Defending progressive institutions

Nonprofits and private foundations have entered a new era of enforcement risk. A cascade of executive orders and Department of Justice (DOJ) policy memoranda now expressly target progressive institutions and funding flows. First it was law firms, then it was universities. Now, it is nonprofits, private foundations and even cities.

For the most part, these new directives don't change preexisting legal frameworks. But they signal an abrupt and sometimes idiosyncratic re-interpretation of the old ones. Lawyers in the white-collar enforcement and investigation space must adapt quickly to this new reality.

As just one example, the new administration has completely overhauled the nation's approach to immigration enforcement and has pledged the largest mass deportation U.S. History. As part of that initiative, it has targeted organizations that are seen as advocates for immigrants or opponents of the administration's new priorities.

On the first day of his presidential administration, President Donald Trump revoked prior immigration enforcement guidance and directed "total and efficient enforcement" of federal immigration laws. He also instructed DOJ to prioritize prosecutions for immigration offenses and to stand up a nationwide Homeland Security Task Force.

In a January 2025 memorandum, then-Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove raised the stakes by directing Assistant United States Attorneys to pursue criminal charges for registration and reporting violations, alien smuggling, and related immigration offenses. He also ordered DOJ attorneys to investigate state or local resistance to federal immigration policy.

Last summer, the new administration deployed troops to conduct military-style immigration raids in major cities throughout the United States, which triggered large scale protests. The administration blamed the protests on progressive institutions and funders. And in harshly worded letters, House and Senate leaders accused non-governmental organizations that provide services to immigrants of impeding immigration enforcement by "actively advising illegal aliens on how to avoid and impede law enforcement officials." In June 2025, FBI Director Kash Patel stated the "FBI is investigating any and all monetary connections responsible for these riots."

In an August 2025 letter to leaders of various "sanctuary" jurisdictions, Attorney General Pam Bondi threatened to prosecute individuals who use their official position to "obstruct federal immigration enforcement" or facilitate illegal immigration under various criminal statutes, including 8 U.S.C. § 1324 (harboring / transporting aliens), 18 U.S.C. § 371 (conspiracy), 18 U.S.C. § 1071 (harboring fugitives), and 18 U.S.C. § 1505 (obstruction of justice).

Finally, in September 2025, the president issued National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 ("NSPM-7"), which called immigration protests the product of "sophisticated, organized campaigns" and directed an investigation into "all participants in these criminal and terroristic conspiracies" including "institutional and individual funders . . . ." A senior Justice Department official reportedly circulated a directive identifying possible charges that could be filed against George and Alex Soros of the Open Society Foundation. Trump explicitly called on DOJ to charge the Soroses under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

This escalating rhetoric and shift in DOJ enforcement priorities requires white collar attorneys to expand their knowledge base. We have a deep understanding of the federal fraud statutes. Many of us can recite from memory the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and its safe harbors. These statutes have traditionally posed the greatest risk to our clients, but that's not necessarily true anymore. In a May 2025 memo by Deputy Attorney General Matthew R. Galeotti, DOJ signaled a shift away from "overbroad and unchecked corporate and white-collar enforcement" and a focus on aligning enforcement to "the policies and priorities of this Administration."

Progressive institutions, funders and so-called "sanctuary cities" are the administration's new targets, and they are increasingly calling on the white-collar bar for help. We must level up and meet the moment. To better serve our new clients, we must become experts in immigration law, obstruction of justice and RICO.

Keeping up with the stream of executive orders and enforcement memos is daunting but necessary for white collar practitioners that serve nonprofits and foundations. Inside counsel for progressive institutions face the even more difficult task of developing a compliance program to minimize liability while remaining true to their mission. But ignoring the directives from Washington is not an option. The objective is not retreat, but resilience: programs built on lawful foundations, records that reflect a culture of compliance, and structures that allow progressive institutions to continue their work -- even as the new administration era tests their resolve.

John L. Littrell is managing partner at Bienert Katzman Littrell Williams LLP.