Five Actions Nonprofit and Philanthropic Leaders Can Take Right Now to Fight Back Against Authoritarianism
Adapted from a paper prepared for the 14th Symposium on Public Policy for Nonprofits, hosted by Independent Sector.
The constitutional system of the United States is under threat from a president who is “allergic to the rule of law.” President Trump is moving to centralize power with “greater momentum and rapidity” than in other cases of democracies that “backslide” into authoritarianism.
Nonprofit and philanthropic leaders control an enormous amount of the nation’s human, social, financial capital. They must leverage this capital to save America’s constitutional democracy. Through tangible actions, the United States’s robust nonprofit and philanthropic sectors can act as a key catalyst and accelerant for a Pro-Democracy Movement (PDM). But nonprofit and philanthropic leaders must see themselves as advocates, and act accordingly.
Public opinion is broadly on the side of democracy: Majorities of Americans feel the president is wielding too much power, that courts should rein in the president, and oppose the president targeted disfavored institutions. Meanwhile, pro-democracy grassroots networks, such as Indivisible and 50501, are growing rapidly.
Leaders in the nonprofit and philanthropic sectors can take actions within the following five categories to build a strong and well-resourced PDM.
1. Nonprofit and Philanthropic Leaders Must Aim for Political Outcomes
A first step toward the Pro-Democracy Movement is ending the conspiracy of silence around political impact. Nonprofits avoid describing their political wins to funders. Foundations rarely state what policy outcomes they seek, or what kind of advocacy-related work they support. Policymakers treat nonprofits as reactive service providers rather than proactive partners in democratic governance. The result is a risk-averse, cautious, and siloed ecosystem.
This silence is no longer just a barrier. It is dangerous. The Trump Administration is using investigations, defunding, and the threat of deregistration to attack nonprofits and philanthropies. In such a climate, funders and nonprofit leaders must be explicit about how they will contribute to the preservation of our democracy, and how they will work together to counter authoritarianism.
2. The Pro-Democracy Movement Must Take Advantage of the Full Suite of Advocacy Strategies
Reform efforts and movements often confine themselves to one or two strategies - protests and media coverage, or lobbying and litigation - rather than pursuing all strategies in a coherent way. Instead, they must embrace the full suite of approaches (inspired by Gen and Wright, 2020):
Lobbying: Pressuring policymakers (in legislative and executive roles at all levels of government) to take pro-democracy stands, including through funding political campaigns.
Institutional Partnership: Working with those inside institutions to take pro-democracy actions, including local, state, and federal government; foundations; and academic institutions.
Litigation: Filing lawsuits and otherwise using the judicial system to seek pro-democracy actions.
Media and Cultural Influence: Influencing media portrayals and creating cultural products (especially on social media) that espouse pro-democracy messages.
Popular Power: Organizing mobilizations with the goal of forcing pro-democracy actions, such as through protests, strikes, ballot initiatives, and appearances at public meetings.
Inside-Outside: Synthesizing, within one effort, “inside” lobbying and partnership activities with “outside” pressure through media, cultural, and grassroots campaigns.
Right-wing organizations such as Turning Point USA (TPUSA) are masters of blending strategies. TPUSA influences elected officials through political contributions, via (c)(4) Turning Point Action; creates cultural products, including media and merchandise; and organizes local and campus-based mobilizations.
3. PDM Nonprofits and Funders Must Take Advantage of the Law
Foundations can support, and nonprofits can engage in, far more political activity than is taking place today. Solving this inefficiency could unlock billions of dollars for the PDM. What follows are actions for different kinds of organizations to take, as well as example organizations that are using the law to their advantage.
As they do this, they must take cues from the Leo Model: attention to long-term vision, willingness to fail, and taking care of people.
501(c)(3) Nonprofits
Approximately 75 percent of U.S. nonprofit organizations are 501(c)(3)s. These entities can engage in political activities, including lobbying. The easiest way for them to do so, without running afoul of IRS rules, is taking the 501(h) election. This allows organizations to use a simple expenditure test to measure their political activity.
For example, a small nonprofit that spends less than $500,000 to advance its mission (“exempt purpose expenditures”) may spend up to 20% of this amount on lobbying under the 501(h) election. (Foundations and faith-based organizations, and their affiliates, cannot take the 501h election.)
Example: The Environmental Voter Project is a 501(c)(3) that focuses solely on increasing turnout among environmentally minded voters. It carefully avoids candidate endorsements, but achieves political outcomes by identifying and turning out low-propensity voters.
501(c)(4) Nonprofits and Political Action Committees
501(c)(4) “social welfare” organizations can engage in unlimited political activities, though influencing political campaigns cannot be their primary objective.
We need more of these, and more paired with 501(c)(3)s. Every 501(c)(3) - whether a homeless shelter, a nonprofit hospital system, or an issue-based advocacy organization - should consider establishing or partnering with a 501(c)(4). The (c)(4) may advocate for the interests of the (c)(3); it may contribute to coalitional efforts; it may fund pro-democracy media or cultural production. Once established, (c)(3) organizations may find their (c)(4) unlocks new donor interest.
Political Action Committees (PACs), also called Section 527 organizations, are primarily tools for electing candidates: they can give to politicians’ campaigns and other PACs, and endorse candidates. PACs are key instruments for political campaigns, but are less needed for the PDM.
Example: The Movement Voter Project (MVP) is a 501(c)(4) that serves as an ecosystem connector, linking dozens of local groups through 501(c)(3) and (c)(4) arms. MVP funds coordinated—but legally distinct—advocacy infrastructures, dramatically increasing community power without jeopardizing tax status. Many of MVP's partners use their 501(c)(3) capacity to run civic engagement campaigns and build trust year-round.
Charitable Foundations
A critical way for foundations to support the PDM is to award more general-support and capacity-building grants. In addition to being easier to administer, these grants are easier for nonprofits (especially small nonprofits) to receive, and make it easier to mask support for political activity.
When awarding project-based grants, foundations can offer unlimited support to advocacy activities. These include analyzing and developing policies, educating policymakers, and engaging voters.
Foundations also can, and must, support grantees that engage in lobbying. Grantees may engage in lobbying as a component of achieving the goals of project-based grants, or to advance their mission.
Further, foundations can, and should, award grants and contracts to for-profit entities that can help them advance a pro-democracy agenda. As long as these awards advance the foundation’s mission, and are subject to due diligence oversight, they are permissible.
For example, when a foundation awards a grant or contract to a law firm to “safeguard the rights of immigrants to due process,” they should document that funds are being spent to advance this goal. However, this does not mean that the foundation needs to seek detailed documentation on the specific activities used to advance the goal of the contract.
Example: The Texas Education Grantmakers Advocacy Consortium (now called Philanthropy Advocates) was a coalition of funders that coordinated research, policy advocacy, and legislative engagement to restore public education funding—while remaining fully compliant with legal limits.
4. Nonprofit and Philanthropic Sectors Should Consider a “Tip” to Pro-Democracy Work
To fund the PDM, all pro-democracy foundations and nonprofits should consider a “tip” to the PDM, setting aside 20% of their giving or expenditures for pro-democracy work. For foundations, this could mean creating a new democracy portfolio equating to 20% of outlays, or it could mean requiring grantees to build democracy work into their grants. Nonprofit leaders should generate buy-in to devote 20% of their effort to pro-democracy work, and seek funding to get it done.
A tip to pro-democracy work could generate billions of dollars per year. According to the Federal Reserve, private foundations currently held approximately $1.5 trillion in assets in 2023. Thus, one-fifth of the 5% minimum payout of U.S. foundations equals $15 billion per year. Not all foundations and nonprofits are pro-democracy, but this tip approach would generate significant revenue for PDM infrastructure.
5. The Pro-Democracy Movement Must Emphasize Art and Community
The Pro-Democracy Movement must embody a pro-democracy future. This includes creating media, art, and culture. Right–wing movements have increasingly recognized the importance of cultural production. Turning Point USA has transformed itself from a campus-based organizing network into a driver of right-wing youth culture through a turn toward media and cultural production. It joins other right-wing media and culture organizations like The Daily Caller, Babylon Bee, and countless right–wing influencers.
Art, especially humor, has always been a tool of anti-authoritarian movements. We must create safe, comfortable, and fun spaces for movement actors to convene, especially those who pursue different tactics, those who occupy different roles, and those who work on different issues.
Our authoritarian moment has been organized in the open at lavish convenings. At the 2024 Conservative Political Action Conference, one speaker called to “overthrow [democracy] completely,” while January 6th rioters were featured on a podcast taped at the gathering. TPUSA’s AmericaFest is a giant, subsidized festival for young people on the right. Both convenings emphasize networking and fun.
These convenings span issues and factions. The PDM needs similar spaces.
Conclusion
To build a pro-democracy infrastructure, nonprofit and philanthropic leaders must undertake collective action spanning many strategies, take advantage of current law, and emphasize building connection across disparate communities and approaches.
Through the Pro-Democracy Movement, the nonprofit sector will become a potent counterweight to authoritarian drift. Mainstream philanthropy will act as an explicit partner in policy change.
One advantage of pro-democracy movements is their flexibility. PDM participants need not share a detailed agenda, only support the continuance of the United States as a constitutional republic. Organizations may continue to prioritize other issues, so long as they explicitly support democracy and devote some of their resources to pro-democracy activities.
The nonprofit sector faces existential threats. This may be the last chance we have to protect the civic infrastructure on which our democracy depends.