The recipients of ASAE’s 2026 Power of Associations Awards – including the prestigious Summit Awards, ASAE’s highest honor for associations – will be announced soon. These awards spotlight associations that go beyond serving their members to make a meaningful impact on society, strengthen the workforce, and improve communities around the world.

Join ASAE on September 22, 2026, for the 2026 ASAE Summit Awards Dinner at the iconic National Building Museum. This signature event brings together more than 600 association and industry leaders to celebrate the extraordinary work of associations and the difference they make every day. 

The evening will feature a reception, seated dinner, inspiring stories from award recipients, and live entertainment. VIP experiences and sponsorship opportunities are also available for organizations seeking additional visibility and engagement. View all sponsorship and seating options.

 

For questions or to place an order, contact summitdinner@asaecenter.org.

ASAE continues to work with U.S. Travel Association and a broad coalition of associations to urge Congress to pass the VISIT USA Act (S. 3220/H.R. 6128), legislation that would restore funding for Brand USA in fiscal years 2026 and 2027.

Created by Congress in 2009, Brand USA is a public-private partnership that promotes the United States to international travelers and provides clear guidance on visa and entry requirements. The organization generates more than $24 in visitor spending for every $1 invested, helping support jobs, small businesses and local economies across the country.

Brand USA is funded entirely through private-sector contributions and fees paid by international visitors – not U.S. taxpayers. As shared in U.S. Travel’s one-pager, full funding is especially important as the U.S. prepares to host major global events, including the 2026 FIFA World Cup, America 250 and the 2028 Summer Olympics, which together are expected to attract 40 million visitors and generate $100 billion in economic impact.

The deadline to submit comments to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division on their joint inquiry into updated antitrust guidance for collaborations among competitors is next Wednesday, May 21, 2026. Comments are open via regulations.gov.

As previously reported, the agencies are seeking input on how organizations, including associations, navigate collaborative activities such as benchmarking, research and data sharing. The inquiry comes after the withdrawal of longstanding antitrust “safety zones” in 2024, which had provided guidance for association statistical surveys and benchmarking programs.

The outcome of this process could have significant implications for associations that rely on aggregated industry data to deliver market insights, support member decision-making and advance their industries. Updated guidance could help reduce legal uncertainty while preserving the ability of associations to provide these valuable resources.

ASAE is planning to submit comments to the FTC and DOJ before the May 21 deadline to highlight the importance of clear, practical antitrust guidance that recognizes the legitimate and procompetitive role associations play in collecting and sharing industry information. ASAE will continue to keep members informed as this process moves forward. If you have questions, please contact ASAE Public Policy at publicpolicy@asaecenter.org.

ASAE and many other tax-exempt organizations are awaiting the release of draft changes to Form 990 following the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s April announcement that it intends to revise reporting requirements for section 501(c)(3) organizations.

Treasury has said that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) will publish proposed revisions and provide an opportunity for public comment before any updates are finalized.

As previously reported, the Treasury Department said the planned revisions are intended to improve transparency, strengthen tax administration and provide clearer reporting related to government contracts, government grants and fiscal sponsorship arrangements. Treasury officials indicated that the changes are designed to help the IRS better detect misconduct and ensure greater accountability among tax-exempt organizations.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the initiative reflects a broader effort to ensure that organizations receiving public funds or tax-deductible contributions are prepared to demonstrate how those funds are managed and used. Treasury has also stated that it will consider administrative feasibility, proportionality and reporting burden as it develops the proposal.

At this stage, no new reporting requirements are in effect, and the scope of any revisions remains uncertain. Because many associations maintain affiliated charitable foundations or other section 501(c)(3) entities, ASAE is closely monitoring the issue and will provide updates as more information becomes available, particularly when the IRS publishes proposed changes and opens the public comment period.

The Treasury Department announced plans last week to revise the Form 990 for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations, vowing a renewed federal focus on transparency and accountability across the nonprofit sector.   TREASURY SIGNALS POTENTIAL CHANGES TO FORM 990 FOR 501(C)(3)S According to Treasury, the proposed updates are intended to “improve transparency, strengthen tax administration, and provide clearer reporting on certain activities,” including government contracts, government grants, and fiscal sponsorship arrangements. The agency noted that the changes are designed to better detect misconduct and hold bad actors accountable.   “Public money and tax-exempt status demand public accountability,” said Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. “We are ending the days of hiding fraud, abuse, and extremist activity behind complicated nonprofit arrangements. When bad actors misuse charitable structures, directors and officers should understand that transparency can lead to scrutiny, accountability, and liability under the law.”   The announcement builds on concerns raised earlier this year during a February hearing of the House Ways and Means Committee focused on foreign influence, where some lawmakers suggested that revisions to Form 990 could help address perceived misuse of charitable structures.   While specific changes have not yet been released, Treasury indicated that it plans to publish proposed regulations and provide an opportunity for public comment before any updates are finalized. The agency also emphasized that it will consider administrative feasibility, proportionality, and reporting burden as it develops the proposal.   ASAE is actively monitoring this issue and will keep members informed as additional details emerge.

A bipartisan group of senators introduced legislation this week to extend a critical federal program that helps safeguard the association community and the broader economy against terrorism-related risks.   BIPARTISAN TRIA REAUTHORIZATION BILL INTRODUCED IN SENATE On April 28, Sens. Mark Warner (D-VA), Dave McCormick (R-PA), Tina Smith (D-MN), Thom Tillis (R-NC), and Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) introduced the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2026. The bill would extend the federal terrorism risk insurance backstop for seven years, through December 31, 2034, helping to ensure long-term market stability and avoid a lapse ahead of the program’s current 2027 expiration.   Originally established in 2002 after the 9-11 terrorist attacks, the program commonly known as TRIA has long functioned as a vital public-private partnership. It enables insurers to offer terrorism risk coverage while protecting taxpayers and supporting economic activity across sectors that depend on large-scale events, travel, and business continuity.   The newly introduced legislation includes several updates designed to strengthen the program over time. Among them, the bill raises the threshold for certified acts of terrorism from $5 million to $10 million beginning in 2029 and includes provisions to enhance transparency within the U.S. Department of the Treasury.   Momentum for reauthorization is building across Capitol Hill. Earlier this year, the House Financial Services Committee advanced companion legislation (H.R. 7128) by a wide margin, signaling strong bipartisan recognition of the program’s importance.   For the association community, TRIA remains a cornerstone policy. It helps ensure that meetings, conferences, and large-scale events – key drivers of economic impact and community engagement – can continue with access to affordable and reliable insurance coverage. Reauthorization of the program was a top priority for association advocates during ASAE’s 2026 Legislative Fly-In in March, where members met with lawmakers to underscore the importance of preserving this essential protection.

Top Ten AI Usage Policy Considerations for Nonprofits

Holly Peterson, Esq., Counsel 

Tenenbaum Law Group PLLC

April 24, 2026

Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming nonprofit business operations. AI provides great promise with respect to enhancing efficiency, optimizing workflows, analyzing data, and boosting productivity. At the same time, AI presents various legal, ethical, reputational, and other risks. A sound AI usage policy can enable a nonprofit organization to leverage the promise of AI without compromising work product integrity, disclosing privileged, confidential, or proprietary information, eroding its mission, jeopardizing its reputation, or subjecting the nonprofit to undue legal exposure. Leaders in the nonprofit community should consider the following practical advice when developing and implementing an AI usage policy for their organizations.

1. Build out a process to monitor and correct inaccuracies.

While AI has shown a tremendous ability to quickly generate helpful outputs, AI also is notorious for sometimes generating inaccurate information. To guard against inaccuracies, require everyone who utilizes AI on behalf of the nonprofit organization to harbor the requisite expertise to generate the work product themselves so that they are able to evaluate and refine output and attest to the quality, accuracy, and integrity of the final work product.

1. Require human authorship. 

Normally, nonprofit employees who generate work products in the ordinary course of business convey copyright to the nonprofit organization under the “work-made-for-hire” doctrine. Volunteers often assign or license copyright to nonprofit organizations for which they volunteer. The U.S. Copyright Office and U.S. courts have consistently taken the position that purely AI-generated material without meaningful human creative input is not copyrightable. What that means is that if a nonprofit employee or volunteer utilizes AI to generate a work product, the work product will not be subject to copyright protection unless there is more than a de minimis imprint of human authorship. As such, make clear through your policy that while AI can be leveraged as a suitable “consultant,” copyrightable work product ultimately requires human authorship.

1. Implement guardrails for privileged, confidential, and proprietary information.

Large language models crowd-source information to generate output. AI tools do not care about the source of the information. For that reason, nonprofits must carefully protect privileged, confidential, and proprietary information. Implement guardrails for when, if ever, such information can be inputted into an AI tool. With only very limited exceptions, Board and committee meeting minutes, financial information, confidential employee, donor, or member information, privileged communications with counsel, and other proprietary or confidential information should never be inputted into an AI tool, especially a free AI tool. If you need to manipulate or otherwise leverage AI tools in connection with privileged, confidential, or proprietary information, consider purchasing rights to and approving employee use of specific closed AI tools so that you can leverage AI capabilities without risking unwanted disclosure. In all instances, implement guardrails around employees and volunteers utilizing free or unapproved AI tools to mitigate risks that accompany unwary acceptance of click-wrap agreements, which inevitably confer broad rights to AI platforms to utilize, learn from, and disseminate inputted content – all of which can put the nonprofit’s sensitive information at great risk. 

1. Communicate policy expectations to employees and volunteers.

Employees and volunteers may have different levels of sophistication, comfort, and risk tolerance utilizing various AI tools on the market. Make sure to clearly communicate expectations so that all employees and volunteers understand the parameters of approved and prohibited AI use.

1. Do not allow AI to obscure mission, erode brand, or eclipse what makes the organization unique.

AI privileges conformity by crowd-sourcing large amounts of information. Imagine that you ask AI to generate a membership recruitment video based on your organization’s website. While the AI tool will almost certainly embed snippets of tailored content, it will inevitably preference conformity by describing “a dynamic organization of industry professionals” with promised opportunities to “share knowledge and network with colleagues.” Catchy music (the kind you can imagine in your head right now) will play against the backdrop of a diverse group of business professionals smiling, shaking hands, and networking. Generic-feeling work products can feel empty to mission-driven organizations. Consistent with the expectation that AI work products must bear more than a de minimis imprint of human authorship, build expectations around mission alignment and brand management into your AI policy to make sure that your organization’s imprint is seen, heard, and felt.

1. Do not allow AI to stifle innovation.

AI generates output based on existing content. In some instances, that can be helpful. For example, if you would like to build an itinerary to explore famous museums in Florence, an AI trip-builder may be helpful, as the famous museums are already in existence. In other instances – especially in the scholarly context – AI’s reliance on existing information can be problematic. Imagine, for example, an AI peer review tool that is evaluating a scholarly article on a novel theory. It may encourage the author to consult existing literature at odds with the novel theory, as opposed to critically and thoughtfully evaluating the new concept as a potentially valuable contribution to the scholarly cannon. Take care to evaluate how AI may be useful or detrimental in different contexts.

1. Review work product for discrimination, tort liability, and other areas of legal exposure.

AI does not evaluate content for discrimination, defamation, breaches of privacy, intellectual property misappropriation, federal False Claims Act compliance, or other torts, to name a few legal claims. Regrettably, because AI sources from such a large volume of unvetted information, it inevitably consults tortious, biased, and inaccurate content; images that embed protected copyrights and trademarks; and other problematic content. This can create exposure for a nonprofit organization that utilizes AI-generated resources. To mitigate exposure, make sure that human reviewers evaluate all AI-generated work products for discriminatory, defamatory, infringing, tortious, and other legally problematic content. When utilizing AI in higher risk areas, such as when generating proposals or reports for federal grants, or when utilizing personally identifiable information that is otherwise regulated under federal, state, or international data privacy laws, take special care to evaluate output against any legal obligations. Similarly, if it is determined that bias or discrimination has influenced a process, decision, or work product in any way – such as if AI is used as a screening and evaluative tool in the workplace hiring process – take all necessary measures to remedy the bias or discrimination to ensure the integrity and lawfulness of the process, decision, or work product. 

1. Embed a clause in third-party vendor, consulting, and other independent contractor agreements requiring compliance with the organization’s AI usage policy. 

Independent contractors may or may not be bound by organizational policies. Include a provision in all agreements with independent contractors that requires contracting parties to abide by the organization’s AI usage policy when providing products and services to the organization. In so doing, transfer all risk to the vendor or consultant for any material breach of the provision, including through indemnification. Similarly, for unpaid speakers, authors, Board and committee members, and other volunteer leaders, while indemnity would be atypical and heavy handed in most situations, all agreements (including participation forms) with such individuals should require adherence to the organization’s AI usage policy.

1. Do not allow AI to substitute for human relationships.

AI cannot substitute for human relationships, which is of paramount importance for membership associations and other nonprofit organizations. Efficiency, automation, and other benefits of AI must be evaluated against the erosion of human interaction and its impact on the organization’s mission and community. For instance, an automated AI-generated email may be infuriating to a dedicated volunteer who craves the human touchpoints that association membership provides. Leverage AI sparingly when it is being implemented to supplant functions that previously functioned through human engagement.

1. Stay up to date on the evolving law.

The law surrounding AI and its usage is evolving rapidly. Ten years ago, we were barely talking about AI. Today, as of the date this article was written, 38 states have enacted at least one law governing AI, and all 50 states have introduced various bills to regulate AI use. There also is intense pressure on federal policymakers in Washington, DC to regulate AI, which has not happened to date. Laws and regulations are being enacted at a time when we are still exploring AI’s full potential and confronting some of AI’s greatest risks. We are far from the final iteration of a comprehensive legal and regulatory scheme governing AI. With that in mind, any policy you adopt must be nimble enough to evolve with the law.

For more information, please contact the author at hpeterson@TenenbaumLegal.com.