To the Editor:
An uproar ensued on social media and elsewhere following publication last week in the Chronicle of Philanthropy of a list of 346 funders with more than $500 million in assets that could be targets of a Trump administration executive order cracking down on DEI programs.
This included a scathing attack from Sara Hudson, the editor of the Nonprofit Quarterly, who argued that the naming of donors “handed a target list to a hostile government that has a public practice of threatening its opponents and squashing dissent.”
Hudson, like several other critics, argued that the article lacked context, suggesting that what was needed now from journalism wasn’t “neutrality but courage — courage to defend the most vulnerable people in the crosshairs of those with the most power.”
The offending story accompanied another longer article examining how major funders are responding to the administration’s DEI order — an order that focused on the size of the foundations, not on their specific policies or programs.
So what should we make of the criticisms of the Chronicle’s coverage? Should the list be retracted, as Hudson demands? Is it time for all journalists to report only on the excesses of the Trump administration and ignore any reporting that tries to provide the public with hard data on current developments?
The list at the heart of controversy contains information that anyone with ChatGPT can unearth in minutes. My guess is that several people in the administration have already done this work. There was a reason $500 million was used as the cutoff point for scrutiny rather than focusing on all philanthropies that do any work or make any grants in support of DEI.
A Public Service
The list provides an important public service by letting those who receive funding from these foundations know that there is trouble brewing. In particular, the residents and elected officials of many cities and states should be aware that their local community foundations may be subject to interference from federal authorities. Wouldn’t South Dakota Senator John Thune, the Senate Majority Leader, want to know that the South Dakota Community Foundation, with more than $866 million in assets, is a potential target?
Big philanthropies have resources. They can afford to hire the best lawyers and the best public relations firms. Foundations may be investigated by Congress and the IRS, and they may be subject to higher taxes or increased distribution requirements, but they are unlikely to face the same existential risk as, say, organizations that were dependent on USAID funding. To those who argue that the list could harm grantees, my response is that those who work on DEI-related programs or who are dependent on public funding may be at risk, but their association with a foundation is unlikely to cause trouble.
During a period of great disruption, we need fair and accurate reporting on how individuals and institutions will be affected. That’s exactly what the Chronicle did when it published both the list of foundations and the accompanying analysis of what the Trump executive order might mean to the country’s most substantial donors.
Plenty of organizations and media outlets are in the business of advocacy, and that work is critical right now. But clearheaded, in-depth, and fact-based reporting on the nonprofit sector is also needed. The Chronicle remains the most important source of that kind of information.
Craig Kennedy
Senior Fellow, The Giving Review
Former President, Joyce Foundation and German Marshall Fund