In a move that sounds benign—a crackdown on alleged foreign contributions—President Donald Trump is set to sign a presidential memorandum targeting ActBlue, the Democratic-aligned online donation platform. According to Politico, the order, spearheaded by the White House with support from Attorney General Pam Bondi, is framed as enforcing existing laws against foreign donations. Yet the specific targeting of a political opponent’s fundraising arm strips away the veneer of impartial enforcement and exposes a deeper, more troubling playbook.
Across the country, core Democratic institutions are bracing for politicized investigations. As AP News reports, groups like ActBlue and Indivisible have been warned by allies that they may face criminal probes by the Justice Department or IRS as part of the administration’s assault on progressive organizations. This wariness is not unfounded: previous Republican inquiries, such as Wisconsin Rep. Bryan Steil’s October letter demanding ActBlue’s donor-verification records, laid the groundwork for today’s executive action.
Observers have raised the alarm that this is not a one-off attack but the opening salvo in an authoritarian siege. The Congressional Integrity Project, a nonpartisan watchdog, cautions that the Trump administration, backed by allies like Elon Musk, is preparing to wield federal power against nonprofits and civil society, deepening authoritarian control over dissenting voices. When the state defines political opponents as illicit or foreign-influenced, legitimate grassroots activity becomes a crime waiting to happen.
Historically, dictators have followed a similar trajectory. After the Reichstag Fire in 1933, Adolf Hitler secured emergency decrees that suspended constitutional liberties, arrested tens of thousands of communists and social democrats, and outlawed opposition parties under the pretext of national security. By the summer of that year, no political party besides the Nazis remained legal. Once the machinery is in place to cripple an opponent’s organizational capacity, it moves swiftly to extinguish all viable resistance.
Targeting fundraising platforms is a classic first step in starving opposition movements of resources and silencing dissent. By branding platforms like ActBlue as conduits for foreign interference, the administration sets the stage for donor intimidation, legal chicanery, and account freezes. As a Time magazine analysis warns, the leverage of fear—the specter of “straw donor” or foreign-funding probes—can rapidly erode the checks and balances critical to American democracy.
This is how it starts: a seemingly narrow policy on campaign finance balloons into a broader campaign against democratic participation. If left unchecked, the next phases will target media infrastructure, judicial independence, and civil liberties. The time to recognize this pattern and push back is now. Defending ActBlue’s right to exist—and, more broadly, safeguarding the freedoms of political expression and association—is not a partisan favor. It is our only bulwark against the slow march toward authoritarian rule.