Congressional Investigations Targeting Nonprofits: Analysis

Published: June 2025

Since 2023, ICNL has tracked select congressional investigations into nonprofits. During the last congress (2023-2024), there were at least 43 separate investigations targeting nonprofits; there have already been at least 32 investigations so far this congress (2025-2026). Nonprofits can use ICNL’s tracker to understand the types of organizations that may be at higher risk of investigation and common legal bases for scrutiny. This piece provides analysis of the investigations in ICNL’s tracker and an overview of the investigation process with suggestions for reform so that nonprofits can better prepare for potential scrutiny and advocate against politicized abuse of investigatory powers.

Congress’s power to investigate is an important tool to exercise oversight over the federal government and gather information to support better lawmaking. However, congressional committees and representatives also have a history of using investigations to target nonprofits with which they disagree politically. Some infamous examples include the House Un-American Activities Committee’s declaration of the ACLU as a Communist front in 1938 and the Select Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations’ 1953 investigation into whether prominent U.S. foundations were using their resources for “un-American” or “subversive” activities. In recent years, both Republicans and Democrats have accused their peers of abusing investigations to further political ends.

US Congress; photo credit Connor Gan via Unsplash
Visit ICNL’s US Program Page

Congressional investigations can undermine a nonprofit’s ability to operate in a number of ways. They can consume an organization’s time and resources, damage its reputation, and undercut staff morale. Congressional committees may also refer an issue for further investigation to other federal or state entities, such as the Justice Department, Treasury Department, or the IRS. This may lead to civil or criminal
enforcement actions against an organization or its staff.

In recent years, Congress has investigated a wide variety of nonprofits using a range of legal grounds. Investigations have scrutinized universities as well as organizations working on issues such as disinformation, protecting the environment and countering climate change, immigration, gun safety, and Palestinian rights. The investigations have scrutinized potential violations of laws on issues such as tax-exempt status, anti-discrimination, anti-trust, foreign influence, and counter-terrorism.

Since the start of the 119th session in January 2025, there have been at least 32 investigations targeting nonprofits, impacting hundreds of groups. Of these 32 separate investigations, 47% scrutinized universities, 16% environmental organizations, and 19% organizations labeled as supporting Palestinian rights.

The most frequently cited legal bases for investigating these three types of groups since January 2025 were alleged violations of:

  • Anti-discrimination laws, such as in relation to the alleged failure to appropriately respond to incidences of antisemitism or for maintaining discriminatory diversity, equity, and inclusion practices;
  • Anti-terrorism laws, such as in relation to alleged ties with Hamas;
  • National security laws, such as in relation to engagement with Chinese universities or institutions;
  • Foreign influence laws, such as in relation to receipt of foreign gifts or contracts or ties to the Chinese Communist Party; and
  • Abuse of power and fraud. These investigations have alleged the abuse of power by Biden Administration officials to reward grants, and fraud by certain grantees by misrepresenting their capacity to implement and manage their grants, particularly in relationship to government-supported climate change projects.

INVESTIGATION BASICS

A basic understanding of the congressional investigation process can help a nonprofit prepare for or respond to an investigation.

Rules and scope of power: While the Supreme Court held in 1880 in Kilbourn v. Thompson, and has since repeatedly affirmed that Congress has an inherent power to conduct investigations, the power has several limitations. For example, an investigation must fall within a congressional committee’s jurisdiction as defined in the House or Senate rules and serve “a valid legislative purpose.” The Court has historically interpreted this guidance broadly to mean that Congress can investigate almost any topic “on which legislation could be had.” Congress’s investigation powers are also subject to protections of individuals’ constitutional rights.

Each committee sets its own rules and priorities for investigations during each congressional session. These rules lay out the authority of the committee and its members to use investigatory powers, such as questioning witnesses during a hearing, issuing subpoenas, and approving investigative reports. Both House and Senate committees must submit their rules for the current session to the Congressional Record. Committees also often post their rules online and the Rules committee of each chamber may also consolidate the committee rules.

Voluntary investigation tools: Congressional investigations typically begin with a letter requesting a voluntary response. A committee may also request a nonprofit to attend a voluntary interview, deposition, or hearing. Individual congresspersons may also request information from nonprofits; response to these requests is also voluntary. A nonprofit may need to work with counsel to assess the risks and benefits of engaging in these situations. For example, an organization may decide to respond to a letter from the chairperson of a committee because otherwise, a chairperson could escalate the situation by issuing a subpoena. Likewise, a nonprofit might respond to letters from highly visible individual representatives who may have sway over some committee investigations. An organization might also decide that it can control the narrative surrounding an inquiry through a voluntary response.

Compulsory investigation tools: A committee may issue a subpoena that requests a nonprofit to produce documents or appear at a deposition or hearing. Most committees authorize their chairperson to issue subpoenas unilaterally. Congress may enforce subpoenas in three ways: using its own constitutional authority to detain and imprison a person until the person complies with its demand (“inherent contempt”), certifying a contempt citation for criminal prosecution by the Department of Justice (“criminal contempt”), and seeking a civil proceeding before a federal court (“civil enforcement”). Congress has not used inherent contempt since 1935, relying instead on the latter two enforcement mechanisms.

ICNL tracked at least four subpoenas of nonprofits during the 118th Congress (2023-2024). These stemmed from investigations of an alliance of organizations for alleged collusion from promoting environmental, social, and governance goals, organizations working on disinformation for alleged censorship on social media platforms, and an educational association for censoring parents who were protesting certain curricula and policies.

A nonprofit may work with counsel to negotiate the terms of response or compliance for both voluntary and compulsory investigation situations.

POTENTIAL GUARDRAILS FOR CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATIONS

Congress should consider adopting guardrails to help ensure that its investigations are meaningful and less vulnerable to politicized abuse. For example, conducting bipartisan investigations can enhance the public’s support of an investigation and lead to more concrete impact. The Project on Government Oversight (POGO) has highlighted examples of bipartisan investigations that yielded lasting reforms in their report on Best Practices for Congressional Investigations.

One notable way to encourage bipartisan investigations is to change the congressional committee rules that allow the chairpersons of committees to unilaterally pursue investigations, such as through unilaterally issuing subpoenas. Since the 1990’s, Congress has increasingly allowed chairpersons to issue subpoenas unilaterally, breaking from the earlier practice of requiring either the chairperson and ranking
member to agree or a majority vote of the committee to issue the subpoena. Eliminating or limiting committee chairpersons’ capacity to unilaterally issue subpoenas could lead to more balanced investigations and limit the potential for the abuse of the subpoena process.

HOW CIVIL SOCIETY CAN RESPOND TO RISKS OF CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATIONS

Nonprofits can respond to Congressional investigations by taking actions such as:

  • Before an investigation, adopt document retention policies, so that organizations have a clear idea of information available relevant to investigations;
  • Before an investigation, review compliance issues that have recently been subject to heightened scrutiny;
  • Before and during an investigation, engage counsel with specialized expertise in congressional investigations. Counsel can assist in assessing risks of and planning responses to investigations, including negotiating the parameters of information provided to a committee; and
  • During an investigation, contact minority staff on a committee and other potential allies to gather more information about an investigation and a committee’s priorities.

Funders can offer financial and other resource support to grantees that are subject to congressional investigations to help mitigate the impact of the investigations on the organizations’ activities.

Taking these steps can help nonprofits protect themselves and advocate for balanced investigations moving forward.

ADDITIONAL HELPFUL RESOURCES

  • Congressional Research Service’s report on Congressional Oversight and Investigations (December 2024)
  • Protect Democracy’s primer on Protecting Civic Space (September 2024)
  • Project on Government Oversight’s primer on Congressional Oversight Investigations (January 2023)
  • Congressional Research Service’s report on Congress’s Contempt Power and Enforcement of Congressional Subpoenas (May 2017)

For more information contact Lily Liu (lliu@icnl.org)