I think it’s time for a shift away from the approach that some larger U.S. foundations and key infrastructure organizations have taken to operating in the second Trump administration. That approach has been based on assumptions that may have made sense in mid-November but seem less relevant now.
I’d be the first to acknowledge that the right approach will differ from foundation to foundation based on goals, regional contexts, and other dimensions. To be sure, there are many foundations, as my colleague Kevin Bolduc noted in a blog post earlier this month, that have taken strong steps to confront and respond to the challenges — and severity — of the moment.
Still, there are some fairly widely-shared assumptions about operating in the Trump 2.0 era that a number of foundations, and organizations that represent them, have subscribed to that are now worth reconsidering. Because many of these organizations include clients, funders, and friends of CEP — as well as some of our valued peer organizations — I have been making this case privately for weeks, and let me say that I get how incredibly challenging this moment is for so many. It’s genuinely hard to know what to do.
Still, I think it’s worth speaking out publicly, too, in an effort to promote a change in approach.
Assumption Number One Worth Reconsidering: Certain foundations and nonprofits will be targeted but not the entire nonprofit sector.
The conventional wisdom going into January was that the incoming administration might target those organizations with the highest profiles that it deemed the biggest threats to its agenda. But what people didn’t count on was President Trump and others in the executive branch declaring their hostility to the entire nonprofit sector. (I described this in a blog post last month responding to a February 7 White House memo in which President Trump derided “NGOs” that “undermine the national interest.”)
The attacks have only intensified. A few weeks ago, Elon Musk went on Joe Rogan’s podcast and called nonprofits a “graft machine” and a “gigantic scam.”
Last week, Bloomberg News reported that after a “Department of Government Efficiency review of nonprofits’ websites and LinkedIn profiles for terms associated with DEI … millions of dollars in federal contracts for affordable housing were canceled.” The canceled awards “include ongoing projects in more than 1,000 communities to address homelessness, disaster recovery, persistent poverty and other housing issues.” The affected organizations include Local Initiatives Support Corporation and Enterprise Community Partners.
This is just one example of the administration going after nonprofits that simply would not have been on anyone’s list of likely targets.
Assumption Number Two Worth Reconsidering: Foundations and operating nonprofits have different interests, different threats, and different levels of public support and therefore should pursue separate and distinct strategies for defending themselves.
I have observed what feels to me like an odd disconnect between foundations and operating nonprofits in this time of threat to both. Here at CEP, we have seen in our research that nonprofits are looking for more communication from their foundation funders — and, not surprisingly, more unrestricted support to allow them to respond to a volatile context.
Meanwhile, I have been told by foundation leaders and others that foundations need to pursue a strategy for self-defense that is both quiet and distinct from nonprofits. I have heard various reasons, including that foundations don’t enjoy the same kind of public support that nonprofits do and that, therefore, the threats to them are more intense.
So far, however, it is operating nonprofits, not foundations, that have faced challenges to their ability to do their work. Even if that changes, and it might, foundations would be wise to align themselves in the public eye with the organizations they support: after all, nonprofits are in every community and in every region of our country providing essential support to citizens of all political ideologies and party affiliations.
What we need now is a sector-wide effort, inclusive of foundations and operating nonprofits, to push back on the attacks. We need to embolden each other.
Assumption Number Three Worth Reconsidering: Staying “under the radar” will decrease risk and allow the important work to continue
A number of foundations, especially large global and national ones, have sought to stay out of the crosshairs of the administration by lying low. Indeed, some philanthropy-supporting organizations have encouraged them to do just that. I understand why. The worry is that speaking out would “put a bullseye on our back.”
As my colleague Bolduc described in the blog post I mentioned above:
Just in the past weeks I’ve heard leaders at philanthropic funders say things like ‘we’re trying to be small right now,’ ‘the lawyers are advising us to stay under the radar,’ ‘we’re letting others do the talking right now,’ ‘we’re laying low until we understand what everything will look like in six months.
This strategy of lying low is based on reasoning that I think may not stand up.
First, the lie low strategy presupposes that the administration is not aware of the past statements of organizations and leaders, or what used to be on their websites. Second, it presumes a logical decision-making process that isn’t in evidence so far in the administration’s actions; their recent list of 60 colleges and universities that might lose federal funding because of “allegations of antisemitic discrimination and harassment” feels almost random. The list omits some institutions that had large-scale protests related to Gaza and didn’t respond to them and includes others that cracked down hard on pro-Palestinian protests. Finally, this strategy is rooted in an overly narrow definition of risk. As I have argued previously, “The risks we consider should not only be risks of action that are parochial to our institutions, but also risks of inaction — to our missions, values, the people we seek to help, and, indeed, our democracy.”
Assumption Number Four Worth Reconsidering: There is an inside game to be played in Washington.
In mid-November, I heard the argument that careful relationship cultivation with those on both sides of the aisle in Congress would prove invaluable because there were influential members in the President’s party who were friends of the sector – and would stand in the way of any extreme threats. This seemed plausible at the time.
Today, however, it’s clear Congressional Republicans will not stand in the way of the executive branch. In the first two months of the new administration, we have consistently seen this, from lockstep confirmations of cabinet secretaries to the gutting of foreign aid. While it’s possible this will change if economic indicators continue to move in the wrong direction and elected officials feel a need to respond to their worried constituents, that seems unlikely in the near-term — and considering the speed with which we seem to be veering toward autocracy, the near-term matters a great deal.
Given this, the inside game is much less likely to prove fruitful than aggressive and public challenges to the constitutionality of the administration’s actions, including legal actions. Yet, of the D.C.-based philanthropy and nonprofit membership organizations focused on policy related to the sector, only the National Council of Nonprofits (NCN) seems to have taken this approach.
NCN has had real success to date, winning temporary restraining orders and then an injunction to stop the effort to broadly pause federal funding. NCN has also become the definitive source for information on the evolving situation among nonprofits, holding webinars attracting thousands of nonprofit leaders. Their success is all the more remarkable given that their staff numbers just nine(!) and their CEO, Diane Yentel, started her job in January.
It may be prudent to continue to cultivate relationships inside the Beltway in the hope that they’re valuable eventually — if and when the political winds shift. But we shouldn’t bet too much on this approach right now given what we have seen the administration seek to do in just its first two months.
To continue to believe the inside game approach alone will protect us is, I fear, to engage in wishful thinking.
So, if these assumptions are misplaced, what then to do?
I can’t claim to know exactly what will work in this difficult context. But I suggest we can learn from examples around the globe. A year ago, Rachel Kleinfeld of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace warned of the closing of civic space in the U.S. and said this about lessons from other countries, writing (bolding my own):
When philanthropists first faced challenges to their grantees overseas, they viewed the attacks as disparate and disconnected. Many tried to address issues individually and quietly. Organizations sometimes thought they could quietly cut off more controversial grantees or shut down targeted parts of their portfolios to salvage the rest. They would reduce future work that governments might deem to be sensitive or refocus on service delivery rather than advocacy. Philanthropists and organizations that had not yet been caught in the closing of space undertook more risk analysis. They self-censored to avoid future problems. And they distanced themselves from disparaged organizations and more vocal donors in the hope they could remain below the radar. Many adopted the strategy advocated in the joke about hunters — one need not outrun the bear, just the other fellow being chased.
These tactics failed. Threats proved to be opportunistic and unpredictable, moving from sector to sector where politicians felt they could gain traction. Humanitarian groups like Mercy Corps and Save the Children, whose work did not touch politics or advocacy, found themselves facing the same burdens as democracy and human rights groups. Problems that initially affected grantees soon moved upstream to target leading-edge philanthropists … but distancing from [those that were targeted] … did not help. Instead, the challenge spread to the broader philanthropic field, forcing donors out of some countries altogether.
Kleinfeld’s article is well worth reading in its entirety for the eerie similarities between what we are seeing here and what has happened abroad. It also includes her recommendations for what funders can effectively do.
I would suggest we need to start with an acknowledgment that we’re in a very different situation than many thought we would be in just a few months ago. Then — and only then — can we effectively plot the next steps.
Phil Buchanan is president of the Center for Effective Philanthropy, author of the 2019 book Giving Done Right: Effective Philanthropy and Making Every Dollar Count, and co-host of the Giving Done Right podcast.
