After Charlie Kirk’s assassination, the Republican White House didn’t wait for suspects. The immediate target became the NGO sector. From Soros to the ACLU, from the Open Society to smaller networks, the message is clear: philanthropic power will be treated as a political enemy.

The offensive didn’t start in a vacuum. On September 11, Congressman Chip Roy called for a special committee to investigate the “money, influence, and power” of the left. Days later, Trump declared “antifa” a terrorist organization, opening the door to track funders. The Department of Justice is already drafting plans to investigate the Open Society Foundations, founded by George Soros and often turned into the centerpiece of conspiracy theories.

The timing was precise: at Kirk’s memorial, Stephen Miller spoke of “forces of evil” to be defeated. JD Vance echoed the tone, vowing to hunt the “network of NGOs that fuels violence.” The target isn’t just ideological. The 501(c)(3) status, which grants tax benefits to philanthropic entities, has become a pressure weapon. Bills like Ted Cruz’s Stop FUNDERs Act create room to strip that status from groups accused of financing protests.

Facing the risk, foundations and philanthropists are already testing contingency plans. Some are considering dissolving entities and reemerging as LLCs, gaining less transparency but more financial flexibility. Others are studying relocating headquarters and bank accounts abroad, ensuring backing in case of domestic freezes. Some even consider abandoning the “nonprofit” label altogether and operating as private companies.

The immediate effect is reputational. Cases may be won in court, but in two years the narrative will be crystallized: NGOs seen as “liberal monsters” draining resources and fostering disorder. Legal costs and public stigmatization work as indirect sanctions.

Philanthropists, aware of the urgency, are accelerating disbursements. The logic is to move capital before the window closes: emergency funds, support for small organizations, and backfilling federal cuts. The greater risk is psychological. Organizations are beginning to erase content from their websites to reduce exposure. Others rehearse programmatic self-censorship. If the sector yields to fear, the very idea of an independent civil society evaporates.

The irony is structural. Conservative NGOs like Turning Point USA or America First Legal thrived under Democratic administrations. Now, under Trump, the equation flips. The cycle repeats the historical rule: strong governments attract an antagonistic civil society. What changes is the scale of the clash—not just rhetorical, but existential.

The likely outcome is a forced “reset” of American philanthropic infrastructure. If dissolved, displaced, or converted into businesses, NGOs will have to reinvent not only their financial model but also their narrative of legitimacy.

Political power aims less at money than at reputation.

Civil society isn’t killed by decree. It’s killed by fear.