Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The Political Non-Profit Sector Is Failing Us

Opinion

The Political Non-Profit Sector Is Failing Us
An oversized gavel surrounded by people.
Getty Images, J Studios

In 2020, I worked for Protect Democracy. We fought in court. We built coalitions. We moved resources. We strategized across party lines. And when it mattered most, we won.

TIME called the collective effort “the secret bipartisan campaign that saved the 2020 election.”


We didn’t achieve that with white papers or blog posts. We did it with action — with law, lobbying, and strategic communications — executed by a massive coalition led by people like Ian Bassin, Michael Podhorzer, and Norman Eisen. We went on offense, and we delivered.

Five years later, Donald Trump is back in power. The danger is worse, the stakes are higher, and yet the very organizations that were built to defend democracy have retreated to the safety of commentary. They churn out reports no one reads, write op-eds that continually restate the problem, and host webinars and conferences that only reach the already converted.

A recent example was the American Democracy Summit, where the panel on mass mobilizations failed to include anyone from 50501, Indivisible, or American Opposition. That’s a bit like having a panel on medicine without including doctors. And they couldn’t claim ignorance — we pointed it out before the event began.

Across the political non-profit sector, there’s been a wholesale retreat from risk. Groups that raised hundreds of millions promising to “defend democracy” are now more focused on defending their reputations, their 501(c)(3) statuses, and their donor relationships than on actually winning this fight.

The result? The legal campaign against authoritarianism has been left to smaller, scrappier outfits like Democracy Forward, which has stepped in to take on the lawsuits and challenges that others won’t touch. That’s not because Democracy Forward has more resources — it’s because they still have the will to win.

The rest of the sector has fallen into a dangerous cycle: Identify a problem, brand the problem, fundraise off the problem, and then… Represent the problem. Become the official “voice” of the problem. Attend conferences about the problem. But never — God forbid — actually solve the problem, because then the problem (and the funding it generates) would disappear.

This is the non-profit industrial complex at work: An ecosystem of organizations that rely on perpetual crises for their survival. They’ve learned that a crisis you manage is more lucrative than a crisis you end. And so the work becomes self-referential, endlessly “raising awareness” while our democracy dies.

We do not need more awareness. We are drowning in awareness. Everyone understands what’s happening.

We need execution. We need legal victories. We need legislative wins. We need organized pressure campaigns that make power pay a price for abuse.

When I look at the non-profit sector now, I see more career management than crisis management. I see strategists who can’t bring themselves to call Trump a fascist because they’re afraid it might alienate certain segments of their donor base.

These organizations love to say, “We’re playing the long game.” But the long game is meaningless if you lose the short one. There’s no long game under a consolidated autocracy. The people who will shutter your offices, revoke your tax exemptions, and criminalize your work are already in power — and you’re empowering them to end you.

In 2020, we didn’t have the luxury of overthinking the optics. We looked at the scoreboard, realized we were losing, and made bold, coordinated plays that shifted the outcome. We didn’t stop to write think pieces about the moral implications of using every tool available. We just used them.

That spirit is now almost entirely gone from the non-profit sector. In its place is a culture of risk-aversion disguised as prudence. The fear of doing the wrong thing has eclipsed the imperative to do the necessary thing.

While Republicans dismantle the rule of law in real time, the so-called defenders of democracy are trapped in endless “strategy sessions” and “war games” that never produce actual strikes.

If your organization can’t point to a concrete victory in the last six months, you’re not defending democracy. You’re holding its hand while it dies.

The American people deserve better. This moment demands organizations willing to spend every dollar, every ounce of political capital, and every shred of goodwill to stop authoritarianism in its tracks.

It demands legal warfare, mass mobilization, civil disobedience, and direct confrontation; People willing to lose their tax exemptions to deliver a result.

If you’re a leader in one of these organizations, you have a choice: You can continue to manage your brand while the country collapses, or you can risk your brand to try to save our democracy.

You can keep representing the problem, or you can actually try to solve it.

History will not remember you for the caution you showed in protecting your non-profit’s reputation. It will, however, remember whether you stood between this country and those attacking it or whether you allowed them to pass.

The time for opinion pieces and blog posts is over. May this be the last of those.

The time for action is now.

Carlos Álvarez-Aranyos is the founder of American Opposition, a non-connected political action committee established to counter the rise of fascism in the United States. The organization serves as a strategic communications and community engagement hub for the opposition movement. He oversaw strategic communications efforts for Protect Democracy in 2020 and was the co-founder and chief communications officer for The American Sunlight Project in 2024.

Read More

Framing "Freedom"

hands holding a sign that reads "FREEDOM"

Photo Credit: gpointstudio

Framing "Freedom"

The idea of “freedom” is important to Americans. It’s a value that resonates with a lot of people, and consistently ranks among the most important. It’s a uniquely powerful motivator, with broad appeal across the political spectrum. No wonder, then, that we as communicators often appeal to the value of freedom when making a case for change.

But too often, I see people understand values as magic words that can be dropped into our communications and work exactly the way we want them to. Don’t get me wrong: “freedom” is a powerful word. But simply mentioning freedom doesn’t automatically lead everyone to support the policies we want or behave the way we’d like.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hands resting on another.

Amid headlines about Epstein, survivors’ voices remain overlooked. This piece explores how restorative justice offers CSA survivors healing and choice.

Getty Images, PeopleImages

What Do Epstein’s Victims Need?

Jeffrey Epstein is all over the news, along with anyone who may have known about, enabled, or participated in his systematic child sexual abuse. Yet there is significantly less information and coverage on the perspectives, stories and named needs of these survivors themselves. This is almost always the case for any type of coverage on incidences of sexual violence – we first ask “how should we punish the offender?”, before ever asking “what does the survivor want?” For way too long, survivors of sexual violence, particularly of childhood sexual abuse (CSA), have been cast to the wayside, treated like witnesses to crimes committed against the state, rather than the victims of individuals that have caused them enormous harm. This de-emphasis on direct survivors of CSA is often presented as a form of “protection” or “respect for their privacy” and while keeping survivors safe is of the utmost importance, so is the centering and meeting of their needs, even when doing so means going against the grain of what the general public or criminal legal system think are conventional or acceptable responses to violence. Restorative justice (RJ) is one of those “unconventional” responses to CSA and yet there is a growing number of survivors who are naming it as a form of meeting their needs for justice and accountability. But what is restorative justice and why would a CSA survivor ever want it?

“You’re the most powerful person I’ve ever known and you did not deserve what I did to you.” These words were spoken toward the end of a “victim offender dialogue”, a restorative justice process in which an adult survivor of childhood sexual abuse had elected to meet face-to-face for a facilitated conversation with the person that had harmed her. This phrase was said by the man who had violently sexually abused her in her youth, as he sat directly across from her, now an adult woman. As these two people looked at each other at that moment, the shift in power became tangible, as did a dissolvement of shame in both parties. Despite having gone through a formal court process, this survivor needed more…more space to ask questions, to name the impacts this violence had and continues to have in her life, to speak her truth directly to the person that had harmed her more than anyone else, and to reclaim her power. We often talk about the effects of restorative justice in the abstract, generally ineffable and far too personal to be classifiable; but in that instant, it was a felt sense, it was a moment of undeniable healing for all those involved and a form of justice and accountability that this survivor had sought for a long time, yet had not received until that instance.

Keep ReadingShow less
Labeling Dissent As Terrorism: New US Domestic Terrorism Priorities Raise Constitutional Alarms

A new Trump administration policy threatens to undermine foundational American commitments to free speech and association.

Labeling Dissent As Terrorism: New US Domestic Terrorism Priorities Raise Constitutional Alarms

A largely overlooked directive issued by the Trump administration marks a major shift in U.S. counterterrorism policy, one that threatens bedrock free speech rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

National Security Presidential Memorandum/NSPM-7, issued on Sept. 25, 2025, is a presidential directive that for the first time appears to authorize preemptive law enforcement measures against Americans based not on whether they are planning to commit violence but for their political or ideological beliefs.

Keep ReadingShow less
Someone holding a microphone.

Personal stories from constituents can profoundly shape lawmakers’ decisions. This excerpt shows how citizen advocacy influences Congress and drives real policy change.

Getty Images, EyeEm Mobile GmbH

Want to Influence Government? Start With Your Story

[The following article is excerpted from "Citizen’s Handbook for Influencing Elected Officials."]


Rep. Nanette Barragán (D-California) wanted to make a firm statement in support of continued funding of the federal government’s Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) during the recent government shutdown debate. But instead of making a speech on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, she traveled to the Wilmington neighborhood of her Los Angeles district to a YMCA that was distributing fresh food and vegetables to people in need. She posted stories on X and described, in very practical terms, the people she met, their family stories, and the importance of food assistance programs.

Keep ReadingShow less