admin
A new front in the fight for our country opened this week as reports emerged that the White House is preparing an executive order aimed at policing political violence — a move being framed by the administration as necessary, but by many conservatives as a pretext to go after opposition organizations. The proposal has rattled the nonprofit world and drawn fire from both sides, because it signals the federal government is ready to treat the activities of private foundations and charities as a matter of national security. This is not an abstract policy debate; it’s a direct confrontation between the sovereignty of the American people and powerful institutions that answer to nobody.
More than a hundred philanthropies immediately pushed back, issuing a joint letter condemning the impending actions and defending their work as charitable and constitutional. Big-name funders — including the Ford Foundation and the Open Society Foundations — publicly warned that the administration’s approach risks politicizing charity and chilling free speech. Their protest is predictable, but it does not erase the very real question conservatives have been asking for years: who are these organizations really accountable to, and what agenda are they advancing?
Even senior officials in the administration have begun to name names, accusing progressive philanthropies and left-leaning outlets of helping to stoke unrest and civic breakdown. Vice President advisers and staffers have cited links between major foundations and publications that have been critical of conservative figures, suggesting a pipeline of funding and influence that shapes narratives and radicals on campus. Whether or not every accusation is proven, the broader pattern is clear: wealthy, well-connected nonprofits have long been the hidden hand behind cultural and political upheaval.
This escalation follows months — even years — of congressional skirmishes over how to rein in organizations that appear to be operating as political machines rather than genuine charities. Republican lawmakers have pushed proposals to strip tax exemptions from groups deemed to be supporting extremist causes, a controversial measure that opponents say could be abused but which supporters argue is simply about stopping foreign-style political warfare funded through nonprofit shells. The debate is messy, but it underscores a frightening reality: our civic infrastructure can be weaponized by unaccountable actors.
Look at what many of these nonprofits bankroll — activist campaigns pushing radical gender ideology in schools, open-borders advocacy that overwhelms our communities, and media projects that treat patriotism as a problem rather than a virtue. Those who still believe in national cohesion should not pretend this is only about charity; it’s about a sustained effort to reshape America’s laws, culture, and future. Plainspoken conservatism has been dismissed as nostalgia while professional philanthropies quietly underwrite a radical transformation of institutions. No one should be naive about the scale or intent of that effort.
If conservatives care about preserving anything resembling the America our grandparents fought for, it’s time to demand transparency and enforce the law even-handedly. That means exposing funding streams, insisting on strict accountability for tax-exempt groups, and refusing to cede public institutions to well-funded ideological engineers. The choice is stark: either we allow a self-appointed managerial class of nonprofits to rewire the country, or we take back oversight and protect the civic order that serves all citizens, not just the donors.
This is a moment for clarity rather than capitulation. The elites who fund agitation from behind closed doors present themselves as benevolent saviors while undermining the very foundations of American life. Conservatives should be unapologetic in calling out that hypocrisy and uncompromising in defending the rule of law, local control, and the right of ordinary people to determine their own future. The fight over nonprofit power is not some remote policy quarrel — it’s a battle over who gets to decide what America will be.
