Summer is winding down, and for once, the streets have been relatively quiet. After years of what pundits ironically dubbed “summers of love”—marked by protests, clashes, and arson—this season has been noticeably calmer. According to a new analysis by Clarice Feldman at American Thinker, that peace isn’t an accident. It’s the result of a coordinated federal push to sever the funding lines that fuel political violence, even as the legal battles over elections heat up in the courts.
The Money Trail: Treasury Takes Aim at Nonprofits
The most significant development, per the report, is the Treasury Department’s aggressive investigation into nonprofit organizations suspected of funneling illicit funds to support what officials call “political terrorism.” The push gained traction in July, when Secretary Scott Bessent spoke at a State Department event organized by Marco Rubio. “Increasingly,” Bessent warned, “legitimate nonprofit and charitable structures are being exploited as a mechanism to conceal the movement of illicit funds to support political terrorism.” He then announced that in the fall, the United States would designate four far-left Antifa extremist groups abroad as foreign terrorist organizations.
In a January interview with Chris Rufo, Bessent was more explicit about what he saw on the ground. “When you see these protesters, someone is financing them,” he explained. “There are safe houses. When you see the 300 people with the same laser that they’re using to blind DHS agents in courthouses in Portland, someone bought those lasers.” That someone, he implied, is a left-wing NGO.
When Rufo pressed him on whether the Treasury had authority to crack down on 501(c)(3) groups funded by left-wing dark money that were organizing or encouraging criminal activity, Bessent’s answer was terse and emphatic: “Yes, yes, and yes.” He added, “What we do is follow the money—just like we followed it with the mafia. We’ll find out who’s done this.”
According to the report, the investigation has already zeroed in on several high-profile targets, including CAIR, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and George Soros’ Open Society Foundations. Bessent’s inner circle is reportedly drafting a blueprint that could strip non-compliant organizations of their tax-exempt status, potentially resulting in massive back payments and civil penalties. Officials have also scrutinized a range of anti-corporate and labor-aligned advocacy groups that could end up on a blacklist, including the Private Equity Stakeholder Project, the anti-Amazon Athena Coalition, the watchdog MediaJustice, and the Strategic Organizing Center alongside its parent union, the SEIU.
Outside the federal government, independent researchers are joining the fray. A data analyst known as “Data Republican” has created an interactive map of the Democratic Socialists of America, allowing users to “click any org, person, or project and walk the network one tie at a time.” The map tracks funders and recipients, making it easier to see where the money flows.
The Mail Ballot Drama Takes a Bizarre Turn
While the funding crackdown has quieted the streets, the legal war over elections continues. The latest twist involves the U.S. Postal Service’s role in mail balloting—and a federal judge who has repeatedly tried to block it. Judge Indira Talwani has issued injunctions to halt the Postal Service’s rules on mail ballots, arguing that states cannot possibly comply in time. But, as Feldman reports, one of the plaintiffs in the case just proved her wrong.
North Carolina, which had joined the lawsuit against the Postal Service, has issued a statement confirming it is fully complying with the new requirements. “The North Carolina State Board of Elections has submitted our envelopes to the U.S. Postal Service for review and approval,” the board said. “This complies with the requirements that we upload a list of everyone we’re sending a ballot to by mail and that is the only requirement. These are measures we do all the time.”
The board expressed confidence that absentee ballots would go out starting September 4, as required by state law, and that the process would “happen flawlessly and smoothly.” For Feldman, that statement is a bombshell. “So simple! So easy!” she writes, noting that the state’s compliance directly contradicts the plaintiffs’ claims of “practical impossibility.”
The timing is critical. The next round of states begins sending ballots on September 19, so if North Carolina succeeds, the government can argue that the entire premise of the injunction—that compliance is impossible—is fabricated. This isn’t just about one state’s election; it’s about the credibility of every objection raised in court.
The Shadow Docket Rebuttal
The legal maneuvering has also revived a debate over the Supreme Court’s “shadow docket.” Judge Talwani, in her order, argued that compliance would be “practically impossible” and that failure “seems unavoidable.” But as Jonathan Turley noted, per the report, Talwani’s aggressive use of injunctions has actually strengthened the case for the emergency docket—the process by which the Supreme Court quickly resolves cases without full briefing or oral argument.
Liberal scholars have long criticized the shadow docket, but Turley argues that judges like Talwani have created legitimate concerns about “gaming the system” to freeze new policies. He points out that many of these injunctions directly contradict earlier precedent, exposing what he calls their “cynical purpose”: allowing a single district judge to negate major reforms. In response, the Supreme Court has increasingly used the emergency docket to reverse these injunctions, cracking down on national injunctions that would halt the administration’s agenda.
For now, the case is heading to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which previously denied the administration’s July appeal. The odds of a favorable ruling there seem low, but Feldman notes that these are not normal times. With North Carolina proving that compliance is possible, the administration has been handed a windfall of “good luck”—and a powerful argument that the disruption predicted by the plaintiffs is purely speculative.
As the legal battles continue, one thing is clear: the quiet summer may be over, but the war over who funds the protests—and who controls the ballot box—is far from settled.
Source: www.americanthinker.com — https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2026/08/summertime-and-antifa-was-uneasy/