the integrity of both our elections and nonprofits, including houses of worship. The majority of Americans don't want their charities and churches embroiled in the corrupting influence of partisan politics," the group's president and CEO, Rachel Laser, said Wednesday.
"The Trump administration's radical reinterpretation of this federal law is a flagrant, self-serving attack on church-state separation that threatens our democracy by plunging houses of worship into partisan battles," Laser added. "AU is committed to fight the administration's brazen ploy to use our houses of worship as political campaign tools."
The letter comes two days after the Trump administration issued a memo allowing federal employees to proselytize in the workplace, widely seen as another move to further erode the separation of church and state. Responding on social media, the American Humanist Association said that "this is what Christian Nationalism looks like."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy