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

People waving US flags

People waving US flags

LeoPatrizi/Getty Images

Democracy Fellowship Spotlight: Joel Gurin on Trustworthy Data

Earlier this year, the Bridge Alliance and the National Academy of Public Administration launched the Fellows for Democracy and Public Service Initiative to strengthen the country's civic foundations. This fellowship unites the Academy’s distinguished experts with the Bridge Alliance’s cross‑sector ecosystem to elevate distributed leadership throughout the democracy reform landscape. Instead of relying on traditional, top‑down models, the program builds leadership ecosystems: spaces where people share expertise, prioritize collaboration, and use public‑facing storytelling to renew trust in democratic institutions. Each fellow grounds their work in one of six core sectors essential to a thriving democratic republic.

Recently, I interviewed Joel Gurin, who founded and now leads the Center for Open Data Enterprise (CODE) and wrote Open Data Now. Before launching CODE in 2015, he chaired the White House Task Force on Smart Disclosure, which studied how open government data can improve consumer markets. He also led as Chief of the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at the Federal Communications Commission and spent over a decade at Consumer Reports.

Keep ReadingShow less
A balance.

A retired New York judge criticizes President Trump’s actions on tariffs, judicial defiance, alleged corruption, and executive overreach, warning of threats to constitutional order and the rule of law in the United States.

Getty Images

A Pay‑to‑Play Presidency Testing the Limits of Our Institutions

Another day, another outrage, and another attack on the Constitution that this President has twice taken a vow to uphold. Instead of accepting the Supreme Court decision striking down his imposition of tariffs, the President is now imposing them by executive order and excoriating the Justices who ruled against him. His disrespect for the Constitution and the judiciary is boundless.

To this retired New York State judge, all hell seems to have broken loose in our federal government. Congress lies dormant when it is not enabling the chief executive’s misuse and personal acquisition of federal funds, and, notwithstanding its recent tariffs ruling, a majority of the Supreme Court generally rubber-stamps the administration’s actions through opaque “shadow docket” rulings. In doing so, SCOTUS abdicates its role as an independent check.

Keep ReadingShow less
Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

People clear rubble in a house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026 in Tehran, Iran. The United States and Israel continued their joint attack on Iran that began on February 28. Iran retaliated by firing waves of missiles and drones at Israel, and targeting U.S. allies in the region.

Getty Images, Majid Saeedi

Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

Most of what we have heard from the administration as it pertains to the Iran War is swagger and bro-talk. A few days into the war, the White House released a social media video that combined footage of the bombardment with clips from video games. Not long after, it released a second video, titled “Justice the American Way,” that mixed images of the U.S. military with scenes from movies like Gladiator and Top Gun Maverick.

Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon, War Secretary Pete Hegseth boasted of “death and destruction from the sky all day long.” “They are toast, and they know it,” he said. “This was never meant to be a fair fight... we are punching them while they’re down.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Bomb First, Debate Later: The Hidden Cost of How America Makes War Now

A general view of Tehran with smoke visible in the distance after explosions were reported in the city, on March 02, 2026 in Tehran, Iran.

Getty Images, Contributor

Bomb First, Debate Later: The Hidden Cost of How America Makes War Now

For those old enough to remember the first Gulf War, the scenes feel painfully familiar: smoke rising over Tehran. Babies carried out of a bombed-out hospital in incubators. Missiles striking cities across the Middle East. Oil markets in turmoil as Iran threatens to close the Strait of Hormuz. The war of choice that began with Israeli and American strikes on Iran is widening by the hour, pulling in multiple countries, including NATO allies, and producing casualties that mount by the day.

Much of the early discussion has focused on obvious questions. How far will the conflict spread? How many people will die? What will it cost the United States in money, lives, and global stability?

Keep ReadingShow less