Trump Deregulation and Its Impact on the Nonprofit Sector
This paper examines how deregulation under the Trump Administration affected the nonprofit sector in both beneficial and potentially harmful ways. It explores two key policy changes: the elimination of mandatory donor disclosure requirements for certain 501(c) organizations, and Executive Order 13771, which capped the cost burdens federal agencies could impose on nonprofits. The paper also addresses unforeseen consequences of deregulation, drawing on scholarly sources to argue that while some nonprofits gained greater independence and reduced regulatory costs, others—particularly in environmental and consumer protection sectors—may face long-term risks that cannot be fully assessed until years after implementation.
- Introduction: Overview of Trump deregulation and nonprofit impact
- Donor Anonymity and 501(c) Organizations: Donor disclosure rules relaxed for 501(c) nonprofits
- Executive Order 13771 and Regulatory Cost Caps: EO 13771 caps agency cost burdens on nonprofits
- Unforeseen Consequences of Deregulation: Risks and hidden costs of deregulation for nonprofits
- Conclusion: Mixed verdict on deregulation's nonprofit impact
- Annotated Bibliography: Source summaries supporting the paper's argument
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Balances advocacy and critique by presenting genuine benefits of deregulation alongside well-sourced concerns about unforeseen consequences, avoiding one-sided argumentation.
- Uses specific policy mechanisms—donor disclosure rules and EO 13771—as concrete anchors for broader claims about nonprofit independence and regulatory cost-shifting.
- Engages directly with counterarguments, particularly Weaver's (2018) point about cherry-picked data, which elevates the analytical depth beyond simple summary.
- The annotated bibliography adds value by briefly explaining how each source contributes to the argument, demonstrating source evaluation skills.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper effectively uses source synthesis to build a nuanced argument. Rather than citing each source in isolation, the author weaves multiple scholars together—Belton and Graham (2019) on EO 13771, Morrow (2017) on sector-specific variation, and Weaver (2018) on hidden costs—to construct a layered analysis that acknowledges complexity. This is a strong model for undergraduate policy writing.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a framing introduction that previews both the benefits and risks of deregulation. Two body sections address specific beneficial policies (donor anonymity and EO 13771), followed by a section on unforeseen ramifications that introduces scholarly pushback. A brief conclusion synthesizes the mixed findings. An annotated bibliography closes the paper, summarizing each source's contribution to the argument.
Introduction
President Trump touted deregulation as one of the central issues he would pursue during his 2016 campaign. Once in the White House, he followed through on that commitment, and his deregulation policy has had a notable impact on the nonprofit sector in the United States. This paper examines how that impact has benefited the nonprofit sector in some respects while leaving open the question of whether negative consequences will emerge over time.
Specifically, this paper explains how deregulation under the Trump Administration is affecting nonprofits in beneficial ways—such as by allowing certain organizations to keep donor names anonymous, and by capping the cost burdens that federal agencies can impose on nonprofits. It also addresses the reality that deregulation carries unforeseen consequences that may adversely affect nonprofits, particularly those operating in the environmental sector, and that the full scope of these outcomes will only become clear with time.
Donor Anonymity and 501(c) Organizations
Under the Trump Administration's deregulation policy, certain tax-exempt 501(c) organizations—excluding those described in 501(c)(3) and section 527 organizations—are no longer required to file personally identifiable information about their contributors in their annual tax returns (Brookings Institute, 2020). This means that donors can remain anonymous and organizations do not have to disclose who is providing financial support unless directly compelled to do so by the government. Organizations must still keep this information in their records, but they are no longer required to report it annually. That is a significant win for nonprofits, because the loss of donor anonymity can sometimes discourage major donors from making the kinds of contributions that create a meaningful difference for these organizations.
The fact that some nonprofits will no longer have to identify all their donors to the IRS also represents a gain in organizational autonomy and independence. This rule applies to 501(c) organizations, which can receive unlimited donations from individuals, corporations, and unions. While these nonprofits no longer have to disclose donor identities in their tax filings, they must still maintain those records and provide them upon request. This arrangement allows major donors to collaborate more closely with nonprofits without concern that every contribution will become public knowledge—a benefit that ultimately strengthens these organizations' ability to operate independently from the government. In a free-market system, independence from the state is among the most important factors for organizational effectiveness. Major donors can help nonprofits achieve greater societal influence and are more likely to do so when they perceive these organizations as genuinely independent.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.