January 23, 2026 | Huma Khan, Senior Staff Attorney, MLFA Nonprofit Governance Department
The Trump Administration is working hard, with seeming desperation, trying to bring to life the vision espoused in its policy playbook. Project 2025, standing at just under 1,000 pages, is a mandate for conservative leadership which references the need to end the influence of “left leaning” nonprofits and their “woke” policy agendas. This attempt to attack supposed left-leaning organizations has resulted in measures such as executive orders targeting DEI programs, and a presidential memorandum targeting organizations that self-describe as anti-fascist.
In its most recent actions, the Administration is now seeking to make significant changes to certain IRS internal procedures. These changes are intended to make it easier to launch criminal investigations against nonprofits and democratic donors. Gary Shapley, adviser to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, has allegedly prepared a list of targets for IRS consideration. Among these targets is well-known philanthropist George Soros and his affiliated organizations. The changes the Administration is seeking to make in the Internal Revenue Service revolve around the Criminal Investigation Division, IRS-CI. These alterations include a troubling proposal to strip IRS attorneys of their traditional oversight role, removing them from the process of supervising and reviewing investigations to ensure they comply with legal safeguards. The justification for these changes is based on a tenuously drawn conclusion, namely, that recent incidents of political violence are all part of a sophisticated and organized campaign to silence conservative speech and political activity. The irony is not lost us.
This most recent attempt by the Administration to have the IRS investigate its opponents gives rise to serious issues of legality. The Internal Revenue Code §7217 exists to guard against the weaponization of the IRS by a sitting president. This law prohibits the President, Vice President, an employee of the executive, and any other individual in a high-level position within the executive branch, from requesting an audit or other investigation of any particular taxpayer. Anyone who willfully violates the prohibition or fails toreport it is subject to imprisonment for up to 5 years or a fine of up to $5,000 or both. Therefore, if Gary Shapley’s list of organizations and individuals to be targeted by IRS-CI exists and has been passed onto the IRS, IRC §7217 may have been violated.
In this hostile landscape what can nonprofits and donors do to protect themselves? Nonprofits can strengthen their resilience to federal and state scrutiny by proactively ensuring compliance with all applicable laws and regulations, and by maintaining best practices in governance and operations. By making these practices a central pillar of their operations, nonprofits reduce regulatory exposure and protect their tax-exempt status. As for nonprofit donors, they would do well to remember they have a right to donate to organizations whose causes they believe in. The act of giving cannot be criminalized. Nonprofit donors should, however, always know who is on the receiving end of their funds. It is incumbent on all donors to get to know the organizations they support to ensure they are in good standing and align with the donor’s values.
There is something more nonprofits and donors can do as well, support the most critical legal battles of our time against the Administration’s blatant disregard for the law. This complete disregard should alarm all Americans, regardless of whether you support the realization of project 2025 or not. We must be singular in our objective that the policy positions in Project 2025 cannot be forced on a people outside of legitimate legal channels for seeking change. Law and personal accountability are two sides of the same face. The law exists to ensure we are personally accountable to one another, and that the government is personally accountable to its citizens. Independent and objective courts of law make that possible. If instead the law becomes a tool to be changed or disregarded at will, then it no longer carries the ability to protect us from one another or from government overreach. If we, with our silence, give validity to actions that are blatantly unlawful and often unconstitutional then we are no longer a nation of laws, rather just of men who have succumbed to the tyranny of a single voice. In order to fight the battle for the preservation of the rule of law, we have to place our resources and our voices at the disposal of those who are most able to take this Administration to court. Democratic principles require an electorate ready and willing to hold those in power accountable when they deem themselves above the law. We cannot be a people who succumb to threats, and we cannot be bullied into relinquishing our inheritance.
