Courts Attacked, History Rewritten, Disaster Aid Frozen
Compared with prior weeks, this week's update is short. That’s not because federal actions harming nonprofits have diminished, but because most of the news articles about the nonprofit sector this week detailed how nonprofits around the nation are beginning to feel the bite of various harmful federal actions. (You can see examples of those here, here, here, and here.)
I focus below on three items: (1) continued attempts to undermine the rule of law; (2) a new Executive Order aiming to rewrite American history; and (3) one of many examples of how massive change is being implemented because of a small possibility that somehow, somewhere, someone deemed undeserving may otherwise benefit.
As Courts Block Parts of Trump Agenda, Congress Plots to Block Courts
There were some cheering moments in the courts last week, but those were countered by saber-rattling by the Trump Administration and Republicans in Congress. A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order against enforcing parts of executive orders aimed at limiting DEI efforts among federal contractors and grant recipients. A panel of appellate judges also continued to block the Trump Administration’s attempt to use the Alien Enemies Act to deport undocumented persons without Due Process protections. Notably, one of the appellate judges in that case pointed out that when the AEA was last invoked, during World War II, suspected Nazis were given greater Due Process protections under that Act than the recent deportees were given. That’s right: Actual Nazis got more Due Process during an actual war in the 1940s than suspected gang members got during peacetime in 2025.
Dear reader, this is not normal. Trump is not hiding his authoritarian agenda; to the contrary, his “autocratic legal playbook” is on full and open display. According to Princeton professor Deborah Pearlstein, “Mr. Trump’s tactics against Big Law and other legal institutions seem clearly aimed at demonstrating there is no law but whatever deal the president is personally willing to strike, indeed no law but Trump.”
In response to adverse court rulings, Congressman Jim Jordan briefed Trump on an upcoming Congressional effort to investigate the federal judiciary, while the Speaker of the House suggested the possibility of eliminating certain federal courts. Clearly, the Republicans in Congress appear comfortable with Trump’s Louis XIV moment.
Nonprofits benefit from stable rules. They benefit from the principle that those charged with enforcing the law will act evenhandedly, and that executive activities will be reviewed by an independent judiciary. Without such constraints, rules don’t matter. Advocacy on behalf of the rule of law is not impermissible “partisanship”; it's part of the people power that must counterbalance this anti-American rush. I will be writing more about this soon, but nonprofits need to mobilize all their stakeholders and beneficiaries to resist authoritarianism in all its forms.
Executive Order Sets Stage for Rewrite of History at One of Our Treasured Institutions
Thursday, the Trump Administration issued a new Executive Order purporting to empower Vice President Vance to review practices within the Smithsonian system to eliminate “improper, divisive, or anti-American” ideology from Smithsonian museums, educational resources, and programs. The order has been roundly condemned and will be added to the long and growing list of executive orders challenged in federal court.
FEMA Freezes $10 Billion in Disaster Aid Because Some 3% Might Go to Undocumented People
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has halted nearly $10 billion in disaster aid, citing concerns that some “could be used to help undocumented migrants.” Let’s run the numbers. While estimates of undocumented people in the U.S. vary, the number was estimated as 11 million in 2022, according to Pew Research Center. There are 347 million people living in the U.S. That means FEMA is stopping $10 billion in grants to all victims of disasters because some 3.17% might go to undocumented persons.
Where rules say someone should not enter or remain in a nation without meeting stated requirements, those rules should be enforced. But does that mean that those here illegally should not get emergency support if disaster strikes? Should we ask all first responders to demand proof of legal residency from all people in emergency situations (fires, traffic accidents) because some government resources might otherwise protect those who are (supposedly) undeserving?
And even if we reject the moral concept that humans—as humans—deserve basic emergency care, what ethical principle would justify withholding disaster relief from the other 97% of potential recipients whose citizenship is not in question?