“It is a natural disadvantage of democracy that it ties the hands of those who wish it well, and opens unlimited possibilities for those who do not take it seriously.” – Václav Havel

It is for good reason that tax-exempt organizations are prohibited from partisan activity and limited in the advocacy in which they engage. As a matter of policy, democracies are right to exempt from taxation work that benefits the common good and not work that advances a particular politician or political agenda. What’s more, in ordinary times there is a bright-line distinction between quotidian political battles–say, the appropriate level of taxation on or regulation of business–and the fundamental tenets upon which our democratic order is premised. These tenets include accepting the outcomes of free-and-fair elections; refraining from violence and threats against political opponents; a minimal level of decency and decorum; and respect for the rule of law.

While every election results in policies that impact, for better for worse, the work of nonprofits, the basic fabric of America is not usually on the ballot. But these are far from normal times. To be crystal clear, the election of Donald Trump to a second term as president would place at mortal risk the democratic tapestry of America that nonprofits work tirelessly to mend and improve upon. Proving this is not hard. We can simply look to the events of January 6, 2021, when Trump incited a mob to violently interfere in the certification of a legitimate election, to see that his dangerous rhetoric is not, as his defenders often claim, mere hyperbole or a joke. No, when he says that he will be dictator on day one, albeit only “for one day”; or a key aide, Kash Patel, says that in a second term the administration will “come after the people [who helped Biden]…Whether criminally or civilly…”; we should take the threat at face value.

If we acknowledge this threat, two questions remain. First, what impact would the erosion of democracy have on the nonprofit community? And, second, what can or should our community do to prevent what Liz Cheney has called “a sort of sleepwalking into dictatorship in the United States”? I recognize that there are nonprofits whose mission is either aligned with some or all of Trump’s policies–such as those that work on issues of religious liberty or anti-choice organizations that provide alternatives to abortion care–or whose programs don’t have an obvious connection to democracy, such as a food pantry or homeless shelter. To the former point, we must ask whether it is possible to advance a social mission in an authoritarian state, even if the mission has a modicum of overlap with some of the authoritarian’s policies. The answer is a resounding no, for authoritarians like Trump believe in nothing but themselves; they will reverse positions or turn on erstwhile supporters if it pleases their fancy or becomes necessary. Nor can the chaos they unleash be contained or constrained in a predictable way: once violence, hatred, corruption, and disregard for the rule of law become the norm, no one is safe.

To the latter point, many of the same dynamics apply. A food pantry’s work may have no clear connection to democracy, but many of those it serves–immigrants, women, people of color–would be at grave risk, as Trump’s Project 2025 plan to enact mass deportations, resume child separations at the border, and severely curtail LGBTQ rights makes clear. Indeed, most nonprofits serve the same vulnerable, disadvantaged communities that authoritarians scapegoat and attack.

In the face of these facts, how can any nonprofit, or the philanthropists that support it, stand back and watch? If we accept that Trump is an existential danger to democracy; that a lack of democracy threatens the work of the charitable sector; and that the only way to stop this threat is to re-elect Joe Biden, the answer is simple: we must act. But what can a sector known for its legal and moral obligation toward nonpartisanship do? Fortunately, we are also known for our creativity, our ability to work within numerous constraints, and our talent for listening to, partnering with, and activating the communities we serve. What I can’t promise, however, is that this effort won’t alienate some donors or supporters, or that it won’t erode the separation between charity and politics. Still, given the magnitude of the threat, we are called to action. Below are a few ideas for how we can stop Trump without running afoul of certain prohibitions, such as endorsing candidates.

First, we can present clearly present what’s at stake. Consider a nonprofit that works to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It could produce content highlighting a recent report from CarbonBrief, which found that “A Trump election win could add 4bn tonnes to US emissions by 2030.” Without endorsing Biden, this kind of messaging makes obvious the choice: if you care about climate change, one candidate is worse than the other.

Second, we can make sure that the electorate understands what the Biden Administration has achieved. For example, over two-thirds of voters don’t know about the Inflation Reduction Act, Biden’s signature climate legislation. This lack of knowledge may lead younger voters to stay home or vote third party, but there’s nothing stopping the same climate-focused nonprofit from highlighting the IRA’s impact, such as spurring $240 billion in clean energy investments that have directly created 170,000 jobs, and with much of this happening in underserved communities. In fact, as Bill McKibben has noted in his excellent newsletter, “A new survey of young voters from Data for Progress showed that ‘approval for Biden’s handling of climate change and the environment improves by 17 percentage points among young voters after respondents hear more about his climate action. Approval of Biden’s handling of climate change and the environment reaches 69% among 18- to 34-year-old voters after respondents read a series of questions about his climate achievements.’” There is a real information gap and nonprofits can bridge it.

Third, we can work on voter-registration and get-out-the-vote efforts. One report found that not only are nonprofits effective at boosting turnout in underrepresented communities, but “seven in 10 voters say they think it is a good idea for nonprofits to offer voter support services, like voter registration, election reminders, and election day transportation.” Yet the same report also noted that roughly 70% of nonprofits never undertake voter engagement efforts. Groups like Vote Forward, Rock the Vote, Nonprofit Vote, and Vote.org have helpful resources and volunteer opportunities. This is an organic, untapped opportunity.

Fourth, we can make it easy for our own staff to vote by giving them paid time off to vote or serve as a poll worker. And finally, we can have candid conversations with our funders and partners about the stakes in the elections. Foundations and high-net-worth individuals that donate to environmental or immigrant rights causes need to hear from grantees about how critical it is that they get off the sidelines and do what’s within their power, too. Individuals of course have more flexibility than foundations or nonprofits to advocate and donate to 501c4s or Political Action Committees, but within the constraints imposed on every member of the philanthropic community, there is ample room for us to do more to alert the public to the dangers ahead–and avert disaster.

There are no easy choices in this moment. Nonprofits would understandably rather “stay in our lanes” than venture into the minefield that will be this election. We risk the ire of funders who are averse to controversy and the MAGA base, which is always looking for someone to attack, figuratively or, worse, physically. But we exist to serve a mission, and every day we work hard to fulfill it, especially when a roadblock impacting our constituency emerges, be it COVID-19, a natural disaster, a financial collapse, or an authoritarian movement. Nonprofits do not shy away from difficulty or the messy reality of injustice; if we face this challenge head on, we can help preserve the freedoms that are a prerequisite to our work and emerge with a clearer sense of common purpose.