House committee proposes new disclosure rules that could affect Trump-linked Freedom 250 project

The House Ways and Means Committee advanced legislation that would obligate nonprofit organizations to disclose fiscal-sponsorship arrangements on their tax returns and impose penalties on funds deemed improperly routed. The proposal targets structures like Freedom 250, a limited-liability company created by the National Park Foundation to manage events for the United States’ 250th birthday, which has so far filed no separate tax return and has not broken out its fundraising or spending details.

Freedom 250 was established in October 2025 after the Trump administration announced plans for a large-scale celebration. The National Park Foundation received about $90 million in federal appropriations for the anniversary and solicited seven-figure corporate donations for Freedom 250, listing sponsors such as Chevron, Boeing, ExxonMobil and Mastercard on its website.

"Charities face broad public-disclosure requirements at least in part because they are publicly supported through tax benefits," said Brian Mittendorf, a professor of nonprofit accounting at Ohio State University.

"Treasury's work to improve transparency, strengthen tax administration, and provide clearer reporting on certain activities of tax-exempt organizations" was highlighted by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent in support of the bill.

If enacted, the National Park Foundation would likely need to report how much money moved through Freedom 250 and who managed the entity, though the bill would not require disclosure of individual donors. Critics warn the definition of fiscal sponsorship could unintentionally capture a wide range of nonprofit arrangements.

"Republicans may write a definition into the tax code for fiscal sponsorship that could accidentally lump in a lot more relationships and projects within the nonprofit sector than they intended," said Sara Barba, managing partner at Integer, LLC.

The proposal arrives amid heightened scrutiny of left-leaning nonprofits, with GOP investigators issuing subpoenas to groups linked to progressive donors and advancing separate legislation to bar nonprofits from donating to political action committees for two years after receiving foreign funds.

Freedom 250’s leadership remains opaque. Corporate filings list Ruth Prescott, executive vice president of the National Park Foundation, as the beneficial owner, while Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said he was not aware of the final decision-maker for the entity. The National Park Foundation maintains that Freedom 250 operates under an agreement with the National Park Service to manage appropriated funds and that its corporate sponsors are publicly listed, except for a few who requested anonymity.

The Treasury Department is also considering revisions to the IRS Form 990 to require more detailed reporting of government grants, contracts and fiscal-sponsorship arrangements, a move described as an effort to expose hidden funding.

"Given Freedom 250 receives federal funding, the regulations Treasury is considering should reach Freedom 250's activities," said Lloyd Mayer, a nonprofit law professor at the University of Notre Dame.

The bill and related regulatory proposals could increase transparency for Freedom 250 and similar entities, but nonprofit advocates caution that broader impacts on the sector have not been fully assessed.