Lead Patriot

Right Leaning Commentary

Trump Comments On Justice Department Probe Into Non Profit Groups
The Scoop

Trump Comments On Justice Department Probe Into Non Profit Groups

President Trump appears to be doing more than just campaigning for reelection—he’s systematically dismantling the financial and legal scaffolding of the Democratic Party, and progressive institutions are starting to sound the alarm. According to a report in The New York Times, Trump’s actions aren’t just political maneuvering. They represent a coordinated offensive on Democrat fundraising infrastructure, key legal allies, and tax-advantaged nonprofits—moves that mirror tactics once used against Republicans.

At the center of the storm are executive orders that function like economic sanctions, targeting powerhouse law firms deeply entwined with Democrat politics: Perkins Coie, Covington & Burling, and Paul Weiss. These firms have represented everyone from Hillary Clinton to Democrat-aligned nonprofits, and are now reportedly under pressure thanks to directives emerging from the executive branch. The message is clear—those who operate as legal enforcers for the Left may find themselves under a new kind of scrutiny.

But it doesn’t stop with law firms. Trump has floated the possibility of reevaluating the nonprofit status of partisan groups operating under a charitable guise. The watchdog group CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington) is suddenly in the spotlight. A longtime antagonist of Trump—currently suing to obtain documents related to Elon Musk’s cost-cutting—CREW is facing public calls for a review of its 501(c)(3) status. Trump didn’t mince words, calling former board member Norm Eisen “vicious and violent” and suggesting the group is little more than a political hit squad cloaked in nonprofit legitimacy.

While CREW’s defenders insist it’s nonpartisan, the broader reality is that progressive groups have long benefited from a complex web of tax-exempt funding, bolstered by dark money routed through federal agencies and loosely regulated NGOs. One such vehicle is ActBlue, the digital donation platform for Democrat campaigns. Elon Musk has publicly accused ActBlue of shady operations, including the repeated use of small, recurring donations under suspicious names—a tactic that critics say could constitute a form of financial misrepresentation, or worse, identity fraud.

These accusations are largely brushed aside by the press as “without evidence,” but that phrase has become its own kind of tell. In many circles, it now functions less as a neutral observation and more as an ideological shield—used selectively, almost exclusively, to protect narratives favorable to the Left.

Conspicuously absent from The Times’ report is the role of USAID, a federal agency that has quietly funneled billions of taxpayer dollars to overseas and domestic NGOs—many of them aligned with progressive agendas. Cutting off that funding source may explain the recent absence of mass protests and violent demonstrations that once became routine during the Trump presidency. Without financial backing, the infrastructure that fuels political unrest simply can’t mobilize at scale.

Critics of Trump’s actions, like Cole Leiter of Americans Against Government Censorship, have called these moves “breathtaking” and described them as part of a larger conspiracy. But for conservatives, this is hardly shocking—it’s the playbook that’s been used against them for decades. IRS targeting. Decertification of conservative nonprofits. FBI scrutiny of religious Americans. Debanking. And now, possibly, actual financial fraud involving donations in unsuspecting citizens’ names.

The difference this time? There’s political will to investigate and act.

As Democrats scramble to mount a response, Trump’s strategy is exposing a fundamental shift. The institutions once untouchable—legal networks, digital fundraising engines, and “charitable” arms of political movements—are now under fire. The implications are enormous. If proven, the financial practices behind ActBlue and other entities could represent the largest money-laundering operation in U.S. political history.

Written by Arthur Higgens - March 24, 2025