Amid a foreign aid shutdown, the threat of a federal funding freeze, and the imminent firing of thousands of federal workers who oversee the delivery of humanitarian aid, nonprofit leaders are begging funders to step in with additional resources and tap the trillions of dollars they hold in endowments and cash reserves.
But private foundations have been slow to respond.
So far, few foundations have announced plans to address the flurry of policy changes issued by the White House since Donald Trump took office on January 20. Many of these government actions will bring turmoil for nonprofit work in the United States and abroad.
In just a few weeks, Trump has moved quickly to fulfill his campaign pledges to downsize the government and pull federal funding from programs he ideologically opposes, such as those supporting global warming mitigation, LGBTQ rights, and diversity, equity, and inclusion. He has issued executive orders to withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement and World Health Organization, effectively ended federal DEI programs, and raised the possibility of investigating large foundations that continue with such efforts.
Many nonprofit leaders are panicked and worried about the future of their organizations.
Last Monday, in the hours before a White House decision to halt federal funding was blocked by a federal judge in Washington, D.C., Dom Kelly, CEO of New Disabled South, a disability rights nonprofit that works in 14 states and with groups reliant on government money, issued a plea:
“Dear Philanthropy, I am begging you. BEGGING you. Fund our movements. Fund our movements with unrestricted dollars. Multi-year general operating support. Fund our c3s and c4s. Let those of us on the frontlines, in this most critical moment for our collective futures, do the good work that needs to be done,” he wrote in a LinkedIn post.
Within hours, the post received hundreds of “thumbs up,” heart, and applause reactions. Several nonprofit leaders reached out to Kelly directly and thanked him for writing it. However, as of February 5 he still hasn’t heard anything from funders.
“I did think that I might hear from funders since that post,” said Kelly, who was a senior adviser for Democrat Stacey Abrams’s Georgia gubernatorial campaign before founding New Disabled South.
“But I didn’t think the cavalry was coming, to be honest. I wrote that pleading for the cavalry to come.”
The Chronicle of Philanthropy reached out to more than a dozen major foundations — most with assets exceeding $1 billion — for this story. Some responded, but most declined to provide statements on the record.
Radio Silence
Many nonprofit leaders aren’t surprised that the response from big funders has been muted. It’s possible that many foundations underestimated how swiftly the Trump administration would implement sweeping changes, said Rhodri Davies, director of the media platform Why Philanthropy Matters.
“In a way, it isn’t a surprise, but I think the speed and the scale of it is a shock,” he said.
With policies changing so quickly, foundation leaders may be struggling to create funding strategies that make sense, said Davies, who previously served as head of policy at the British-based Charities Aid Foundation. Yet this is certainly a moment when philanthropists, especially ultra-wealthy ones, will need to decide their level of commitment to issues like climate change, poverty reduction, and DEI, as nonprofits confront a government hostile to those issues, he said.
“Maybe what it tests is whether, at the end of the day, all of that billionaire philanthropy was actually interested in challenging the systems and structures that made that wealth,” Davies said.
“We do seem to have a new crop of philanthropists who are fundamentally questioning whether it’s good that they have that level of wealth in the first place. What are they going to do now? Is this the moment where philanthropists have to put their money where their mouth is?”
Some foundation leaders have issued public statements about the executive orders. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which promotes health equity, vowed to increase investments in its initiative to diversify the health-care work force and continue its support of policies aimed at advancing racial equity.
Others have expressed alarm over the foreign aid freeze and apparent dissolution of the U.S. Agency for International Development, the agency charged with delivering humanitarian aid, a move that could endanger millions of lives around the world.
These decisions will have “dangerous ripple effects,” Melinda French Gates wrote in a statement. Gates Foundation CEO Mark Suzman urged the administration to “have a plan to ensure that this work to protect the world’s most vulnerable, and to preserve America’s health and security, is not compromised.” He also raised concerns about pulling the United States out of WHO and blocking foreign aid for groups providing abortion care.
Nonprofit leaders want funders to do more.
“USAID is in chaos. Leaders are scared. But these big funders can (should!) help you,” Kevin L. Brown, CEO of Mighty Ally, a nonprofit brand consultancy, wrote in a LinkedIn post that included a list of the top 20 global funders. The list includes the Gates, Bloomberg Family, Mastercard, Ford, and Susan Thompson Buffett foundations and the Lilly Endowment.
WINGS, a global network of donors and philanthropic groups, recently issued guidance for how funders can collaborate to fill global needs in the absence of USAID.
Michael Bloomberg is the most notable example of a billionaire philanthropist and foundation leader stepping up to fill federal funding gaps. His Bloomberg Philanthropies pledged to fulfill the U.S. funding and reporting commitments to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change after Trump withdrew the United States from the Paris Agreement. Bloomberg did this in 2017 when Trump pulled the United States from the agreement the first time. The United States typically pays about a fifth of the UNFCCC budget, which amounted to about $7.4 million last year.
Bloomberg also said he would continue to support a coalition of U.S. cities, states, businesses, and climate leaders working to reduce emissions.
“Bloomberg Philanthropies’ philosophy and approach has not changed,” a spokesperson told the Chronicle. “Regardless of who holds federal office, we will continue to look for unmet needs, tackling challenges that are either overlooked or underfunded but cannot be ignored.”
Realistic Possibilities
Even though U.S. foundations hold more than $1.5 trillion in assets, some experts say it’s impossible for philanthropy to make a significant dent in government funding of critical domestic and foreign aid for the next four years.
Foundations can’t fill the void left by the Trump’s divestment in foreign aid and closure of USAID, according to Kathleen Enright, CEO of the Council on Foundations. The council’s most recent report on global giving showed that foundations gave $8 billion internationally compared with $49 billion in U.S. foreign assistance. That’s a “math problem,” she said.
“Though many individual donors and private foundations share the objectives of U.S. global assistance — to provide a hand-up and increase self-reliance, to reduce human suffering, to spur economic growth, and to ensure peace and security — private donors cannot replace the role of the U.S. government,” she said.
Trying to pay for causes that the U.S. government opposes also opens the door for the philanthropy sector to face more scrutiny from politicians who see them as too powerful, said Benjamin Soskis, a senior research associate in the Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy at the Urban Institute. Already, the Trump administration has signaled a willingness to investigate diversity programs at foundations with assets above $500 million. Philanthropic institutions that push back against these policy changes could be targeted and subjected to attacks because of either their size or their ideological orientation, he said.
Targeting may also not stop there, Soskis said. The administration might take more sectorwide actions against nonprofits, such as additional federal grant disruptions. The nonprofit sector is more entwined and dependent on government funding than it was half a century ago, he said.
“There might be more sweeping reforms that go even past a targeted attack,” he said. “Both are pretty scary scenarios, but the latter is even more transformative.”
Given the threats, it’s possible that foundations don’t want to publicize any plans to provide additional funding, Soskis said. However, it is vital that they provide those resources, he said.
“I think it’s very possible, important, and imperative for funders to do what they can to fill gaps in situations where the lack of funding is catastrophic — and also do so in a way that makes clear that it’s not a long-term solution and that they are providing the infrastructure for advocacy and the ecosystem to build the case for more funding from either the public or collective sources.”
