For a couple weeks, the green world has been rife with rumors that the Trump White House was preparing a series of executive orders to strip climate groups of their non-profit status. In some versions of the story there were attacks far beyond revoking nonprofit status. But it was all rumors, nothing nailed down or tied to a specific source with direct knowledge, at least in any way that a news organization was able to confirm. Then, last night, Bloomberg finally reported the outlines of the story. Climate groups are in the crosshairs, as is CREW, the corruption in government group. As in the earlier scuttlebutt, Earth Day is purported to be the day when the axe may fall. The full scope of the assault remains unclear. (There is chatter that they’ll soon move on to immigration, voting rights and pro-democracy groups.)
Let’s start with the standard disclaimer: this is all completely illegal. There are a series of criteria for nonprofit status tied to the avoidance of explicitly electoral political activity, financial management, internal governance and other matters. You can lose your status for those reasons. The President cannot remove the status because he doesn’t like you or he doesn’t like your ideas.
It seems unlikely that these moves would hold up in court. And the organizations are highly likely to sue. But this gets at a critical dimension of these stories. Getting into what might be a multi-year legal case with the federal government which can pour any amount of money into litigation it wants is at least disruptive, expensive and burdensome to a nonprofit. It can easily be fatal. A longtime TPM Reader noted today that the Big Law agreements play a big role here too. Who will represent these groups? As my correspondent reminded me, for every agreementing firm there are countless more firms declining pro bono opportunities and even turning down paid work.
So will there be lawsuits? Effective ones? I’m fairly sure the answer is yes. But it definitely plays into the equation.
This is another example of the baseline pattern. The White House can break any law it wants. It will probably get sued. It may win or lose. But it has infinite legal resources. So why not? If the White House can destroy the National Resources Defense Council by revoking its nonprofit status, it’s a win. And if it fails but ties them up in court for three years and costs them a million dollars, it’s still a win. It’s all wins. Just different kinds. Again, what’s the downside?
DOGE just broke the law by abolishing the CFPB, a statutory creation of Congress. They’re routinely breaking federal laws which protect the privacy of taxpayers’ information. In those cases, maybe they win and maybe they lose. Just kidding. They win either way.
There are no consequences, no accountability for anything.
To return to the theme of yesterday’s post, in a functioning state, not only would courts prevent willful violations of the law, they would impose consequences for doing so. But under this system and in this current political reality there are no consequences at all.
I don’t write this today with a plan. But the dynamic I have described is untenable. The clearest accountability is at the next election. That is, of course, critical. But that’s 18 months off. And, frankly, even then it’s insufficient. The Tesla Takedown movement is a good and very important example of consequences and accountability. But again, not enough. Too many remain unaffected. I suspect that in the great majority of cases, statutes of limitations will have tolled before the 2028 election. But someone should be compiling all the criminal conduct and analyzing the relevant statutes. State prosecution may present some opportunities, but that involves several layers of complexity outside my knowledge. I know there are many obstacles in the way of civil lawsuits against government employees or officials operating in official capacity. But I think the violation of federal laws at least pierces some of that invulnerability. Trump may be largely immune because of the corrupt Supreme Court’s actions. But those who act on his behalf are not. He can pardon them. But that doesn’t apply to state prosecution or civil actions.
We have to be creative, think outside the box, press the limits. If you want payback, that’s great. But it’s important to understand that this is critically important quite apart from payback or vengeance or anything else. Deterrence alone makes it absolutely necessary.
