The Trump administration will try to strip tax exemptions from several liberal nonprofits, according to a leak to the Rupert Murdoch–owned New York Post. The top target, says the Post story, are philanthropies linked to Trump nemesis George Soros. In addition to the Soros-funded Open Society Foundations, now headed by Soros’s 40-year-old son Alex, other targets include the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Private Equity Stakeholder Project, the Athena Coalition, MediaJustice, and the Strategic Organizing Center, a project of the SEIU, and the SEIU itself.
The initiative partly invokes a September 2025 Trump executive order targeting nonprofits operating with a “substantial illegal purpose.” Even before that order, last year on April 15, and again on May 2, Trump called for the revocation of Harvard University’s tax-exempt status.
All this political targeting is blatantly illegal. The president lacks the power to direct the IRS to target a particular nonprofit, much less to pull its tax exemption himself.
In 1998, Congress passed a law that explicitly prohibits “executive branch influence over taxpayer audits and other investigations.” The law makes it illegal for a president, vice president, or their employees “to request, directly or indirectly, any officer or employee of the Internal Revenue Service to conduct or terminate an audit or other investigation of any particular taxpayer with respect to the tax liability of such taxpayer.”
The tax code specifies a precise set of procedures that must be followed before a nonprofit that is tax-exempt under the code’s Section 501(c)(3) can lose its exemption. The IRS must conduct this process free of political interference. It must begin with an audit. If the audit leads to a recommendation for loss of tax exemption, there is an appeals process, first to the IRS itself and then to the federal courts.
During the entire appeals process, the organization keeps its tax-exempt status. Even with the current courts, if a nonprofit could demonstrate blatant political interference in violation of law, they might well win in court.
The big liberal foundations, and the entire foundation-funded ecosystem of the left, have long been sitting ducks for this kind of campaign.
But the administration’s premise is that even if the effort to lift tax exemptions fails in the near term, it will lead large foundations to be more cautious in their grantmaking. As the capitulation of several universities and law firms to Trump’s illegal actions suggests, appeasement of Trump doesn’t work—and Trump’s intimidation sometimes does.
There is also a huge double standard here. The big right-wing foundations are also effectively partisan, but Trump is not going after them. Countless right-wing groups have 501(c)(3) tax status, including the Heritage Foundation, the sponsor of the blatantly partisan Project 2025, which became an operating blueprint of the Trump administration.
The big liberal foundations, and the entire foundation-funded ecosystem of the left, have long been sitting ducks for this kind of campaign. In July 2024, before Trump was elected to a second term, I wrote a feature piece for the Prospect called “The Left’s Fragile Foundations.”
In that article, I pointed out that the great progressive movements of the past, such as the labor movement and the civil rights movement, were not foundation-funded. They were self-financed at the grass roots. This was all the more surprising since both were movements of people who were far from rich. Absent foundation money, they did not have to go through the 501(c)(3) pretense of being nonpartisan. Both worked in partisan politics to elect allies. That was the whole point of voting rights.
I also noted that most large foundations, which may have liberal program officers but typically have corporate-dominated boards, are far from left-wing. They tend to be both risk-averse and faddish. Movement dependence on foundations tends to breed a certain caution, on the part of both funders and grantees. To the extent that progressive think tanks and advocacy groups are constrained by seeking projects that are fundable, it blunts their necessary radicalism.
In addition, the law on just what tax-exempt nonprofits may legally do in politics and elections is a murky mess. Under the law, a 501(c)(3) is a charity that must be nonpartisan. But a 501(c)(4), which is tax-exempt but not tax-deductible for its donors, is allowed to do some politics. According to the most recent IRS regulation from 1959 (!), a (c)(4) may engage in politics as long as that is “not its primary purpose.” Lawyers advising (c)(4) groups have generally defined that to mean 49.9 percent, though the IRS has never made that explicit.
Today on TAP
This story first appeared in our free Today on TAP newsletter, a weekday email featuring commentary on the daily news from Prospect reporters.
In the 2010 Citizens United decision, the Supreme Court blew away that constraint. Citizens United was a conservative (c)(4) that distributed an anti–Hillary Clinton documentary during the 2008 primaries. But the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, held that groups like Citizens United had First Amendment rights to spend unlimited sums, as long as they were “independent expenditures” not directly affiliated with a campaign. That distinction often proved to be fake, but collusion was hard to document.
Citizens United and subsequent decisions opened the floodgates to oceans of campaign spending by corporations and rich individuals. Yet it remains the case that (c)(3) groups are not supposed to use (c)(4) groups as fronts, as some in effect do. A fishing expedition by the IRS could punish liberal (c)(3) organizations for that gambit. The right, meanwhile, has so much money, dark and otherwise, that it doesn’t need even tax-exempt groups.
So though it might take years for these cases to work their way through the courts, the Trump scheme could do damage. Funders are already becoming more cautious in their grantmaking, and the entire (c)(3)/(c)(4) charade could be ruled illegal. That would leave the world of campaign funding, configured by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, even more dominated by corporate and billionaire funding, both of which tend to be predominantly right-wing and Republican.
Ironies abound in this whole saga. While occasional billionaires like Tom Steyer and George Soros have progressive politics and donate to progressive causes, they are anomalies. And both made their money running hedge funds.
Even Soros stops short of financing some brands of progressive reform, notably of predatory capitalism. In my earlier Prospect piece, I told the story of trying to persuade Soros to fund groups working for financial reform in the context of efforts to enact a tough version of the Dodd-Frank effort in 2010. Soros flatly refused. “If anyone is going to criticize Wall Street with my money,” he said, “it’s going to be me.”
Another irony is that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, the point man in the Trump offensive against Soros and other liberal funders, used to work for the Soros hedge fund. It was Bessent who helped craft the successful multibillion-dollar bet that crashed the British pound in 1992, netting a billion-dollar profit for Soros.
For all of his own conflicts and complications, Soros deserves immense credit for helping to restore and defend democracy in Central and Eastern Europe. While Trump ally Viktor Orbán demonized Soros, it was Soros-funded initiatives over many decades in his native Hungary that helped keep democracy sufficiently alive to throw Orbán out.
If Trump and company do succeed in weakening foundation support of progressive organizations, the cure, as always, is to maximize the power of ordinary people against the power of big money.
