The united world of liberal donors and the non -profit groups they support spent the last week in a state of fear and anxiety, fearing that any day, President Trump can go after their assets or their tax exemption status.
But everything seemed purely speculative – until Thursday.
At an impromptu press conference in the oval office, Trump confirmed that he was potentially looking to draw the Harvard tax exemption status, in an apparent reprisals for the University’s refusal to bow to a long list of requests. And he said that there “could be” others, suggesting that the internal returned service could also take measures against organizations that support immigrants or the environment.
“The status of tax exemption is a privilege. It is really a privilege,” said Trump. “And he was mistreated. Much more than Harvard. “
Since Trump won power in November, donors have been sweating that a president who died on reprisals would pursue them personally. And so, while some of these donors and their allied groups have co -tested to the Trump administration, more of them worked with diligence to go down, going beyond the points of view which could attract a meticulous examination, as on diversity, equity and inclusion.
“Fear is real,” said Tim Lim, a progressive fundraiser who said he had organized several conversations in the past 24 hours with managers worried about these groups. “If the Trump administration succeeds in removing Harvard tax exemption status, then it could use this same plan against each progressive non -profit organization.”
During his press conference on Thursday, Trump specifically targeted citizens of responsibility and ethics in Washington, a non -profit surveillance group focused on corruption. The group, known as the crew, has published multiple reports on the Trump administration, including its challenge to the judicial orders and the personal conflicts of Mr. Trump.
“It is supposed to be a charitable organization, the only charitable organization they had is to continue Donald Trump. We are examining this,” said Trump. “We look at a lot.”
Noah Bookbinder, the president of the crew, said in a statement that the organization had exposed corruption of “politicians of both parties” for more than 20 years.
“Good governance groups are the heart of a healthy democracy,” he said. “We will continue to do our job to guarantee that the Americans have an ethical and responsible government.”
Trump described Harvard as “shame”, but said that he did not believe that the IRS had “made a final decision”. He also checked Columbia University and Princeton University, suggesting that they should be “very, very cautious”.
Mr. Trump’s ability to ensure that the IRS removes the tax exemption status from individual groups is legally doubtful, at best, and all the actions he undertakes – including against Harvard or the crew – would cause challenges. Philip Hackney, a former IRS lawyer who said he had several conversations with liberal groups, said “revoking the statutes immediately or the president leading an audit of someone who is both outside the law”.
But Mr. Trump and his administration showed their willingness to challenge the legal system, and fear persists.
Many groups that take measures to avoid being targeted do so quietly, anxious to provoke the administration. Liberal groups that could be distinguished include Actblue, the main collection platform for democratic funds, which has already faced the pressure of the Republicans of the Chamber and works with lawyers to prepare more surveys.
Groups that work on climate change and the reduction in the production of fossil fuels, such as the Sierra Club, are particularly worried to tackle.
The managers of the climate groups have spent the last days at a conference call and sent SMS in group cats, desperately looking for advice on what Trump administration could have in store.
“Last week, rumors started and they just spread like forest fires,” said Brett Hartl, director of government affairs at the Center for Biological Diversity.
The fear is that the administration can use powers under the international law on emergency economic powers, a law which gives the president the power to freeze assets in response to extraordinary national security threats, to designate environmental groups as terrorist organizations.
Such an extreme decision could potentially be based on Mr. Trump’s statement that the United States faced an energy emergency, said energy experts were doubtful. The administration has aggressively favored the increase in the production of coal, oil and gas, and Mr. Trump argued that efforts to restrict fossil fuels are contrary to the interests of America.
Some non -profit liberal groups have contacted lawyers who specialize in defense against surveys, or even ordered polls to determine how to win the most convincing arguments to defend civil society.
However, some adopt a waiting approach. Hartl noted that environmental groups had long faced republican surveys in the congress, and he said they were ready to challenge any new effort to restrict their work.
“We have not taken special measures,” he said about his group. And although he read the IRS tax codes during the weekend, he added: “We do not panic.”
Trump’s allies argued that officially apolitical non -profit groups sometimes cross the line in partisan activity, doing barely disguised work intended to help democrats or liberal causes. The president went to his mission in particular to eliminate the Dei programs, and a decree he signed on his second day in office called his office to identify the foundations in mid-May with more than $ 500 million in assets that have carried out Dei work that could be investigated.
Trump also opposed “environmental justice”, the idea that all communities should be protected against environmental damage. Lee Zeldin, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, canceled more than $ 1.5 billion in environmental improvement in colored communities, calling them “Dei and environmental justice”.
Senator Edward J. Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, said that he thought that targeting by the Trump administration of Harvard was probably a precursor for an attack on environmental non -profit groups.
“In the end, it is a tool to create a scary effect in all non-profit organizations that are held in the ideological opposition to the Trump Revolution,” he said. But it noted that with the Republicans in control of the Chamber and the Senate, there were probably few legislative measures that Democrats could take to block the administration.
“I think it will ultimately be a decision taken by the United States Supreme Court regarding the legal protections of non-profit entities,” said Markey.
Some left -wing groups take other measures to prepare.
Last week, three eminent liberal philanthropic foundations announced what they called the solidarity campaign “unite in advance”, an effort to wake up the charity before any action is taken.
“We, in the philanthropic community, should not wait like seated ducks,” wrote the leaders of the foundations. “We have to put our house in order – legal teams on the speed dial, dusty crisis plans, aligned reserves – and above all, a plan to speak loudly and together.” Thursday, 319 foundations had signed a declaration supporting the effort.
A signatory, Aaron Dorfman, president of the National Committee for Reactive Philanthropy, said that non -profit leaders “were ensured that the activities of their organizations are aligned on the law”. For example, he said, groups with non -political entities 501 (C) (3) and political entities “à à Noire” 501 (C) (4) – A common arrangement – ensure that they have documentation showing that there have been no non -political and political funds.
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat from Rhode Island who sought to shed light on how charitable organizations and exempt tax foundations financed by fossil combustible societies distribute the disinformation of climate change, called the possibility of government action against “majestically ironic non -profit groups”.
He said groups and legislators were watching and waited. But, added Mr. Whitehouse, the anticipation of the action of the IRS is already a number of ravages.
“Part of the battle here is that they do not have to win to do damage,” he said, adding: “You do economic damage, forcing people to hire lawyers and fight, while you are fighting with taxpayers’ dollars.”
