When Advocacy Became a Crime

One of the first lessons I learned on my journey to founding a nonprofit was, well, how little I actually knew about founding a nonprofit. It was profoundly humbling—especially after a 15-year run in an editorial role where I felt confident I knew how to do almost anything. 

Perhaps the worst moment on my learning curve happened when I opened this document, an approximately four-billion-page IRS instruction manual for how to fill out a Form 1023—the main application for gaining federally recognized tax-exempt status. It was impenetrable, and reading it, I immediately began questioning all the life decisions that had led me to this point. Was it too late to go to medical school? (Now is an appropriate time to thank the good folks at the law firm of Holland & Hart, who graciously took me on as a pro-bono client, which included helping me fill out the dreaded 1023, and have thus enabled RE:PUBLIC to navigate around my complete ignorance.)

This all happened last spring, and as if the nonprofit business set-up wasn’t intimidating enough, one morning I woke up to find the following headline in the Wall Street Journal: “Trump Officials Explore Ways of Challenging Tax-Exempt Status of Nonprofits.” The story went on to outline ongoing discussions taking place at the White House and inside the IRS about aggressively scrutinizing the tax exempt status of nonprofits, and environmental groups in particular. Stories from other news organizations reported on similar proposals being bandied about by the Trump administration, from investigating climate groups for “foreign influence” to empowering the IRS to penalize organizations for “political” advocacy—political, in these cases, meaning “positions we disagree with.”

My vision for RE:PUBLIC suddenly seemed in jeopardy. Since our mission is to write about public lands and longterm stewardship, I wondered if we’d be lumped in with the “green groups” that were supposedly about to face a fresh round of scrutiny. I had already been told that obtaining a 501(c)3 designation would take up to a year—maybe more. Now I had to wonder if we’d ultimately be denied tax-exempt status altogether. 

Fortunately, whatever renewed scrutiny was being discussed last spring never materialized. There has not, in fact, been a massive push to revoke environmental groups’ nonprofit status. This week, however, revealed that the drive to target conservation nonprofits is still very much underway.

On Tuesday, leaders of the House Natural Resources Committee opened a formal investigation into three environmental organizations—Earthjustice, the Wilderness Society, and the Center for Biological Diversity—accusing them of “backroom roles” in the Biden administration’s cancellation of Twin Metals’ mineral leases and the 225,504-acre mineral withdrawal in Minnesota’s Superior National Forest. (Hat tip to my friend Katie McKalip for forwarding me the release.)

“The Committee is keen to discover the details of [Earthjustice’s, the Wilderness Society’s and the Center for Biological Diversity’s] backroom roles in the cancellation of the Twin Metals leases and the Superior Withdrawal,” their press release states, “particularly given tax-exempt environmental groups’ continued pressure to oppose mining in Northern Minnesota and otherwise negatively influence America’s natural resource and energy priorities.”

If you hadn’t noticed, the Committee’s rhetoric is pretty incendiary: these are “radical groups” that supposedly “negatively influenced” and “kneecapped” the political process. It implies wrongdoing or extremism without presenting any evidence, and turns what should be a legitimate policy inquiry into a partisan narrative.

The accompanying letters sent to the individual organizations are just as problematic. They reference “off the books” meetings that took place between "at least one of the environmental groups," and high-ranking members of Biden’s Department of the Interior. “These meetings reportedly included both environmental lobbyists and attorneys, focusing not only on the ongoing litigation but also on the policies and politics surrounding mining in Minnesota and Twin Metals,” the committee writes. “At the very least, these meetings created a serious appearance of impropriety; more likely, these meetings violated ethical standards and evidence potentially improper relationships.”

This is all political theater, but we should consider what is really at stake. Hauling tax-exempt environmental groups before Congress is nominally about a disagreement over a controversial mining proposal near the Boundary Waters Wilderness in Minnesota. It is also part of a broader, far more troubling pattern: using congressional investigations to intimidate civil-society organizations that participate—openly and legally—in public policymaking. Neither party can afford to let this tactic become normalized. 

To understand why this investigation is so troubling, it’s important to look at what these groups actually did. The proposed Twin Metals mine has been a political football for nearly two decades. Like plans to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the fate of the mine has swung back and forth with each administration. Obama officials moved to block the project over risks to the Boundary Waters. Trump revived it by renewing key leases, though those approvals were legally shaky. Biden cancelled the leases in 2022 after a formal review, and blocked new mining in the area for 20 years to protect the watershed. Now Trump wants to reverse course again, and revive the mine.

Throughout all of this back and forth, the three green groups now targeted by the House Committee on Natural Resources, were lobbying against the mine. Earthjustice, the Wilderness Society, and the Center for Biological Diversity did not secretly draft lease-cancellation memos or whisper directives into the ears of Interior Department officials. They did what interest groups across the political spectrum have done for decades: they filed public comments, published research, engaged with agencies, and, when they felt it necessary to stay true to their conservation-minded missions, intervened in lawsuits. Call it “lobbying” or call it “civic participation,” but either way their activity was neither nefarious nor evidence of a “backroom role.” 

Federal courts routinely grant intervention to environmental groups, ranching groups, industry associations, tribes, counties, and trade unions when they have a stake in the outcome of a lawsuit. Mining companies do it. Oil and gas industry associations do it. States do it. This is how the policy sausage gets made in America’s messy, pluralistic democracy. Suggesting that such participation constitutes a shadowy conspiracy is dangerously misleading.

What's more, the Biden decision was hardly the first time an administration moved to protect watersheds from the downstream threats from mining. Presidents of both parties have approved mineral withdrawals to protect sensitive public lands, from wildlife refuges to cultural sites to drinking-water sources. Biden’s 2022 Superior National Forest withdrawal was a fairly standard use of a statutory tool Congress wrote into law. If the House members who now sit on the Committee on Natural Resources now dislike that tool, they can propose legislation to change it. Conjuring a villainous conspiracy to explain a policy disagreement is something else entirely.

So what is really happening here? The committee’s investigation appears designed to signal that environmental nonprofits—indeed, any nonprofit that takes positions a powerful politician dislikes—are legitimate targets for congressional harassment. That is a profound departure from long-standing norms.

And as I expressed above, it’s a trend that neither party should endorse. Nonprofit groups exist precisely to give voice to people who otherwise would have little influence in federal policymaking, whether that influence is directed toward wildlife conservation, property rights, religious liberty, veterans’ issues, or rural economies. If one political faction decides that environmental advocates are illegitimate because they oppose a particular mine, what stops a future Congress from targeting ranching associations, gun-rights groups, or local chambers of commerce when they take a disfavored position? 

Environmental groups who promote public lands conservation should not be immune from criticism. But neither should they be treated as enemies of the state for doing what everyone else in our democracy does: making their case. When lawmakers claim that nonprofits are shadowy puppet-masters pulling the strings of government, they imply that ordinary citizens do not have meaningful influence—and therefore should distrust the very institutions designed to serve them. This erodes public confidence and inflames conspiracy thinking. It also obscures the actual challenges facing American mining policy, which are difficult, structural, and not the result of a cabal of environmental lawyers.

Meet the Team

Mary Turner, Board Secretary | Santa Fe, NM
Mary was the longtime deputy editor at Outside magazine and the first person I called and asked to be on the board of RE:PUBLIC. That's probably the best way to illustrate how much I admire her and rely on her. We worked together for more than 20 years, and I draw a direct line from her influence and wise counsel to whatever success I had during my time at the helm at Outside. And I know that will be the same thing I'll say after emerging from the first 20 years at RE:PUBLIC.

Favorite public land: Shenandoah National Park in Virginia

Why did you join RE:PUBLIC? In my former role as the travel director at Outside magazine, I saw day in and out how hungry our readers were for stories about public lands—how to protect them and explore them. I’m personally invested in the same. And there is so much beauty to explore! I also want to make sure our public lands are around and accessible for generations to come.

What kinds of stories are you most excited to tell here? Public lands don’t often get the air time that they deserve. It’s important that smart journalists reveal threats to our public lands to rally people to protect them. And for us all to get to know the people—from rangers to conservationists—who are working so hard for them.

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Every Friday, our team shares critical stories about public lands from around the internet. This list could be exhaustive and exhausting, but our intent is to inform, not overwhelm. Instead, we choose three to five important stories you should be aware of—including at least one piece of good news.

The Good: Durango couple completes latest adventure to document America’s public lands "Most recently, the couple paddled packrafts across 150 miles of Lake Powell for four weeks in September and October. The goal, Davis said, was to explore slot canyons that were submerged when the Glen Canyon Dam was completed in 1966 but have reemerged as climate change and years of drought have lowered water levels in the reservoir. “The impetus for it all started in 2020, when I said I want to spend a significant amount of time out here,” he said. “I wanted to go there with an exploration mindset of ‘we’re going to paddle the whole thing, but we’re going to take our time and stop and explore canyons along the way too and really give it justice.’”

The Bad: Closed-Door Meeting On National Parks In Utah Amounts To A “Power Grab,” Says SUWA "On Monday, a closed-door meeting was held in Utah to discuss visitor use, management, and new development at several Utah national park sites, including Zion, Arches, Canyonlands, Bryce Canyon, and Capitol Reef national parks, as well as Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. According to the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, the meeting represented the latest effort by the State of Utah to undermine and dismantle the nation’s public lands system."

The Ugly: The Trump administration is abusing the critical minerals list. That’s a problem for public lands "On November 7, 2025, the Trump administration published its updated list of critical minerals. This update added ten new minerals to the U.S. Geological Survey’s critical minerals list, including copper, uranium, silver, and metallurgical coal. The inclusion of these minerals on the list for the first time makes it clear that the Trump administration is using the list to advance its agenda of prioritizing resource extraction over all other uses of our national public lands. Designating these minerals as ‘critical’ paves the way for land use and permitting decisions that will negatively impact Western public lands and wildlife habitats for decades to come."