Almost five years ago, as the pandemic was turning our lives upside down, I began writing a regular column for the Chronicle of Philanthropy that reflected on the daily work of grant making during that time of crisis and uncertainty. The column, Dispatches, ran from April 7, 2020, shortly before I took to bed with a mild case of Covid-19, until April 7, 2021, when a miracle vaccine set us free.
I wish there was a vaccination now for all that ails our nation at the start of Donald Trump’s second term. As I embark on another series of dispatches — this time covering the new administration’s first 100 days — I’m struck by the similarities between then and now: The uncertainty about how to proceed. The anxiety about how bad it will get. And the questions about how individual choices can impact a societal crisis.
There are also, of course, major differences between the pandemic and the outcome of an election. More than half of voters celebrated the results on November 5, 2024, while many of us struggled to get out of bed the next morning — this time for reasons that had nothing to do with a positive Covid-19 result.
With Trump’s latest ascent to the White House, the stakes for the nonprofit world seem even more dire than the first time around. Organizations fighting for equity across race, class, gender, ability, and sexuality will face untold challenges in addition to their already complex and difficult work. Those of us at the foundations that fund them will need new strategies and tools to support and champion these efforts.
And this time, it isn’t just our grantees facing threats. Foundations are also under fire. In the weeks following the election, the House passed the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act, which could take away the charitable status of a broad range of nonprofits, including charitable foundations.
As Mike Berkowitz, executive director of the Democracy Funders Network, wrote on these pages: “We can expect the new administration to target a broad swath of philanthropic organizations based on their ideological views or their efforts to hold the administration accountable. These would include organizations fighting mis- and disinformation, government watchdogs, voter engagement groups, LGBTQ rights organizations, environmental NGOs, and immigration and reproductive rights groups.”
Weighing the Risks
The question now is how philanthropy can fight back without harming the groups we fund. Should we go all in by standing up forcefully and publicly for our most vulnerable grantees, including by providing more funding? Or should we stay under the radar in an effort to protect them from being targeted by the new administration?
My instinct is always to do everything out loud (witness this column), and to call today the rainy day we’ve been saving for. But it’s also fair to ask whether we invite more scrutiny of our grantees when we draw attention to ourselves. Certainly, we don’t want to put them at greater risk than they already are.
The most obvious place to start it by asking grantees what they want. When the pandemic started, the foundation where I work — the Robert Sterling Clark Foundation — like many others, came up with several emergency supports for our nonprofit partners. These included everything from Zoom subscriptions to suspending requirements on grant reporting and adding an automatic extra year of funding. All of these were designed to help them navigate the sudden and specific limitations created by the pandemic.
We need to be in emergency mode again. But what does that look like? How do we know what to offer when we aren’t certain what the threats will be? To start answering such questions, we invited our grantees to take part in a post-election conversation about what they need most from us now. A small group of executive directors participated in the discussion, but their suggestions speak to a wider need in the field.
Help distinguishing real threats from bluster. Our grantees are asking us to play the role of gathering, synthesizing, and sharing relevant and reliable information so they can come up with the most effective strategies. Foundation staff are well-suited for this role. We are more likely to have access to policymakers who can help break through the noise and discern what areas need immediate attention.
This may include insights about upcoming legislation that threatens the larger nonprofit world, or it could mean providing information about the impact of the political climate on a specific issue area, such as immigration. For example, a leader of a college access organization told me that the guidance has changed about whether students with undocumented family members should complete a FAFSA form — Free Application for Federal Student Aid. This leaves nonprofits like hers unsure of how to support these first-generation students, most of whom won’t be able to afford college without federal funding.
Her organization has two complicated issues to address: First, how to advise students who must decide whether college is worth risking family members being deported. And second, how to explain to the organization’s funders that FAFSA completion should no longer be a metric for success. On this last question, I was able to offer to convene a conversation among funders about how some evaluation measures will need to be adjusted for now.
Questions such as the first may be harder for foundation staff to address, but we should be available for the conversation and willing to reach out to any contacts who can help.
Analysis of philanthropy trends. Grantees are also seeking information and assessments about how today’s political situation is affecting funding trends. This is another place where the program officer’s vantage point across the philanthropic field can yield useful information for grantees.
A few weeks ago, one nonprofit executive director told me that requests for her work supporting BIPOC leaders had “dried up.” She asked me if I was seeing that elsewhere or if her experience was an aberration. My view, that she was not alone and that many grant makers have pulled back from funding racial justice work, did not solve her problem but does help her strategize how best to address it. I am also able to advocate for continued funding of work like hers among my foundation peers and recognize that this is one instance where I can make a real difference by speaking up.
Resources to strengthen nonprofit capacity and infrastructure. Ensuring their own “houses are in order” is critical to preparing for what’s to come, the executive directors told us. That means providing more resources for training and for consultants who can help leaders contend with extra demands.
Foundations can also act as an information hub and curator of high-quality guidance on challenging issues. For instance, we have started sharing information in our monthly newsletter that speaks to coming threats, such as a legal services briefing last week on Nonprofit Preparedness Regarding Immigration Enforcement. Even grantees who don’t primarily serve immigrant populations signed up. These efforts help the nonprofits we support learn from and about the challenges each is facing, strategize on relevant issues, and serve as allies for one another.
In the end, what these nonprofit leaders want boils down to good grant making practices. Just as during the pandemic, we need to consider what constitutes a genuine priority and what we can let go of. We need to be prepared to act quickly, move money in new ways, embrace innovation, and contend with a different level of risk. We must be strong advocates for our grantees — both with other funders and with local leaders connected to their work.
Many of us were too quick to let such practices fade after the pandemic. Now is the time to reinstate them — and this time to make them permanent.