Beyond the federal government
Threats to nonprofit organizations
Throughout the world, nonprofit organizations (also called "civil society organizations") have been a key part of exposing kleptocrats’ wrongdoings. Nonprofits range from service organizations (like the YMCA) to policy advocacy organizations (such as the Autism Society of America), from cultural organizations (like sports clubs) to investigative journalism organizations (like The Texas Tribune), and from colleges (like MIT) to private foundations (such as the Walton Family Fund).
Kleptocrats, who fear independent voices, use numerous approaches to selectively intimidate, harass, and shut down civil society organizations that cross their path. The United States has a long and celebrated history of free association. Although there certainly have been darker moments, presidents have not targeted organizations fighting for better governance. Could that change under the second Trump administration? (Last updated 4/28/25)
ACTION 74 | Congress seeks to reclassify protest as terrorism
In 2024, during the 118th Congress, the Stop Terrorism Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act (commonly referred to as “HR 9495”) was introduced with two aims. First, it aimed to give a popular tax break to families who had a member kidnapped by a hostile power. Second, and more controversially, it aimed to curtail the ability of pro-Palestine nonprofit organizations to operate. As written, however, the bill allows for tremendous discretion by the Treasury to revoke nonprofit organizations' tax exempt status without due process or adequate explanation. Terrorism financing is, of course, already illegal in the United States for anybody, so this primarily expanded the potential for abuse. The bill passed in the House but failed to get enough votes in the Senate, expiring with the end of the 118th Congress in December 2024. There are fears that the bill will be reintroduced this session, or that, should legislation fail, Trump will attempt to take the power to dissolve nonprofit organizations for himself through executive order. Should either come to pass, this would be a move straight out of the kleptocrat's playbook. (Last updated 4/28/25)
ACTION 75 | Executive orders undercut nonprofit independence
While HR 9495 is particularly threatening, a number of EOs already aim to curtail the ability of civil society organizations to work on issues that are not ideologically aligned with Trump's administration. In addition to the broad and harmful funding freeze that has cut services to communities across the country, orders aim to:
“Investigate, eliminate, and penalize illegal DEI and DEIA preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities in the private sector and in educational institutions that receive federal funds.” (DoJ, “Ending Illegal DEI and DIEA Discrimination and Preferences")
“Stop funding NGOs that undermine the national interest [and] align future funding decisions with the interests of the United States and with the goals and priorities of my Administration.” (White House, “Advancing US Interests when Funding”)
Require the identification of all “unregistered illegal aliens” and “identify all contracts, grants, or other agreements with organizations that support or provide services to removable or illegal aliens.” (DoJ, ”Sanctuary Jurisdiction Directives”)
Amend eligibility criteria for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) Program which offers federal student loan forgiveness to borrowers who work for nonprofit or government employers for at least 10 years. The order directs the Secretary of Education to exclude organizations that engage activities with "an illegal purpose" including activities related to immigration, transgender medical care, "disorderly conduct, public nuisance, vandalism, and obstruction of highways" and "facilitating funding to, or the operations of, cartels designated as Foreign Terrorist Organizations". (White House, "Restoring Public Service Loan Forgiveness")
Taken together, these may represent the policy prerogatives of a recently elected government. Taken too far, they could be a pretense for harassment of independent organizations through increased audits, compliance requirements, and challenges to nonprofit status. In other countries, an increase in investigations is often the first step to use obscure rules to fish for petty infractions.
Of particular concern for those who would fight corruption are the rules on mis- and disinformation. Numerous centrist and liberal organizations work on improving the quality of information around health, LGBTQ+ issues, and political information. Should the federal government weaponize the Internal Revenue Service, they could use these rules to target major funders of left-leaning anti-corruption, human rights, and environmental nonprofit organizations.
What may be a positive note for nonprofits, may not be so for those fighting against interference in US policy and politics. The Attorney General published a memo on the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). This law requires any “agent” of a foreign government to register publicly. Failure to do so can result in jail time, as was the case of Paul Manafort. The new memo directs the FARA Department to, “focus on civil enforcement, regulatory initiatives, and public guidance.” Further, this guides the agency to limit criminal charges “to instances of alleged conduct similar to more traditional espionage by foreign government actors.” This may be a positive development for those US-based organizations that receive foreign funding. On the other hand, this could send a clear signal to increase the level of covert foreign lobbying in the United States. (Last updated 4/28/25)
The assault on legal independence and professional accountability
An independent legal profession is essential to any democracy because it ensures that individuals and institutions—including those in power—can be held accountable under the law. In democracies, rules are transparent and followed: the rule of law is supreme, not the rule of man. When lawyers are free from political interference, they safeguard rights, check abuses, and uphold due process. In contrast, efforts to politicize or intimidate the legal profession threaten the entire structure of democratic accountability, bending the law to individual whim.
ACTION 76 | Revoking law firm security clearances
The Trump administration escalated pressure on major law firms by revoking the security clearances of attorneys perceived as politically adversarial. Firms that had provided support to Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigations or represented figures seen as adversarial to the administration were among those affected. Revoking clearances crippled these firms' ability to handle national security and classified matters, limiting their practice areas and undermining client trust. Legal experts warned that this unprecedented use of clearance revocation appeared to target protected political activity and raised serious constitutional concerns. There is no evidence that these firms threatened national security, they argue. Given that this was done by executive fiat, this deprives the lawyers of their professional rights and opportunities without adequate due process. Even if courts find these executive orders to be unconstitutional, they have still done damage—several firms reportedly lost clients as soon as they were targeted. (Last updated 4/28/25)
ACTION 77 | Deals struck with individual firms to avoid targeting
Donald Trump is targeting law firms that assisted in the successful prosecution of the Manhattan hush money case. The case involves a payoff to an adult film star, Stefanie Clifford (stage name "Stormy Daniels") to suppress reporting on his extramarital affair during his 2016 campaign. The president was found to have illegally spent what amounted to an undisclosed donation to his own campaign. Subsequently, a jury found him to be guilty of 34 felony counts in a scheme to illegally influence the 2016 election. Mark Pomerantz, a former partner at law firm, Paul Weiss, had provided pro bono legal assistance to the Manhattan District Attorney.
On March 14, 2025, President Trump issued an executive action asserting that the firm—especially Pomerantz—had engaged in “harmful activity” and “blatant discrimination and other activities inconsistent with the interests of the United States.” The order stripped the firm of its security clearances, blocked lawyers' access to government buildings, and rescinded government contracts with its clients. Paul Weiss caved quickly, agreeing to provide $40 million in pro bono services to causes favored by the administration in exchange for the lifting of sanctions. It was not alone, however. Several other major firms entered similar agreements, often curtailing diversity programs or redirecting resources toward administration priorities. The administration has targeted law firms that gave pro bono assistance on the January 6 case with similar executive actions.
However, resistance within the legal community also emerged. Firms like Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey refused to capitulate and instead filed lawsuits arguing that the administration’s executive orders violated free speech and due process rights. Judges have granted temporary injunctions in some cases, signaling skepticism about the legality of the administration’s tactics.
In a functioning democracy, no candidate would be permitted to use campaign funds to cover up a scandal, conceal the cover-up itself, and then wield government power to retaliate against those who enforced the law. Yet this is the hallmark of kleptocratic governance: the transformation of the law from a mechanism of accountability into a weapon of personal power. When legal institutions and independent lawyers are punished for doing their jobs, it is not just individual cases that are threatened—it is the very foundation of equal justice under law. (Last updated 4/28/25)
ACTION 78 | Threatening lawyers who challenge the administration
Unfortunately, independently targeting law firms is not all that has been done. Attorney General Pam Bondi has gone beyond this, issuing a malpractice memorandum threatening to pursue ethics challenges against lawyers who represent immigrants and challenge the constitutionality of the administration's actions. (Last updated 4/28/25)
ACTION 79 | Distorting professional accountability at the DC Bar Association
When lawyers break laws or ethical rules, they face discipline from a state bar association. One of the most important bar associations for federal law is the DC Bar Association. These professional associations, however, are not safe from politicization either. Allies of the administration have mounted campaigns to take over leadership positions within the DC Bar Association, a body crucial for policing legal ethics and misconduct. The DC Bar has been central to high-profile disciplinary cases, including proceedings against attorneys involved in efforts to overturn the 2020 election, such as Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman. Politicizing bar leadership could weaken independent professional standards and erode mechanisms for holding lawyers accountable, particularly those operating in proximity to political power. It could open the door to blessing bad behavior and punishing those who uphold the rule of law. (Last updated 4/28/25)
Weakening state and local governments
Local and regional governance is critical to a country’s overall health, stability, and prosperity. Decentralization and federalism are cornerstones of our democratic system. The Republican Party has long championed state and local decision-making as the level of government that is closest and most responsive to the people.
Nonetheless, decades of Republican defense of “states’ rights” has proven no match for the Trump administration’s desire to centralize control at the expense of local and state governments. In doing so, Trump is borrowing a tried and true tactic from the kleptocrat's playbook: undermining the authority of local and state governments, especially those led by perceived political opponents.
ACTION 80 | Controlling local government through budgets and grants
One example of this strategy, as seen in Venezuela, Hungary, and El Salvador, is the abuse of fiscal transfers, including by withdrawing or reducing transfers with no transparency in calculations, or redistributing decision-making power about the use of funds to institutions accountable to central authorities. In February 2025, DOGE revoked $80 million in FEMA funding to New York City for the provision of shelter in hotels for migrants. The funds had already been transferred to NYC’s Citibank account when DOGE ordered a reversal. While the US government has used the payment system against foreign adversaries in the past, its deployment for domestic purposes is unprecedented. If allowed to stand, the White House could potentially rescind any funding it considers wasteful.
The Transportation Secretary’s decision to tie funding transfers to birth and marriage rates appears to be a punitive move against Democratic-majority states, which on average have lower fertility rates than those leaning Republican. If the aim was to reward or incentivize “strong population growth” as the department spokesperson said, the criteria might have also included internal migration and immigration—which would have yielded a Blue and Red mix, with the District of Columbia landing the top spot. (Last updated 4/28/25)
ACTION 81 | Undermining local home rule in the District of Columbia
While Washington, DC has often served as a punchline or punching bag for politicians of both parties, no modern president has shown a similar level of contempt for—and desire for control over—the nation’s capital. In 2024, Trump called for a “federal takeover of this filthy and crime ridden embarrassment to our nation.” Within three weeks of the 2025 inauguration, Republican members of Congress moved forward with this agenda. Senator Lee from Utah and Representative Ogles from Tennessee presented a bill that would revoke the D.C. Home Rule Act of 1973, which allows the city to have control of its own affairs, including the ability to elect a mayor, a council of representatives, and advisory neighborhood commissioners. If passed, the 700,000 residents of Washington, DC—a city that also happens to be heavily Democratic and a population whose majority is made up of minority groups—would be stripped of their self-government rights to be ruled by members of Congress. (Last updated 4/28/25)
ACTION 82 | Cutting funding to Maine for enacting local laws
Governor Janet Mills told the president she would see him "in court" to defend the state’s law protecting transgender people. Since then, Donald Trump has reportedly used the tools of the federal government to pressure the Governor to give him "a full-throated apology." This includes suing the state, freezing all agriculture money (including school lunches, which has since been ordered illegal), cutting corrections grants, halting funding to public universities (since reversed), mistakenly freezing social security payments, withholding sea grants, and launching several federal probes. (Last updated 4/28/25)