Colorado nonprofits encrypt messages, lock doors to ward off federal threats. 'Will they come after you?'

DENVER — Amid the Trump administration’s crackdowns on both immigrants and nonprofit groups, organizations in Colorado are hiring lawyers, limiting data collection and locking their doors to ward off federal threats to them or the people they serve.

One statewide nonprofit that works with the immigrant community considered giving disposable phones to its staff members, who now communicate largely on encrypted messaging apps. Another nonprofit in Denver now makes clear that its offices aren’t a public space, in a bid to fend off warrantless entry from federal immigration authorities.

A prominent foundation has financed legal training sessions for nonprofit groups on “how to stay legal and stay in compliance.” A direct-aid provider has stripped diversity language from its public messaging and is much more diligent about regularly erasing the footage its own security cameras capture.

“Will they come after you, will they come after someone you know?” said a senior official from that group who, like most of the other nonprofit group representatives interviewed for this story, spoke on the condition of anonymity to protect against federal backlash. “Who knows?”

“There’s a lot of fear,” said Cathy Alderman, the chief communications and public policy officer for the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless. “The chaos they intend to inflict on us, it’s very real.”

That same anxiety and uncertainty pervade nonprofit groups, who have been recurring targets of the federal government since President Donald Trump returned to office in January. In September, Trump issued a directive that, though ostensibly aimed at curbing political violence, has sparked concerns that it could serve as a pretext to target liberal-leaning nonprofits.

More than 100 of those groups from across the country released an open letter shortly before that directive was released, condemning political violence and defending their work.

“Organizations should not be attacked for carrying out their missions or expressing their values in support of the communities they serve,” wrote the nonprofits, which included the Ford, MacArthur and Robert Wood Johnson foundations. “We reject attempts to exploit political violence to mischaracterize our good work or restrict our fundamental freedoms, like freedom of speech and the freedom to give. Attempts to silence speech, criminalize opposing viewpoints, and misrepresent and limit charitable giving undermine our democracy and harm all Americans.”

For Colorado organizations that serve immigrants and refugees, either directly or indirectly, the president’s efforts to arrest and deport millions of people without proper legal status have further increased the tension.

Those groups told The Denver Post that they have changed their record-keeping practices to gather minimal information from their clients, and they’ve worked to lower their profiles. Several groups said they’d conducted know-your-rights trainings with their staffs, educating them on how to respond to federal authorities who may come knocking. Two organizations said they removed references to diversity or racial groups from their websites.

“We’ve also severely limited data collection. We now operate on a need-to-know basis, and we obtain the least amount of information we need,” said a spokesperson for an immigrant-focused nonprofit who asked The Post not to identify the group. “We don’t want to create a database that can be weaponized against our members.”

Trying to minimize risk

Rumors spread nationally in the spring that Trump would revoke nonprofit status from certain climate-focused groups. The immigrant-serving group has discussed what would happen if it were designated as a terrorist organization or otherwise stripped of its tax-exempt status.

Other groups have had intense discussions about whether to apply for federal grants that would require them not to use certain words or phrases — like DEI, or diversity, equity and inclusion — or otherwise do things that undercut the groups’ missions.

“When do you say, ‘Look, I have to change a few words in an application, but I’m fundamentally going to be able to offer this service to people in a way that meets our vision and values,’ ” said the head of a Denver nonprofit that serves a population that includes undocumented people. “And when am I going to say, ‘The stuff they’re asking for, or the risk it creates … is so significant, I can’t in an ethical way continue to provide this service — so I’m not going to partner with this contract’?

“Because it creates extraordinary risk for the people we serve,” the official continued. “Or it’s asking us to fundamentally change who we are. And we’re not going to (expletive) do that.”

Nonprofit groups have come under national scrutiny before, said Javier Alberto Soto, the president and CEO of the Denver Foundation. More than 70 years ago, an amendment backed by then-U.S. Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson barred many nonprofit groups — from colleges to churches — from supporting political candidates.

Johnson, a Democrat, later became president. His successor, Republican Richard Nixon, sought to use federal tax authorities to assail universities’ tax-exempt status over Vietnam War protests, according to National Public Radio, in a precursor to Trump’s plan to strip Harvard University of the same privilege.

But Trump’s current focus — which includes not just rhetoric and executive orders but funding cuts — is “unprecedented,” according to the Chronicle of Philanthropy.

Soto said nonprofits from across the political and philanthropic spectrum needed to stand together, both for the present moment and for any future crises that follow.

“The spectrum, ideologically, of philanthropy in Colorado is just as vast as (it is) politically,” he said. “Amongst all funders, there’s a recognition of the need to protect philanthropic freedom, whether it comes in under attack today or 10 years ago or 10 years from now.”

The Denver nonprofit — the one that says it won’t change its fundamental identity — has chosen not to pursue some grant dollars after deciding the risk wasn’t worth the reward. Another group that provides direct aid — including to some undocumented immigrants — has also declined to pursue grants that would have required it to collect personal information on clients. That organization has stopped asking staff members to provide their preferred pronouns. And a group that supports immigrants no longer fully identifies its staff publicly.

Among some groups, there have also been tough conversations about changing public-facing messaging.

“If we don’t use that word, are we selling out?” the senior official from the direct-aid group said. “I think some of that is kind of silly semantics. It matters less what we call it and more what we do.”

Support from foundations

The large foundations that support Colorado’s nonprofit community have tried to step in. Some, like the Women’s Foundation of Colorado, said they’ve loosened the intended purpose of their funds, so that groups can use the money for “their greatest needs.” The foundation, which was one of the signatories to the September open letter, also launched a $500,000 fund that provides money to support “emerging community needs.”

“We will not sit on the sidelines while access to opportunity and safety for women, gender-expansive people, and immigrants are taken away,” Renee Ferrufino, the women’s foundation’s president and CEO, said in a statement. “We are committed to strengthening the vital support these essential nonprofit organizations provide to improve the lives of Colorado women and their families. They serve as lifelines for our communities, and we stand firmly beside them as they continue their critical work through these uncertain times.”

The Colorado Health Foundation has also worked to make it easier to get money to nonprofits, particularly those that are “under threat or (face) intense cuts,” said spokeswoman Katie Peshek.

Among other imperatives, nonprofit groups have expressed an “incredible need” for legal services, which the health foundation has sought to support.

The Denver Foundation, which says it’s doled out more than $1.6 billion over its century-long existence, has financially supported legal and compliance trainings offered by the Colorado Nonprofit Association, Soto said.

Soto said his organization has conducted extra “due dilligence” on some nonprofits to ensure they won’t attract legal or regulatory attention. Soto declined to discuss details, citing privileged conversations, but said his foundation was looking at the “scope of work, the types of activity that the organization is engaged in, the type of materials that are public-facing.”

That extra check hasn’t prompted the foundation to stop supporting anyone, he said. He described it as an effort to protect both the foundation and the nonprofits that it supports, part of “adjusting and adapting to any shifts that are occurring from a legal or regulatory standpoint.”

While the Trump administration has sown intense anxiety among nonprofits, the Denver Foundation has been around long enough to see many forms of scrutiny on philanthropic endeavors, Soto said.

“But throughout all of these shifts,” he said, “from administration to administration, what has remained constant and needs to remain constant is the freedom of charitable foundations and nonprofits to direct resources in alignment with their values.”

_____