Nonprofit Rights Are Under Attack. Here’s a 7-Part Playbook to Fight Back.

In moments of national crisis, Americans deserve leadership that protects our freedoms and the rule of law, not leadership that exploits fear to silence civil society. Yet in the charged atmosphere following the heinous assassination of Charlie Kirk, the White House is vowing to use the vast powers of the state to dismantle left-leaning organizations it accuses of funding and promoting political violence, specifically calling out the Ford Foundation and Open Society Foundations.

This rhetoric distorts the truth and threatens freedoms that belong to all Americans: our right to speak, assemble, and support causes we believe in. Funders — for good reason — are alarmed about the possibility of being targeted for constitutionally protected speech and activities.

The instinct may be to pull back. However, that would only hasten attacks on civil society and push the United States further toward the kind of authoritarian rule seen in countries such as Egypt, Turkey, and Uganda. Perhaps most ominously, Russia shows what happens when a regime preys on valid fears of violent extremism to systematically suppress and choke off funding to democracy and human rights organizations — effectively wiping out the civic sector.

What Philanthropy Can Do

What’s needed now is unprecedented courage and solidarity between funders and their grantees, and between civil society organizations working across sectors and issue areas. Specifically, grant makers should consider the following seven-part playbook, borrowed from the many countries that have experienced and successfully pushed back against efforts to weaponize violent extremism to crack down on civil society.

First, funders should continue to insist on philanthropic freedom, as they have done through the foundation solidarity campaign Unite in Advance. Charitable-giving organizations have the right under the First Amendment to donate as an expression of their distinct values. Any efforts to deprive philanthropy of this right should be resisted in speech and practice. Following the lead of philanthropists in India, funders could take their case to the media and to the courts if their rights are violated.

Second,grant makers need to stand up for one another and for the larger sector, even if they themselves are not being maligned. A key tactic in the authoritarian playbook is to divide and conquer. That is the strategy behind intentionally singling out Ford and OSF. Funders should stand firmly behind the NATO mantra that an attack on one is an attack on all. That process began last week when a diverse group of more than 150 foundations banded together to condemn political violence and decry attempts to use Kirk’s murder as an excuse to shut down opposing voices and attack organizations for “expressing their values in support of the communities they serve.”

Third,funders should invest in and incentivize coalition building amongst grantees and partners working in dissimilar issue areas. Whether they recognize it or not, nonprofits focusing on health, the environment, democracy, economic opportunity, or education all depend on the same civic space — one in which individuals and groups can participate meaningfully in political, economic, social, and cultural life. The freedoms of expression, association, and peaceful assembly underpin this work and must be defended by the entire nonprofit world.

In Brazil and Nigeria, for example, civil society leaders prevented the enactment of harsh restrictions by mobilizing broad swaths of their populations, not just the advocacy organizations targeted by repressive legislation. The business community, professional associations, and labor unions, which all depend on freedom of association and peaceful assembly, were vital players. Their involvement enhanced the legitimacy of the coalitions’ work and raised the costs to the government of implementing restrictions on entities that provide critical services and economic development.

Fourth,foundations should support ongoing monitoring and documentation of laws, regulations, and actions at the federal and state level that could constrict freedom of association, freedom of expression, and other First Amendment rights. Important data sources are already available to build on, such as the protest tracker and state domestic terrorism law database maintained by the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law.

The key to defeating regressive legislation is to not let it get traction in the first place. In 2013, Kenyan civil society was successful in beating back proposed amendments to the country’s nongovernmental organizations law by paying attention to the issue early on, educating themselves about the proposals and their potential impact, and cultivating legislative champions. These preparations allowed a diverse coalition to mount a large-scale campaign as soon as the restrictive amendments were introduced in parliament.

Fifth,funders should invest in storytelling and constituency building to help their grantees and partners weather the current storm and prepare for future disruptions. Civil society organizations are vulnerable to charges that they are “extremists” or contributing to political violence because the average American doesn’t know what they do or understand their value. That needs to change.

Lessons from around the world demonstrate how important it is for civil society to tell its story and do so in a way that connects to constituents’ wants and needs. In countries as diverse as Uganda and Georgia, organizations with deep community roots have been best positioned to survive politically-motivated attacks and smear campaigns.

Sixth, funders should surge resources for cross-ideological advocacy efforts at the federal and state level to protect civic space. Organizations such as the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression are seeking to build a broad base of support for constitutionally guaranteed freedoms through education, advocacy, and litigation. Advocacy is also needed to fend off attempts in Congress to amend federal statutes or laws, such as the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, in ways that would allow the government to persecute organizations and individuals it disagrees with.

Seventh,funders should continue to make emergency legal, communications, and security support available to their partners and provide additional resources to ensure grantees are fully compliant with shifting and often vague laws and regulations. Nonprofits must be prepared in the event they are targeted by politicized audits, investigations, and subpoenas.

The labeling of a broad swath of civil society as “extremists,” conflating protected speech with hate speech meant to incite violence, and invoking laws meant to prevent terrorism and organized crime is part of a global pattern of using valid concerns about violent extremism to suppress dissent. It must be resisted. Leveraging lessons from overseas, funders can mount a unified, spirited, and effective defense of civic space and the organizations and associations across the country that play a vital role in our democracy.

The Ford Foundation is a financial supporter of the Chronicle of Philanthropy.