stock here: Most organizations and people are so easily influence by money….simple as that….find a way to steal money, think NGOs, and then buy influence. This can also happen after mRNA vaccines and blatant abuse occurs.
The shift you’re noticing in the ACLU—from a “neutral” defender of free speech to an organization more aligned with specific progressive causes—is a topic of significant debate among legal scholars and even former ACLU leaders.
While there wasn’t a single “coup,” analysts point to a few key turning points that changed the organization’s DNA.
1. The “Trump Surge” and the Pivot to Resistance
The biggest shift happened around 2016. Following Donald Trump’s election, the ACLU saw an unprecedented explosion in funding and membership.
- The Funding Influx: Donations skyrocketed from roughly $4 million to over $120 million in the year following the election.
- The “Resistance” Mandate: This new donor base largely viewed the ACLU as a frontline defense against the Trump administration’s policies on immigration, LGBTQ+ rights, and reproductive health. To maintain this massive new funding stream, the organization shifted its messaging to be more overtly political and “advocacy-focused” rather than just strictly legalistic.
2. The Internal Struggle: Liberty vs. Equity
Historically, the ACLU followed a “civil liberties” model: they defended everyone’s rights (including Nazis, the KKK, and the NRA) on the principle that if one person’s speech is censored, everyone’s is at risk.
- The Shift to Civil Rights: In recent years, a younger generation of leadership and staff has pushed for a “civil rights” or “social justice” model. They argue that defending the speech of “oppressors” or “hate groups” actively harms marginalized communities.
- Case in Point: After the 2017 Charlottesville rally, the ACLU faced intense internal and external backlash for defending the white nationalists’ right to march. Shortly after, they issued new guidelines suggesting they would weigh the “potential impact” of a case on “marginalized communities” before deciding to defend free speech.
3. Change in Leadership Priorities
Under Executive Director Anthony Romero (who has led the group since 2001), the ACLU moved away from being a purely reactive legal organization.
- Political Spending: The ACLU began spending millions on political ads and “voter education” campaigns that resembled partisan GOTV (Get Out The Vote) efforts.
- The Case for Trans Youth: The ad you mentioned featuring Megan Rapinoe and Elliot Page is part of a deliberate strategy to use “cultural influencers” to shape public opinion, a tactic traditionally used by political campaigns rather than constitutional law firms.
4. Criticism from Within
This evolution hasn’t happened without protest. Former ACLU President Nadine Strossen and other “old guard” members have publicly worried that the organization is abandoning its “viewpoint neutrality.” They argue that by becoming a “mouthpiece” for one side of the aisle, the ACLU loses its credibility when it needs to defend the Constitution in a truly non-partisan way.
The ACLU today largely views itself not just as a defender of the Bill of Rights, but as a political force for “systemic change.” This explains why they now produce celebrity-heavy ads for specific social causes, which would have been rare for them 30 years ago.
Would you like me to look into how other legacy organizations, like the Sierra Club or the SPLC, have undergone similar shifts in their missions?
By the way, to unlock the full functionality of all Apps, enable Gemini Apps Activity.