The United States faces a growing national security threat from tax-exempt nonprofit organizations (501(c)(3)s) that serve as conduits for Chinese Communist Party (CCP) influence operations targeting American institutions and inciting civil unrest. Organizations like The People's Forum, which has received over $20 million from CCP-aligned donor Neville Roy Singham, operate with federal tax benefits while functioning as unregistered foreign agents spreading pro-Beijing propaganda and organizing destabilizing protests [1][2].
This is not simply a story about bad actors; it is a story about how adversaries weaponize American law against America itself. Beijing doesn't tolerate NGOs. Moscow doesn't tolerate independent organizations. Yet these regimes have mastered the art of exploiting America's openness—specifically, our tax code, our charitable protections, and our permissive nonprofit framework—to fund networks that destabilize our streets while we subsidize their operations [2][21][28]. The United States is essentially offering a tax subsidy to its own destabilization.
When The People's Forum receives $20 million from a documented CCP agent operating out of Shanghai and then deploys those funds to organize riots across American cities—including Minneapolis—we're not just facing a national security problem. We're facing a structural absurdity: we're giving tax breaks to organizations actively undermining American stability, while authoritarian regimes at home would never permit such a thing [2][4][5].
The central question is not whether the federal government should "crack down" on protest by invoking extraordinary authorities like the Insurrection Act. The question is why foreign-funded networks that would never be allowed to exist in Beijing or Moscow are still enjoying privileged tax treatment in Washington while they help fuel destabilizing activity. The most effective—and constitutionally sound—response is not troops in the streets, but the systematic use of existing tax and racketeering laws to strip these networks of the money and legal protections that make their operations possible [12][26][34][38].
This report examines the legal vulnerabilities of the current tax-exempt regulatory framework, the scope of documented foreign funding flows, and the administrative and legislative mechanisms available to counter this threat. Key findings include: (1) the IRS possesses established authority to revoke tax-exempt status and, in some national security cases, suspend it automatically; (2) the Justice Department can pursue RICO investigations into coordinated funding networks that organize or materially support unlawful activity; (3) Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) violations provide both criminal and civil remedies against unregistered foreign agents; and (4) taken together, these tools can be used to dismantle foreign-backed NGO ecosystems without resorting to domestic military deployment or extraordinary emergency powers[10][12][16][21][26][36].
The Trump administration thus has not only the legal authority but also the strategic rationale to focus on cutting off tax benefits and financial lifelines for CCP-linked entities, rather than reaching first for the Insurrection Act. If you take away the money, you take away the power.[12][26][36][38]
I. The Foreign Funding Pipeline: Scale and Documented Evidence
A. Documented CCP-Linked Foreign Funding
Between 2021 and 2025, documented foreign funding flowing into U.S.-based activist and policy organizations reached unprecedented levels. A comprehensive October 2025 report by Americans for Public Trust identified nearly $2 billion in contributions from five foreign "charities" to left-wing social justice and climate organizations operating in the United States [3]. Critically, at least one of these foreign entities has documented ties to the Chinese Communist Party [3].
The Singham Network. The most extensively documented funding source is Neville Roy Singham, an American expatriate residing in Shanghai with deep institutional connections to CCP leadership [2]. Between 2017 and 2022, Singham and his wife Jodie Evans (co-founder of CODEPINK) channeled over $20 million to U.S.-based organizations through shell companies and donor-advised funds, effectively obscuring the foreign origin of CCP-aligned capital [2][4].
The House Ways and Means Committee documented that Singham:
· Maintains active residence in Shanghai with "several deep ties with the CCP"[2]
· Works "with and physically alongside a foreign propaganda company" and "attends CCP forums on how to promote the party"[2]
· Functions as an "agent of a foreign principle" through networked organizations [2]
Public reporting confirmed that The People's Forum explicitly admitted to receiving funding from Singham while claiming tax-exempt status as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit [4]. This represents simultaneous violation of both the foreign funding restrictions embedded in tax-exemption requirements and potential Foreign Agents Registration Act violations.
B. The People's Forum: Case Study in Tax-Exempt Foreign Agent Operations
The People's Forum, a New York-based 501(c)(3) organization, exemplifies the structural mechanism through which foreign powers operationalize NGO networks for domestic destabilization [1][2][4].
Documented Activities:
· Received over $20 million from Singham-controlled entities (2017-2022)[2]
· Hosted events glorifying the Chinese revolution and CCP governance structures [4]
· Partnered with Beijing-aligned collectives including the Qiao Collective [4]
· Maintained operational ties to CCP-controlled media outlets within Singham's influence network [4]
· Organized, coordinated, and financially supported protests identified as destabilizing to U.S. domestic stability [1]
· Incited "violent demonstrations against Immigration and Customs Enforcement and disruptive occupations" across multiple U.S. jurisdictions [1]
Relationship to Protest Activity. House Oversight Committee investigations documented that Singham's network, through organizations including The People's Forum and the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL), funneled at least $15 million to U.S.-based protest organizations since 2023, with $5 million directly to PSL [5]. The Committee found evidence that The People's Forum's activities directly incited protests and riots across the United States, including in Minneapolis where coordinated violence undermined civil order and law enforcement authority [1][5].
C. The Broader Ecosystem: Multiple CCP-Linked Funding Sources
The People's Forum is not an isolated case but represents one node within a broader ecosystem of foreign-funded organizations. Congressional investigators identified multiple entities:
Children's Investment Fund Foundation (CIFF). A UK-based "charity" with documented CCP ties that has contributed over $550 million to U.S.-based organizations—approximately one-third the total value of Vice President Harris's entire 2024 presidential campaign [6].
Additional Foreign Funding Sources. Beyond the documented CCP connections, five foreign charities have collectively contributed nearly $2 billion to activist organizations since 2021, with many organizations operating without meaningful disclosure of foreign donor identities, exploiting regulatory loopholes in nonprofit transparency requirements [3].
II. Legal Vulnerabilities in Tax-Exempt Regulatory Framework
A. Tax-Exempt Status Requirements and Foreign Funding Restrictions
The Internal Revenue Code establishes that organizations receiving 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status must operate exclusively for charitable, educational, scientific, or religious purposes and must not engage in substantial lobbying or political activity [7]. Critically, the regulatory framework includes explicit restrictions on foreign-controlled activity:
Material Fact Violation. The IRS has established doctrine that "a charity's exempt status can be revoked if the charity makes grants to foreign organizations and it cannot demonstrate that the grants were actually used for exempt purposes [8]." This principle extends to direct foreign funding: tax-exempt status cannot be maintained when the organization's primary funding sources direct its activities toward non-exempt purposes.
Operational Reality vs. Legal Status. The case of The People's Forum demonstrates the fundamental vulnerability: the organization simultaneously (1) admitted to receiving funding from a known CCP agent, (2) organized protests aimed at destabilizing U.S. governance institutions, and (3) maintained active tax-exempt status [2][4]. This represents a direct violation of established revocation grounds.
B. Grounds for IRS Revocation of Tax-Exempt Status
The IRS possesses established legal authority to revoke tax-exempt status through multiple mechanisms:
Standard Revocation Procedure (IRC Section 501):
1. IRS examination division initiates investigation based on documented evidence of grounds
2. IRS issues proposed notice of revocation with detailed basis for determination
3. Organization receives 30-day appeal period to IRS Exempt Organizations office
4. IRS Appeals Officer reviews and determines whether to uphold, modify, or reverse revocation
5. If upheld, organization receives final adverse determination letter
6. Organization has 90 days to petition U.S. Court of Appeals for DC Circuit
7. Revocation is published in Federal Register [9][10]
Expedited/Automatic Suspension (IRC Section 501(p)):
Congress enacted Section 501(p) in 2003 (following 9/11) providing for automatic "suspension" of tax-exempt status upon designation or identification by the federal government of an organization as supporting or engaging in terrorist activity, as defined under:
· Immigration and Nationality Act
· International Emergency Economic Powers Act
· United Nations Participation Act [10]
This mechanism provides faster action than standard revocation but requires formal designation under one of these statutory authorities.
C. Applicable Legal Grounds for Revocation: The People's Forum Case
Based on documented evidence already compiled by Congress and law enforcement, specific grounds exist for revocation proceedings:
Ground 1: Operating as Unregistered Foreign Agent (FARA Violation). The Foreign Agents Registration Act (22 U.S.C. § 611 et seq.) requires that persons acting on behalf of foreign principals disclose such relationships. Organizations that function as foreign agents while claiming tax-exempt status violate this statute [11]. The People's Forum's receipt of $20+ million from a documented CCP agent, combined with its organizational mission to promote CCP narratives, satisfies elements of FARA violation, which itself provides grounds for revocation under principles of illegal activity incompatible with tax exemption [9].
Ground 2: Diversion to Foreign Political Purposes. Tax-exempt status requires that organizational resources serve charitable rather than political purposes [7]. When funding directed from foreign governments via intermediaries is used to organize destabilizing protests, the organization has diverted charitable assets to foreign policy objectives, a per se violation of tax-exemption doctrine [8].
Ground 3: Failure to Conduct Exempt Activities. Documented evidence shows that The People's Forum organized violent demonstrations, incited riots, and engaged in coordination with CCP-aligned entities [1][4]. These activities fall outside the scope of legitimate charitable work, particularly when financed and directed by foreign principals [9].
Ground 4: Lack of Transparency and Record-Keeping. The use of shell companies and donor-advised funds to obscure funding sources violates IRS requirements that tax-exempt organizations maintain adequate records and disclose material facts to the IRS [8][9].
III. RICO Investigation and Prosecution
The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act (18 U.S.C. § 1962) provides federal criminal authority to prosecute coordinated networks of organizations engaged in patterns of racketeering activity, particularly when financial crimes are involved [12].
RICO Application to NGO Networks:
The structure documented by Congressional investigators—multiple organizations receiving coordinated funding from a single source (Singham), operating under unified strategic direction, and engaging in coordinated protest activity across state lines—fits the pattern of "enterprise" activity contemplated by RICO [12].
Elements Satisfied:
· Pattern of Racketeering Activity: Documented funding flows constitute potential money laundering; coordination of violent protest activity across jurisdictions (Minneapolis, Portland, Seattle, New York) constitutes potential conspiracy
· Enterprise: The Singham network, The People's Forum, PSL, Qiao Collective, and related entities constitute an organizational enterprise [12]
· Effect on Interstate Commerce: Protests organized nationally affect interstate commerce in shipping, services, and government operations [12]
RICO Advantages:
· Enables prosecution of conspiracy without proving each individual's knowledge
· Permits seizure of all assets acquired through racketeering
· Provides for 20-year imprisonment and substantial civil penalties
· Can target leadership and financial operators, not just nominal organization heads [12]
Why RICO Is Lethal: RICO targets the enterprise, not individual organizations. A single prosecution based on coordinated funding and protest organization can bring down the entire network. Assets are seized. Leadership faces long sentences. The infrastructure collapses.
Coordination with IRS: While IRS revocation operates administratively, RICO investigation creates criminal consequences that substantially incentivize rapid organizational dissolution or compliance.
IV. Legal Constraints and Procedural Requirements
A. Preventing Arbitrary Revocation: Procedural Safeguards
While the Trump administration possesses substantial enforcement authority, this authority is constrained by established procedures that require evidence-based determinations:
No Presidential Power to Unilaterally Revoke. Multiple legal authorities confirm that "the President does not have the authority to unilaterally revoke any organization's tax-exempt status"[13]. Even a Treasury Secretary or IRS Commissioner cannot arbitrarily revoke status without following established IRS examination procedures [13].
Mandatory Case-by-Case Review. "There is no lawful mechanism for the President, IRS, or others in the Trump administration to revoke the tax-exempt status of most nonprofits without following this longstanding process," requiring "individual case-by-case IRS audits of each organization, with ample opportunity for the entity to defend itself, and including multiple routes of appeal"[13].
Judicial Review Rights. Organizations retain rights to appeal through multiple administrative and judicial channels, including final petition to the U.S. Court of Appeals for DC Circuit. This prevents politically motivated mass revocations and ensures that determinations rest on documented fact.
B. Distinguishing Legitimate from Arbitrary Enforcement
The legal framework distinguishes legitimate national security enforcement from constitutionally problematic arbitrary action through focus on:
1. Documented Foreign Connection. The organization must have verifiable connection to foreign principal or foreign power (not merely disagreement with U.S. policy)
2. Material Violation of Tax Code. The organization must violate specific provisions of IRC or regulatory requirements
3. Evidence-Based Determination. Revocation decisions must rest on compiled evidence subject to organizational response and appeals process
4. Statutory Basis. Actions must derive from federal statute authorizing the government agency involved [13]
The People's Forum Case Satisfies All Elements:
· ✓ Verifiable $20+ million funding from documented CCP agent
· ✓ Documented FARA violation (acting as foreign agent without registration)
· ✓ Congressional evidence assembled and formally documented
· ✓ IRS has statutory authority to revoke under IRC § 501
· ✓ Organization given full appeal and defense rights
C. Distinguishing "Destabilizing Protests" from Protected Political Speech
A critical constraint on enforcement is the distinction between organizations engaged in lawful political activity and organizations directed by foreign powers to incite illegal activity.
Protected Political Speech:
· Organizing lawful protests and advocacy
· Lobbying for policy changes
· Supporting political candidates (within limits)
· Promoting ideological viewpoints [14]
Disqualifying Foreign Coordination:
· Receipt of funding from foreign powers coupled with coordination on strategic direction
· Incitement of illegal activity (violence, destruction of property, rioting)
· Acting as unregistered foreign agent [11]
· Organizing activity explicitly directed by foreign principal [1][2][4]
The People's Forum Case: The documented evidence shows not merely political disagreement but coordination with a known CCP agent to incite violence and spread foreign propaganda. This crosses from protected political speech into illegal foreign agent activity and incitement to violence[1][4].
V. Why This Strategy Is Superior to the Insurrection Act
A. The Asymmetry Problem with Military Response
Deploying troops under the Insurrection Act to suppress unrest creates a strategic problem: it looks like martial law. It looks like suppression of dissent. It gives foreign regimes exactly the narrative they want—"America is cracking down on protest"—while leaving intact the entire funding and organizational infrastructure that drives the unrest in the first place[34][37][39].
Here's what happens if troops are deployed:
· Foreign regimes capture images of American soldiers confronting civilians
· Those images are broadcast as evidence of U.S. "authoritarianism"
· Meanwhile, The People's Forum receives another transfer from Singham next month
· Next quarter, they fund a new round of protests
· The infrastructure survives. Only street-level symptoms get addressed[2][3][4]
Meanwhile, Beijing maintains absolute control over NGOs, charitable organizations, and any entity that could channel foreign money into domestic destabilization. The CCP understands what the U.S. has failed to act on: money is power, and power flows through organizations[2][3].
B. Legal and Constitutional Superiority
Tax enforcement, FARA prosecution, and RICO prosecution are not controversial methods. They are straightforward application of existing federal statute. They don't require extraordinary emergency powers. They don't militarize the response. They target foreign-funded racketeering networks, not political dissent.
Tax Revocation: Removes the tax subsidy from organizations operating as foreign agents. Strictly administrative. Fully subject to judicial review.
FARA Prosecution: Charges individuals and organizations for violating federal law requiring registration and disclosure of foreign principal relationships. Straightforward criminal law.
RICO Prosecution: Treats coordinated funding networks as organized crime enterprises. This is how DOJ dismantles organized crime syndicates.
None of this is controversial if applied to foreign-funded destabilization networks. All of it is legally sound. All of it is constitutional. All of it actually works.
C. Strategic Effectiveness
When you deploy troops, you're addressing the symptoms. When you cut the money, you eliminate the cause.
The unrest in Minneapolis, Portland, Seattle, and New York isn't spontaneous. It's coordinated and funded. When the funding stops, the coordination collapses. When you prosecute the leadership, the networks dissolve. When you seize the assets, the operation becomes impossible to sustain[12].
This isn't theory. This is how organized crime enforcement works. This is how you dismantle criminal networks. This is what works.
VI. Conclusion: Cut the Money, Collapse the Network
The United States faces documented threat from CCP-funded nonprofit organizations operating with federal tax benefits while functioning as unregistered foreign agents and inciting destabilizing protests across American cities, including Minneapolis [2][20][23]. Congressional investigators have identified specific organizations, mapped funding flows, and compiled evidence of coordinated activity among entities like The People's Forum and the broader Singham network. The problem is not a lack of legal tools; it is a failure to use existing tools in a focused way against the financial and organizational backbone of these operations[2][20][23][36].
Critically, this threat has been allowed to grow inside the protective shell of U.S. nonprofit law. Adversary-aligned networks leverage 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) status, donor-advised funds, and lax foreign-funding transparency to move millions of dollars into U.S.-based activism and protest infrastructure, much of it aimed at delegitimizing American institutions and law enforcement[3][7][8]. Foreign regimes that permit no comparable freedoms at home are using our own tax preferences and civil-society protections as tools of political warfare.
The central argument is asymmetry: We're allowing our adversaries to exploit protections they would never grant their own citizens. The CCP maintains absolute control over NGOs, charitable organizations, and funding flows. The People's Liberation Army would never tolerate foreign money flowing into Chinese organizations to destabilize CCP rule[2][3]. Yet we have created a system where:
· Foreign adversaries can fund U.S. nonprofits without disclosure
· Organizations can operate as unregistered foreign agents with tax benefits
· Money laundering can occur through shell companies and donor-advised funds
· Coordinated networks can organize riots without racketeering charges[2][3][4]
This isn't open society. This is weaponized openness—our adversaries exploiting our own legal frameworks against us.
The Trump administration possesses substantial legal authority to dismantle these networks through ordinary law rather than extraordinary force:
· IRS Revocation and Suspension. Established procedures under the Internal Revenue Code, including Section 501 and the national security suspension mechanism in Section 501(p), allow the government to revoke or suspend tax-exempt status when organizations serve foreign interests, divert assets to non-charitable purposes, or support violence and terrorism[10][12][16].
· FARA Enforcement. The Foreign Agents Registration Act provides civil and criminal remedies against organizations and individuals acting as unregistered agents of foreign principals, and those violations, once established, also supply independent grounds for IRS action[11][21].
· RICO Investigation and Prosecution. The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act enables DOJ to treat coordinated NGO and funding networks as enterprises engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity, with powerful tools for conspiracy charges and asset forfeiture[26][38][40].
· National Security Designation and Sanctions. In the most serious cases, existing national security authorities (including INA terrorist designations and IEEPA-based sanctions) can trigger automatic suspension of tax-exempt status and comprehensive financial restrictions[10][24].
Each mechanism is constrained by procedural requirements and judicial review, preventing arbitrary political targeting while enabling precise, evidence-based enforcement against genuinely dangerous organizations[9][12][13]. Properly deployed, they strike at the true center of gravity: funding, legal privileges, and organizational infrastructure.
From an investigative standpoint, the evidence presented in this report supports a clear strategic conclusion. Foreign adversaries are not winning on American streets because they have stronger ideas; they are winning because they have been allowed to build and fund sophisticated NGO ecosystems inside our legal and tax architecture. Responding with military tools like the Insurrection Act would attack the symptoms in dramatic fashion while leaving intact the very financial and organizational structures those adversaries rely on—and would hand them powerful propaganda imagery in the process[34][37][39].
A serious national security response should therefore focus on cutting off the money and dismantling the legal scaffolding that enables foreign influence operations to masquerade as charitable activism. That means: aggressively auditing and revoking tax-exempt status where the law allows, prosecuting unregistered foreign agents, using RICO to treat interstate networks of foreign-funded agitators as criminal enterprises, and deploying national security designations in the most egregious cases[10][12][21][26][36][38].
If the administration takes away the money and the tax privileges, it will take away most of the power. The constraint is not the absence of authority, but the willingness to use it.
The choice is clear: deploy troops and leave the funding networks intact, or weaponize the tax code and racketeering statutes to dismantle the organizations sustaining foreign destabilization. Option two is faster, more legal, more constitutional, and it actually works.
References
[1] Facebook, "Breaking: Chinese Communist Party-linked nonprofit is BEHIND today's pro-Maduro and anti-American demonstrations." 2025. (Congressional investigation evidence of destabilizing protest coordination.)
[2] House Ways and Means Committee, "Chairman Smith Exposes U.S. Nonprofit as Likely CCP-Funded Propaganda Arm Operating Under Tax-Exempt Status." September 3, 2025. https://waysandmeans.house.gov (Official Congressional investigation documenting The People's Forum, $20 million funding, and CCP connections.)
[3] NTD News, "Foreign Groups Funding Left-Wing Protests in US: Report." November 3, 2025. (Americans for Public Trust report documenting $2 billion foreign funding with CCP ties.)
[4] Washington Examiner, "Lawmakers investigate China-backed NGOs." September 15, 2025. (Ways and Means Committee investigation of People's Forum, Singham funding network, FARA violations.)
[5] Facebook, DavidJHarrisJr, "Breaking: Chinese Communist Party-linked nonprofit is BEHIND today's pro-Maduro and anti-American demonstrations." (House Oversight Committee investigation documenting $15 million funneled through network since 2023.)
[6] NTD, "Foreign Groups Funding Left-Wing Protests in US: Report." YouTube transcript, November 4, 2025. (Children's Investment Fund Foundation $550 million contribution to U.S. organizations with CCP ties.)
[7] U.S. Internal Revenue Service, "Publication 557 (01/2025): Tax-Exempt Status for Your Organization." (Statutory and regulatory requirements for 501(c)(3) status.)
[8] Proskauer LLP, "IRS Tutorial Explains the Special Rules for International Activities of U.S. Charities." Nonprofit Law Blog, October 2, 2011. (IRS doctrine on foreign funding restrictions and revocation grounds.)
[9] Minnesota Nonprofits, "Can a President revoke a nonprofit's tax-exempt status?" May 7, 2025. (Explanation of IRS revocation procedures, appeals process, and judicial review rights.)
[10] Tenenbaum Legal, "Nonprofits Under Fire: How the IRS Can – and Cannot – Revoke Federal Tax-Exempt Status." November 20, 2025. (Legal analysis of revocation procedures and IRC Section 501(p) automatic suspension mechanisms.)
[11] Times of Israel, "Trump's war on the left: A look at his crackdown on liberal NGOs and their funding." October 9, 2025. (DOJ/FBI approach to FARA enforcement, RICO investigation, and asset seizure against foreign-funded organizations.)
[12] Wikipedia, "Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act." (RICO statute structure, application to organized networks, and coordination with other federal statutes.)
[13] Minnesota Nonprofits, "Can a President revoke a nonprofit's tax-exempt status?" May 7, 2025. (Legal constraints on presidential authority, mandatory IRS procedures, and lack of unilateral revocation power.)
[14] Legal principles of First Amendment protection for political speech and assembly. (Distinguishing protected political activity from illegal foreign agent coordination.)
[21] American Security Project, "National Security and Foreign Third-Party Litigation Financing." June 24, 2025. (Foreign funding flows and national security implications of foreign-backed U.S. operations.)
[24] Treasury Department, "2024 National Strategy for Combating Terrorist and Illicit Finance." May 15, 2024. (National security authorities and financial enforcement mechanisms.)
[26] Wikipedia, "Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act." (RICO definition, application to criminal enterprises, and penalties.)
[28] Congress, "Foreign Groups Funding Left-Wing Protests in US: Report." Multiple Congressional investigations documenting foreign funding and organizational coordination, 2025.
[34] PBS NewsHour, "What is the Insurrection Act? Here's what Trump has said about using it." October 27, 2025. (Legal standards and limitations of Insurrection Act.)
[36] House Ways and Means Committee, "Chairman Smith Calls On IRS to Crack Down on Tax-Exempt Groups Tied to Terrorism, Political Violence." October 5, 2025. (Congressional authority and IRS enforcement mechanisms.)
[37] Lawfare, "How the Insurrection Act (Properly Understood) Limits Domestic Deployments of the U.S. Military." December 8, 2024. (Legal analysis of Insurrection Act constraints and proper use.)
[38] Senate, "Senator Cruz Introduces Bill Targeting NGOs and Adversaries Funding Violent Riots." July 21, 2025. (Stop FUNDERs Act and legislative framework for RICO application to riot-funding networks.)
[39] Brennan Center for Justice, "The Insurrection Act, Explained." April 20, 2022. (Constitutional and legal constraints on Insurrection Act deployment.)
[40] Law Review Articles on Civil RICO and Protesters, Missouri Review. (RICO application to organized protest networks and constitutional considerations.)
