Introduction
This client alert reports on recent developments in the Trump Administration and a shifting legal landscape that may affect the operations, funding, and tax-exempt status of cultural institutions such as museums, galleries, libraries, performing arts centers, historical sites, and community centers.
We intend for this client alert to serve as a resource for counsel, officers, and directors responsible for adapting or responding to these changes on behalf of cultural institutions. It includes: (1) summaries of four executive orders concerning "Gender Ideology," "Anti-Semitism," "Illegal Discrimination," and "American History"; (2) a brief discussion of the potential impacts on federal funding for cultural institutions; (3) an overview of trade restrictions and foreign policy developments that could affect cultural institutions; and (4) a synopsis of the evolving threat to cultural institutions' tax-exempt status and the tax treatment of grants, charitable contributions, and other funding.
The key takeaway for cultural institutions is that the situation is in a state of flux. The effects of the Trump Administration's executive orders will remain uncertain for the foreseeable future, as much will depend on the implementation process and the outcomes of numerous litigations involving both constitutional and statutory challenges. Given the uncertainties surrounding the executive orders, the Administration has indicated it may look to other tools to carry out its agenda, including the termination, suspension, or recission of federal funding; aggressive trade restrictions; and the revocation of tax-exempt status. It is vital that decision-makers be aware of these developments in real time and consider how they may impact the speech, activities, and direction of cultural institutions.
Executive Orders
Since taking office on January 20, 2025, President Donald J. Trump has signed over 150 executive orders on a wide array of topics.1 The following four executive orders focus on issues that are likely to concern cultural institutions.
1. Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government (EO 14168)
Executive Order 14168 on "Gender Ideology," signed on President Trump's first day in office, prohibits the use of federal funds to "promote gender ideology" and directs all federal agencies to review grant conditions to ensure compliance with its directive. This represents a significant shift in federal policy regarding gender identity issues, with likely implications for cultural institutions. For additional analysis of this executive order, see our prior client alert here.
The order's broad and ambiguous language, including the phrase "gender ideology," creates uncertainty for cultural institutions about what speech and activities are covered by the order and what specifically might trigger funding restrictions or other adverse consequences. Cultural institutions that receive federal grants should be conscious of the potential risks involved with any exhibitions, programs, publications, or content that could be interpreted as "promoting gender ideology." This could encompass speech, activities, or content addressing gender-focused identity, roles, rights, equity, equality, inclusion, or balance, as well as LGBTQ+ themes. Such speech, activities, or content could arise in a variety of contexts, including: policies or procedures; communications; media and content; programming; educational materials; community outreach; human resources; and grant- or proposal-related work—the list goes on. For example, on May 8, 2025, the Trump Administration fired Carla Hayden, the Librarian of Congress, because she had been "putting inappropriate books in the library for children," according to a spokesperson.2 Hayden's firing came a day after a conservative foundation posted that "Carla Hayden is woke, anti-Trump, and promotes trans-ing kids."3
The current legal status of Executive Order 14168 is in limbo, however, as it has been challenged on constitutional and other grounds. Several legal challenges have been filed against the order, including a litigation initiated in March 2025 by four arts organizations (represented by the American Civil Liberties Union ("ACLU")) that sued the National Endowment for the Arts ("NEA") for requiring artists to certify in their applications for funding that they would not "promote gender ideology." In response, the NEA rescinded its implementation of Executive Order 14168. The judge presiding over the organizations' lawsuit noted that had the NEA not rescinded its implementation, the plaintiffs had demonstrated a likelihood of success and that they would have suffered irreparable harm should the prohibition have remained in effect.4 Various other lawsuits challenging the viability of the order on constitutional and statutory grounds have been filed against the Trump Administration and other political entities, including by LGBTQ+ advocacy organizations,5 high school students,6 and active duty military members.7
2. Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (EO 14173)
Executive Order 14173, signed on January 21, 2025, targets diversity, equity, and inclusion ("DEI") programs across federal agencies and among organizations receiving federal funding. The order directs all federal departments to "terminate all discriminatory and illegal preferences, mandates, policies, programs, activities, guidance, regulations, enforcement actions, consent orders, and requirements." Additionally, the order creates potential False Claims Act liability for government grantees with DEI programs that could be deemed "impermissible" under the Administration's interpretation of anti-discrimination laws.For additional analysis of this executive order, see our prior client alerts here and here.
Cultural institutions that receive federal funding are likely to face increased scrutiny regarding programming, speech, activities, or content that could be perceived as endorsing or promoting DEI and related objectives. Cultural institutions that have implemented DEI or similar initiatives in their hiring practices, fellowship programs, exhibition programming, board composition goals, or community partnerships may wish to review these policies and activities to assess potential compliance issues. The Trump Administration may also focus on websites, social media posts, news releases, and other such publications or speech regarding DEI matters. Staff positions, training, or programming designed to increase representation of underrepresented groups could face particular scrutiny, especially if they appear to give preference based on protected characteristics rather than what the order terms "merit-based opportunity."
This executive order has also been challenged in the federal courts, and its future is uncertain. The executive order was preliminarily enjoined by a federal district court,8 but the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the injunction pending a decision on the appeal.9
3. Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism (EO 14188)
Executive Order 14188, signed on January 29, 2025, reinforces purported efforts to address antisemitism, particularly on college and university campuses. The order establishes a policy directive that the United States will "combat anti-Semitism vigorously, using all available and appropriate legal tools, to prosecute, remove, or otherwise hold to account the perpetrators of unlawful anti-Semitic harassment and violence." For additional analysis of this executive order, see our prior client alert here.
While the language of this executive order is primarily focused on higher education settings, the order has potential implications for cultural institutions, especially those affiliated with universities. Section 3 specifically directs federal agencies to identify "civil and criminal authorities or actions" that might be used to address incidents "related to or arising from post-October 7, 2023, campus anti-Semitism." This provision creates a framework that could extend to university museums, galleries, libraries, and performance venues.
For cultural institutions presenting content related to Middle Eastern politics or Israeli-Palestinian relations—or hosting scholarly discussions on these topics—the order introduces considerations about how such programming might be perceived within this policy context. University-affiliated cultural organizations should be cognizant of the heightened scrutiny surrounding these issues, especially as the Administration suggests that certain pro-Palestinian speech may be perceived as antisemitic speech and as executive departments begin policing potential violations of Executive Order 14188 and related laws and regulations. For example, the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights has sent letters to colleges and universities warning them of possible violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act for failing to protect Jewish students on campus.10
Lawsuits have been filed challenging Executive Order 14188 on grounds that it violates constitutional protections.11 Educators and scholars in one lawsuit contend that the executive order improperly suppresses protected political speech and advocacy under the guise of combating antisemitism, creating a chilling effect on academic freedom and First Amendment rights, particularly for those engaging with Middle Eastern politics and Israeli-Palestinian relations.12
4. Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History (EO 14253)
Executive Order 14253, signed on March 27, 2025, seeks to "restore" a more "uplifting" version of American history by focusing on "our Nation's unparalleled legacy of advancing liberty, individual rights, and human happiness." Conversely, Executive Order 14253 also seeks to eliminate allegedly revisionist characterizations of the United States as "inherently racist, sexist, oppressive, or otherwise irredeemably flawed." To that end, the order introduces significant oversight mechanisms regarding historical interpretation at federal cultural institutions, with the Smithsonian serving as its primary focus. The order directs the Vice President and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to work with Congress to prohibit Smithsonian funding for exhibitions that "degrade shared American values, divide Americans based on race, or promote programs or ideologies inconsistent with Federal law and policy."
Beyond the Smithsonian, the order extends to properties under the Department of the Interior's jurisdiction—including public monuments, memorials, statues, markers, or similar properties—empowering the Secretary to "restore" such properties to their intended purposes and to review and potentially modify "descriptions, depictions, and other content" that might present what the Administration considers a "false reconstruction of American history." The directive specifically targets content that could "inappropriately disparage Americans past or living," requiring that such elements be removed or altered to align with the order's vision of American historical presentation.
While specifically targeting the Smithsonian and federal properties under government control, the order's broad language regarding "improper partisan ideology" and its characterization of certain historical interpretations as "distorted" or "corrosive" creates potential implications for a wider range of cultural organizations that receive federal support. Non-federal cultural institutions addressing difficult topics such as slavery, colonialism, racism, sexism, or other forms of historical injustice should be cognizant of potential sources of funding that may be at risk, see infra, and proceed intentionally with regard to their properties, public displays, exhibitions, speech, and interpretive frameworks in light of Executive Order 14253 and its preferred version of American history.
Impacts on Federal Funding
1. Funding May Be Terminated, Suspended, or Rescinded
Cultural institutions face mounting uncertainty about federal funding amid shifting priorities and new administrative directives. Pending applications may stall indefinitely. Approved but undisbursed funds could be withheld or rescinded despite prior commitments. Requests for refunds or reimbursements could follow any expenditures deemed improper or impermissible. And the federal government may attempt to wield the threat of withholding federal funding to promote its cultural agenda, as articulated in the four executive orders discussed above.
The evolving situation requires vigilance from institutional leadership where federal funds and policies are concerned. Grant applications submitted before recent policy changes may be evaluated under new criteria that differ substantially from those in place at the time of submission. Current use of prior grants could also be reevaluated. Moreover, as some federal agencies are dismantled, defunded, restructured, or redirected toward new policy priorities, the timing and criteria for future funding cycles also remain uncertain.
Beyond concerns about future funding, cultural institutions should be aware that federal agencies may attempt to claw back funds that have been awarded but not fully disbursed or expended. This has particular relevance for multiyear grants or projects with phased funding disbursements. For example, both the National Endowment for the Humanities ("NEH") and the NEA have reportedly begun terminating grants. In April 2025, the NEH sent notices to grant recipients stating that the agency would be "repurposing its funding allocations in a new direction in furtherance of the president's agenda."13 Current NEH leadership has indicated that upward of 85% of the agency's hundreds of current grants may be canceled, with the agency refocusing on what has been described as "patriotic programming."14 And in May 2025, the NEA notified cultural institutions and arts organizations around the country that it would be terminating or canceling grants and grant offers.15 The NEA wrote that it is "updating its grantmaking policy priorities to focus funding on projects that reflect the nation's rich artistic heritage and creativity as prioritized by the president" and that it was "terminating awards that fall outside these new priorities."16
Federal grant agreements typically include provisions regarding termination of funding, which may be invoked in the current environment. Organizations with active federal grants should carefully review these provisions to understand the agencies' rights to modify, suspend, terminate, and/or claw back grants, as well as any notice requirements or appeal processes that may be available.
2. The Executive Orders Affect Numerous Sources of Federal Funding
The executive orders discussed in this alert apply broadly to federal funding sources across agencies, including direct grants, indirect sub-grants administered by other grantees (including state agencies), and other federal support mechanisms. Key federal funding sources for cultural institutions—including, e.g., NEH, NEA, and the Institute of Museum and Library Services ("IMLS")—have been particularly affected by the executive orders and other recent federal initiatives.
First, the IMLS had been a cornerstone of federal support for museums and libraries nationwide until it was identified for elimination by Executive Order 14238, "Continuing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy," issued on March 14, 2025. This order directs IMLS leadership to reduce its role "to the minimum presence and function required by law," such that most of its activities have been eliminated, most staff have been placed on administrative leave, and hundreds of grants supporting museums and libraries have been canceled.17 These developments create significant uncertainty for institutions that have relied on IMLS support for programming, digital innovation, and collection access projects—among other things.
Lawsuits have been filed challenging Executive Order 14238, including a suit filed on April 4, 2025, by 21 state attorneys general, arguing that the President lacks the authority to unilaterally eliminate or defund agencies established by Congress. On May 6, 2025, a federal judge granted the motion by the attorneys general for a preliminary injunction, holding, in part, that the attorneys general were likely to succeed on their claims that the elimination of the non-statutory functions and reduction of statutory functions and personnel at the IMLS violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the Take Care Clause of the Constitution, and the separation of powers.18 A separate lawsuit was filed by the American Library Association and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees on April 7, 2025. On May 1, 2025, a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order for that case, temporarily blocking the Trump Administration from "dissolv[ing]" the IMLS, placing any more employees on administrative leave, or terminating any grants.19
Second, recent developments have substantially disrupted the NEH and the funding it provides to cultural institutions through direct grants and indirect grants through state humanities councils.
In early April 2025, the Department of Government Efficiency ("DOGE") recommended staff reductions of 70-80% at the NEH, which would affect approximately 180 employees. Additionally, DOGE recommended canceling all grants awarded by the previous administration but not yet fully disbursed. The Trump Administration's proposed budget would eliminate the NEH.20
The result is that state humanities councils and other grant recipients have begun receiving notifications abruptly terminating their NEH funding. These termination letters declare that "immediate termination is necessary to safeguard the interests of the federal government, including its fiscal priorities."21 These terminations extend to regional funding networks, which, in turn, affect downstream sub-grants to local cultural institutions.22 On May 1, 2025, three private humanities associations sued the NEH, its acting chairman, and DOGE officials on constitutional and statutory grounds to challenge the NEH's mass termination of grants and staff firings.23
Third, recent developments also affected the largest arts funder in the United States, the NEA, which funds organizations and individuals engaged in a wide variety of artistic endeavors in every congressional district in the country.
The NEA recently withdrew or terminated grants for hundreds of groups of varying sizes across the United States.24 These funding moves come on the heels of the President's proposal to eliminate the NEA, along with the NEH, in his next budget.25 In the meantime, Trump Administration officials have asked NEA staff members to resign or retire.26
Trade Restrictions
The Trump Administration's trade policies may impact U.S.-based cultural institutions. Relying on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 ("IEEPA"), President Trump has imposed global reciprocal tariffs.27
While the broad scope of recent tariff actions is likely to impact most cultural institutions, they are particularly relevant for museums and galleries that regularly conduct international transactions involving artwork or other cultural objects. Although IEEPA explicitly excludes "informational materials" such as "artworks" from the President's authority to regulate or prohibit trade under the act,28 it is uncertain whether the exception applies to antiques, antiquities, cultural property, and other cultural objects. For example, the President has already raised questions about the potential impact of tariffs on foreign films.29 Moreover, tariffs imposed pursuant to other authorities may cover artworks. For example, tariffs imposed on China during the first Trump Administration under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 include a 7.5% duty on artwork made in China, which is still in effect.30
Notably, tariffs may also be levied by other countries, some of which already have imposed reciprocal or retaliatory tariffs on imports of artwork and other cultural objects originating from the United States. For example, Canada has imposed a retaliatory tariff of 25% on "paintings, drawings and pastels, executed entirely by hand" from the United States.31 Chinese retaliatory tariffs apply to nearly all U.S. imports, including artworks.32 The European Union has threatened retaliatory tariffs on goods from the United States, which may include artworks—although these tariffs are currently suspended.33
Tax-Exempt Status, Foundation Grantmaking, and Charitable Giving
In mid-April 2025, President Trump stated that Harvard University's tax-exempt status should be revoked.34 Subsequently, federal agencies began informing Harvard that they will cease providing ongoing funding to the university and affiliated programs.35 These actions have sparked concern in the tax-exempt sector that the Administration will threaten to revoke, or actually move to revoke, the tax-exempt status of nonprofit organizations, including cultural institutions.36
Legal scholars and practitioners strongly support Harvard's position that it would be illegal for President Trump to revoke its tax-exempt status.37 However, existing law gives the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") the authority to revoke a nonprofit organization's tax-exempt status in certain situations, e.g., following a full and fair administrative review process resulting in a finding that the organization in question engages in activities that are "illegal or contrary to public policy."38 That said, the law also clearly prohibits the President and other executive branch officials from requesting (directly or indirectly) that the IRS conduct an audit or investigation into any particular taxpayer.39 Additional rumored threats to nonprofit cultural institutions include: suspension of their tax-exempt status under a little-used anti-terrorist rule;40 revocation of a long-established IRS revenue procedure that facilitates international grantmaking;41 investigations into restricted activities, including lobbying;42 and legal actions from state attorneys general and/or U.S. attorneys.43 This is not the first time tax-exempt status has been threatened. In the past, organizations and individuals have called for the government to remove the tax-exempt status of certain nonprofit organizations, such as hospitals.44
There is also the possibility of congressional action affecting the tax-exempt status of nonprofit organizations. This is an area for cultural institutions to watch closely, as Congress is currently considering whether to extend relevant provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that are set to expire later this year.45 The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which was enacted in 2017 during the first Trump Administration, had the effect of discouraging charitable giving by increasing the standard deduction, thus reducing the number of individuals who itemized their deductions. This, in turn, reduced the number of taxpayers taking deductions for charitable contributions. The net result was a $20 billion reduction in charitable giving within a year of the act's implementation.46 As Congress contemplates extending these provisions, potentially with additional changes, it could have a significant impact on charitable giving to cultural institutions. More generally, philanthropists may cut back on giving and grantmaking in reaction to both real and perceived threats to the tax-exempt status of institutions, as well as to the general uncertainty and turmoil in the nonprofit sector.
Other major changes may be coming. The House Ways and Means Committee recently released draft portions of a bill that would extend certain provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and make other changes to existing tax laws.47 The committee's proposed tax package contained provisions that would affect tax-exempt organizations, including cultural institutions. For example, the bill might affect unrelated business taxable income, excise taxes on executive compensation, the endowment tax, and charitable contribution deductions. At the time of this writing, however, the status of these proposals remains uncertain. The proposed tax package is still making its way through the House before reaching a floor vote and, as such, could be modified or removed entirely before the bill becomes law. That being said, even if the proposed tax package is not part of the final version of the bill, its provisions could still take effect via another mechanism, such as an executive order or final agency rule.
Conclusion
U.S. laws and policies affecting cultural institutions are in flux. Numerous executive orders—including those focused on "Gender Ideology," "Anti-Semitism," "Illegal Discrimination," and "American History"—may have profound effects on cultural institutions, but the status and viability of these executive actions are unclear as they face a slew of legal challenges and have yet to be fully implemented. Counsel, officers, and directors of cultural institutions should be aware of these developments and consider how they may affect the speech, activities, and direction of the cultural institutions they lead. This is especially true for cultural institutions affiliated with universities, which are under intense scrutiny and face an additional set of challenges.
With deep experience and expertise handling government and regulatory issues facing cultural institutions and other nonprofit organizations, WilmerHale stands ready to provide advice and counseling in this complex and shifting legal environment.
Footnotes
1. Presidential Actions, The White House, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions (last accessed May 20, 2025).
2. Sophia Nguyen, Herb Scribner, Trump fires Library of Congress chief Carla Hayden, citing DEI, Wash. Post (May 9, 2025), https://www.washingtonpost.com/books/2025/05/08/trump-fires-librarian-of-congress/. The act of selecting books for library collections is not within the remit of the Librarian of Congress.
3. American Accountability Foundation (@Theswampmonitor), X (May 8, 2025, 4:44 PM), https://x.com/Theswampmonitor/status/1920580546347823255.
4.Rhode Island Latino Arts v. Nat'l Endowment for the Arts, 2025 WL 1009026 (D.R.I. Apr. 3, 2025).
5. Complaint, Nat'l Urban League v. Trump, No. 25-cv-00471 (D.D.C. Feb. 19, 2025), ECF No. 1.
6. Second Amended Complaint, Tirrell v. Edelblut, No. 24-cv-00251 (D.N.H. Feb. 12, 2025), ECF No. 95.
7. Ireland v. Hegseth, 2025 WL 1084239 (D.N.J. Mar. 24, 2025).
8. Nat'l Ass'n of Diversity Officers in Higher Ed. v. Trump, 2025 WL 573764 (D. Md. Feb. 21, 2025).
9. Order, National Ass'n of Diversity Officers in Higher Ed. v. Trump, No. 25-cv-1189 (4th Cir. Mar. 14, 2025), ECF No. 29.
10. Press Release, U.S. Dep't of Educ., U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights Sends Letters to 60 Universities Under Investigation for Antisemitic Discrimination and Harassment (Mar. 10, 2025), https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/us-department-of-educations-office-civil-rights-sends-letters-60-universities-under-investigation-antisemitic-discrimination-and-harassment.
11. Complaint, Taal v. Trump, No. 25-cv-335 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2025), ECF No. 1 (scholars whose work criticizes Israel contend that Executive Order 14188 violates their First Amendment rights by broadly defining antisemitism to include protected political speech); Chung v. Trump, No. 25-cv-02412 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2025), ECF No. 17 (Columbia University student who attended a pro-Palestine protest and had her visa revoked thereafter argues that Executive Order 14188 violates her First and Fifth Amendment rights).
12. Taal v. Trump, No. 25-cv-335 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2025), ECF No. 1.
13. Jennifer Schuessler, Trump Administration Moves to Cut Humanities Endowment, N.Y. Times (Apr. 3, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/03/arts/humanities-grants-canceled-doge.html.
14. Id.
15. Michael Paulson, The National Endowment for the Arts Begins Terminating Grants, N.Y. Times (May 3, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/03/arts/national-endowment-for-the-arts-grants.html.
16. Id.
17. Valentina Di Liscia, Hundreds of Museum and Library Grants Terminated Overnight, Hyperallergic (Apr. 10, 2025), https://hyperallergic.com/1002518/hundreds-of-museum-and-library-grants-terminated-overnight.
18. Rhode Island v. Trump, 2025 WL 1303868 (D.R.I. May 6, 2025).
19. Am. Library Ass'n v. Sonderling, 2025 WL 1262054 (D.D.C. May 1, 2025).
20. Samantha Chery, Trump proposes eliminating the NEA and NEH as arts grants are canceled, Wash. Post (May 3, 2025), https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/2025/05/03/trump-budget-nea-neh-eliminate/.
21. Elizabeth Barr, Cultural groups across U.S. told that federal humanities grants are terminated, NPR (Apr. 3, 2025), https://www.npr.org/2025/04/03/nx-s1-5350994/neh-grants-cut-humanities-doge-trump.
22. For example, the NEH terminated a $1.3 million grant to Mass Humanities. Claire Thornton, Malcom Gay, 'I am stunned.' Mass. cultural groups see federal funding abruptly slashed., Boston Globe (Apr. 4, 2025), https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/04/04/nation/trump-funding-cuts-hit-massachusetts-history.
23. Complaint, Am. Council of Learned Societies v. McDonald, No. 25-03657 (S.D.N.Y. May 1, 2025), ECF No. 1.
24. Michael Paulson, The National Endowment for the Arts Begins Terminating Grants.
25. Id.
26. Hillel Italie, National Endowment for the Arts cuts off funding, pushes for staff resignations, AP News (May 5, 2025), https://apnews.com/article/national-endowment-arts-grants-resign-rescinded-d001ce166f50de965b6a226f5d5a672a.
27. There are currently nine ongoing lawsuits challenging the Trump Administration's tariffs imposed pursuant to the IEEPA. Trump Administration Litigation Tracker, Lawfare, https://www.lawfaremedia.org/projects-series/trumps-first-100-days/tracking-trump-administration-litigation (last accessed May 20, 2025).
28. 50 U.S.C. § 1702(b)(3).
29. Donald Trump (@realDonalTrump), Truth Social (May 4, 2025, 7:18 PM), https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114452117143235155.
30. Vivienne Chow, Trump's New China Tariffs Sow Confusion, but There Are Big Art Exceptions, ArtNet (Feb. 13, 2025), https://news.artnet.com/market/trumps-tariff-war-china-hong-kong-art-2608618#:~:text=The 7.5 Percent,a 7.5 percent tariff today.
31. List of products from the United States subject to 25 per cent tariffs effective March 4, 2025, Government of Canada, https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/news/2025/03/list-of-products-from-the-united-states-subject-to-25-per-cent-tariffs-effective-march-4-2025.html (last accessed May 20, 2025).
32. As of this writing, the United States and China have agreed to reduce their recent tariffs for a period of 90 days. Jamey Keaten, David McHugh, Elain Kurtenbach, Ken Moritsugu, US and China reach a deal to slash sky-high tariffs for now, with a 90-day pause, AP News (May 12, 2025), https://apnews.com/article/china-us-switzerland-tariffs-negotiations-b3f5174d086e39b2522ab848ddad9372; John Liu, Nectar Gan, China quietly rolls back retaliatory tariffs on some US-made semiconductors, import agencies say, CNN (Apr. 25, 2025), https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/25/business/china-us-tariffs-semiconductors-exemptions-hnk-intl/index.html.
33. Christian Edwards, Thom Poole, James Frater, EU pauses retaliatory tariffs following Trump's trade U-turn, CNN (Apr. 10, 2025), https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/10/business/eu-pauses-retaliatory-tariffs/index.html.
34. Donald Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Truth Social (Apr. 15, 2025, 10:09 AM), https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114342374504628520.
35. Jessica Blake, Deciphering the Trump Administration's Latest Letter to Harvard, Inside Higher Ed (May 7, 2025), https://www.insidehighered.com/news/government/politics-elections/2025/05/07/experts-unpack-linda-mcmahons-latest-letter-harvard; Martha Bebinger, Feds yank funds from Harvard breast cancer, fertility, antibiotics research, WBUR (May 16, 2025), https://www.wbur.org/news/2025/05/16/harvard-medical-research-trump-2-7-billion-cuts.
36. Abby Schultz, Nonprofits, Hobbled by Funding Cuts, Now Worry About Losing Tax-Exempt Status, Barron's (Apr. 28, 2025), https://www.barrons.com/articles/nonprofits-funding-tax-exempt-policy-trump-200c97c0.
37. Philip Hackney, Brian Mittendorf, Can Trump strip Harvard of its charitable status? Scholars of nonprofit law and accounting describe the obstacles in his way, The Conversation (May 9, 2025), https://theconversation.com/can-trump-strip-harvard-of-its-charitable-status-scholars-of-nonprofit-law-and-accounting-describe-the-obstacles-in-his-way-255072.
38. Green v. Connally, 330 F. Supp. 1150, 1161 (D.D.C. 1971), aff'd sub nom. Coit v. Green, 404 U.S. 997 (1971) (per curiam); Jeffrey S. Tenenbaum, Nonprofits Under Fire: How the IRS Can – and Cannot – Revoke Federal Tax-Exempt Status, Nonprofit Alliance (Apr. 17, 2025), https://tnpa.org/nonprofits-under-fire-how-the-irs-can-and-cannot-revoke-federal-tax-exempt-status/.
39. 26 U.S.C. § 7217(a), (e).
40. 28 U.S.C. § 501(p). See also Alexa St. John, Matthew Daly, House Republicans Look to Help Trump Strip Tax-Exempt Status of Nonprofits He Says Support Terrorism, Chronicle of Philanthropy (May 14, 2025), https://www.philanthropy.com/article/house-republicans-look-to-help-trump-strip-tax-exempt-status-of-nonprofits-he-says-support-terrorism?sra=true.
41. 26 C.F.R. § 601.105, Rev. Proc. 2017-53.
42. Theodore Schleifer, Lisa Friedman, After Harvard, Liberal Donors and Groups Fear New Scrutiny From Trump, N.Y. Times (Apr. 17, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/17/us/politics/harvard-trump-irs-liberals.html.
43. Nick Robinson, Elly Page, U.S. Current Trend: State Attorney General Investigations Targeting Nonprofits, International Center for Not-for-Profit Law (January 2025), https://www.icnl.org/post/features/u-s-current-trend-state-attorney-general-investigations-targeting-nonprofits; Will Oremus, Julian Mark, U.S. attorney for D.C. accuses Wikipedia of 'propaganda,' threatens nonprofit status, Wash. Post (Apr. 25, 2025), https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2025/04/25/wikipedia-nonprofit-ed-martin-letter/.
44. Abby Schultz, Nonprofits, Hobbled by Funding Cuts, Now Worry About Losing Tax-Exempt Status.
45. 26 U.S.C. § 63(c)(7).
46. Daniel Hungerman, Trump's Tax Cuts Led to a $20 Billion Reduction in Charitable Giving Within a Year, The Chronicle of Philanthropy (Sept. 17, 2024), https://www.philanthropy.com/article/trumps-tax-cuts-led-to-a-20-billion-reduction-in-charitable-giving-within-a-year.
47. One Big, Beautiful Bill Act, H.R. Rep. No. 119-__ (as passed by the House Ways and Means Committee, May 15, 2025), https://budget.house.gov/imo/media/doc/one_big_beautiful_bill_act_-_full_bill_text.pdf; see also The One, Big, Beautiful Bill, U.S. House Committee on Ways and Means, https://waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/The-One-Big-Beautiful-Bill-Section-by-Section.pdf (last accessed May 20, 2025).
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
