In an impromptu news conference in the Oval Office, Mr. Trump confirmed that he was potentially seeking to pull Harvard’s tax-exempt status, in an apparent act of retaliation for the university’s refusal to bow to a long list of demands. And he said there “could be” others, suggesting that the Internal Revenue Service could also take action against organizations that support immigrants or the environment.

– Theodore Schleifer and Lisa Friedman, After Harvard, Liberal Donors and Groups Fear New Scrutiny From Trump, The New York Times

Sources in Washington, including within the Department of Justice and on Capitol Hill, have told Inside Climate News that White House officials are preparing various executive orders on environmental issues, possibly to be announced on Tuesday, to coincide with Earth Day. One order, they say, would target the tax exempt status of environmental nonprofits, particularly those that do legal work.

– Marianne Lavelle, Lee Hedgepeth, Trump May Target Environmental Nonprofits in Executive Orders Expected on Earth Day, Insider Climate News

We’re hearing lots of threats about the President going after the tax-exempt status of Harvard, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), and immigrant rights groups and environmental rights groups. He’s ranting, his stooges are stumping, and they are advancing their agenda of creating a climate of fear for anyone who might oppose their policies and actions.

But … more nonprofits and their supporters are standing up. Most notably last week, Harvard said no.

Harvard remains open to dialogue about what the university has done, and is planning to do, to improve the experience of every member of its community. But Harvard is not prepared to agree to demands that go beyond the lawful authority of this or any administration.

And the White House blinked.

Trump administration officials claimed that the demands — which were seen as excessive and illegal to Harvard’s administrators — should not have been sent and were “unauthorized,” according to the Times, which cited two unnamed sources.

Can the President order the IRS to revoke the 501(c)(3) status of a charitable nonprofit?

No, at least not lawfully.

Section 7217(a) of the Internal Revenue Code provides:

It shall be unlawful for any applicable person to request, directly or indirectly, any officer or employee of the Internal Revenue Service to conduct or terminate an audit or other investigation of any particular taxpayer with respect to the tax liability of such taxpayer.

An “applicable person” specifically includes the President,  the Vice President, any employee of the executive office of the President, and any employee of the executive office of the Vice President. IRC §7217(e)(1). It also includes a number of other high level officials (other than the Attorney General).

Violation of Section 7217 is a criminal offense:

Any person who willfully violates subsection (a) or fails to report under subsection (b) shall be punished upon conviction by a fine in any amount not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution. – IRC §7217(d)

The statutory intent behind Section 7217 can be found in its title: Prohibition on Executive Branch Influence over Taxpayer Audits and Investigations. Congress recognized the danger of weaponizing the IRS for politically-motivated retaliatory investigations and actions, just like the ones being contemplated by the current administration.

The following is from the Senate Report 105-174 (1998) discussing the bill before it became law:

The bill makes it unlawful for a specified person to request that any officer or employee of the IRS conduct or terminate an audit or otherwise investigate or terminate the investigation of any particular taxpayer with respect to the tax liability of that taxpayer. The prohibition applies to the President, the Vice President, and employees of the executive offices of either the President or Vice President, as well as any individual (except the Attorney General) serving in a position specified in section 5312 of Title 5 of the United States Code (these are generally Cabinet-level positions). The prohibition applies to both direct requests and requests made through an intermediary. In the case of a law enforcement action authorized by the Attorney General, discussions involving specified persons with respect to that law enforcement action shall not be considered to be requests made through an intermediary.

Any request made in violation of this rule must be reported by the IRS employee to whom the request was made to the Chief Inspector of the IRS. The Chief Inspector has the authority to investigate such violations and to refer any violations to the Department of Justice for possible prosecution, as appropriate. Anyone convicted of violating this provision will be punished by imprisonment of not more than 5 years or a fine not exceeding $5,000 (or both).

Three exceptions to the general prohibition apply. First, the prohibition does not apply to a request made to a specified person by or on behalf of a taxpayer that is forwarded by the specified person to the IRS. This exception is intended to cover two types of situations. The first situation is where a taxpayer (or a taxpayer’s representative) writes to a specified person seeking assistance in resolving a difficulty with the IRS. This exception permits the specified person who receives such a request to forward it to the IRS for resolution without violating the general prohibition. The second situation that this first exception is intended to cover is an audit or investigation by the IRS of a Presidential nominee. Under present law (sec. 6103(c)), nominees for Presidentially appointed positions consent to disclosure of their tax returns and return information so that background checks may be conducted. Sometimes an audit or other investigation is initiated as part of that background check. The Committee anticipates that any such audit or investigation that is part of such a background check will be encompassed within this first exception.

The second exception to the general prohibition applies to requests for disclosure of returns or return information under section 6103 if the request is made in accordance with the requirements of section 6103.

The third exception to the general prohibition applies to requests made by the Secretary of the Treasury as a consequence of the implementation of a change in tax policy.

How did ChatGPT respond to the following prompt: What would happen if a President ordered the IRS to revoke the tax-exempt status of a charity because the President stated that the charity did not serve the public interest? Would the charity have any recourse?

If a President attempted to order the IRS to revoke the tax-exempt status of a charity based on the President’s personal or political view that the charity “did not serve the public interest,” such an action would likely be unlawful, and the charity would absolutely have legal recourse. Here’s a breakdown:

1. Violation of IRC § 7217

Under Internal Revenue Code § 7217, it is illegal for the President or other Executive Branch officials to direct, request, or influence IRS personnel to conduct or terminate an audit or investigation of a specific taxpayer (including a charity), unless done through the proper channel — the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA).

– This statute was designed to prevent political abuse of the IRS — a direct order by the President to revoke tax-exempt status would almost certainly violate this law.

2. Due Process Requirements

• Revocation of tax-exempt status is a formal process that involves:
• Investigation by the IRS (e.g., for private inurement, political activity, failure to operate for exempt purposes),
• Notice of Proposed Revocation, and
• Opportunity for the organization to respond and appeal, including to the IRS Office of Appeals and ultimately to the U.S. Tax Court or federal court.

– A presidential directive would bypass these procedures and violate the organization’s constitutional right to due process under the Fifth Amendment.

3. Violation of First Amendment Rights

If the President’s action was based on disagreement with the charity’s speech, activities, or viewpoints, it would likely be found unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination and a violation of the First Amendment (especially if the charity was engaging in lawful educational, religious, or advocacy activities).

– Precedent: Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513 (1958) – Denial of a public benefit (e.g., tax exemption) on the basis of protected speech violates the Constitution.

4. Legal Recourse for the Charity

A charity targeted in this way would have several avenues for legal and administrative recourse:

Recourse	Description
IRS Administrative Appeal	Charities can contest a proposed revocation through IRS Appeals.
U.S. Tax Court or Federal District Court	A charity may litigate the revocation, asserting IRS overreach or constitutional violations.
Petition for Injunctive Relief	If the action appears politically motivated or without proper basis, a charity could seek an injunction in federal court.
FOIA and Congressional Investigation	The charity or oversight entities could request communications showing improper influence.
Whistleblower and Inspector General Review	TIGTA would likely investigate any unlawful direction under IRC § 7217.

5. Checks and Balances

• IRS employees are prohibited from following improper directives.
• TIGTA is empowered to investigate any such interference and report to Congress.
• Congressional oversight committees (e.g., House Ways and Means, Senate Finance) would likely launch hearings.

Summary

• A President cannot lawfully order the IRS to revoke a charity’s tax-exempt status based on personal or political views.
• The action would likely violate IRC § 7217, due process, and First Amendment protections.
• The charity would have multiple avenues of recourse, including administrative appeals, federal court action, and constitutional claims.