Storm Warning
Philanthropy leaders say charitable organizations could be next in Trump's firing line— but must 'lock arms' now to resist
“America’s philanthropic community cannot wait like sitting ducks,” says John Palfrey, the president of the $7 billion, Chicago-based MacArthur Foundation. “…We must get our legal teams on speed dial, crisis plans dusted off, and reserves lined up. …We must also link arms and stand together in a way that lets us serve every community in America.”
NEW YORK—Back in January, before his inauguration, Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social: “How do so-called ‘non-profits’ get away with spending all of their time and money on ‘getting Donald Trump.’ That’s not the deal. We are watching these thugs and sleaze bags closely!”
A month later, during his first weeks back in the White House, Trump directed federal agencies to review all federal funding for nonprofits —because, he alleged, “they are engaged in actions that actively undermine the security, prosperity and safety of the American people.”
Since then, many of the nation’s social good advocacy organizations and philanthropic foundations—chiefly those pro-democracy causes which Trump says challenge his MAGA views and policies—have been bracing for Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to come knocking.
This past week, civil sector leaders got news that DOGE may have already arrived.
Early Warning
The news came from Nicholas Turner, the president of the New York-based Vera Institute of Justice (Vera)—one of the most prominent criminal justice nonprofits in the country. Turner sounded the alarm in a widely distributed press release, revealing that DOGE lawyers had recently contacted the Institute to assign someone to embed with the organization—to watch over its finances and operations. DOGE also told Turner it would be installing similar monitors at all nonprofit organizations receiving funds appropriated by Congress.
“…This was a terrifying harbinger of what might be a DOGE agenda to start infiltrating many nonprofits that receive federal funding,” Turner said. “We wanted other nonprofits to know so they could prepare.”
Turner then took things a step further. Vera’s attorneys asked DOGE what legal basis it had to investigate a nonprofit. Turner said the call seemed like the early stages of a “hostile takeover.” [The Trump administration, two weeks earlier, had already sent Turner notice that Vera’s five federal grants, totaling about $5 million, had been terminated.] According to the call transcript, which Turner shared with reporters—and once it became clear to DOGE officials that Vera’s federal funding had already been cut—they ended the meeting. Vera, at least for now, is no longer a target.
Political Headwinds
Mike Berkowitz, executive director of the Democracy Funders Network, wrote recently in The Chronicle of Philanthropy that “it is not right to threaten to silence and shutter organizations” by going after their assets or their tax-exempt status “on the basis of their ideals (rather than) the legality of their actions.”
Sounds good, but will more nonprofits be able to follow Vera’s lead?
Historically, the civil society sector has been a staunchly non-partisan, pro-democracy ally of the government, acting with private donors and nonprofit organizations across the country to help alleviate poverty, lower utility bills, help victims of domestic abuse and provide food to those without, among thousands of other services offered to help those in need. USAID had been an example of that kind of nonprofit-government partnership. But over the past decade, the number of partisan political action nonprofits has grown while the number of donors in the U.S. has been decreasing.
Nonprofit work is also becoming more complex. A new survey by The Center for Effective Philanthropy found that “the overwhelming majority” of 585 nonprofit leaders polled believe that “today’s political climate is negatively affecting their organizations” and that “worries about current and future funding levels, as well as changing funder priorities, are top of mind.”
Vera has an annual budget of around $45 million—larger than many other nonprofits. Those which have been squeezed by the sector’s recent slide in private donations are now either cozying up to Trump, or laying low—outside the public eye—while others say it’s time for civil sector leaders to speak up, or forever hold their peace.
Is America’s civil society sector strong enough (or brave enough) now to amass enough reach, influence and momentum to effectively resist what some are now calling Trump’s “authoritarian power grab” to reward ideological compliance while punishing what Trump sees as dissent?
Starting Line
Here’s how some civil society leaders and organizations have begun to speak up and step forward to start organizing a sector-wide bid for resistance:
The MacArthur Foundation. John Palfrey, MacArthur’s President, told global leaders earlier this month at the Skoll World Forum in Oxford that “we cannot wait like sitting ducks. We have an opportunity to unite and advance.” Palfrey, along with Tonya Allen of the McKnight Foundation and Deepak Bhargava of the Freedom Together Foundation, co-authored an article in the Nonprofit Quarterly that announced a public solidarity campaign called Unite in Advance, to protect and “support philanthropy’s freedom to give.”
The Council on Foundations, as part of that effort, put out a “Public Statement From Philanthropy,” urging grant makers to stand together against any effort by the government to take away their freedom to allocate the donor dollars they raised and were given by donors to invest. “In this moment,” the statement reads, “we face the threat of governmental attacks on our ability to carry out this vital mission. …We don’t all share the same beliefs or priorities, and neither do our donors or the communities we serve. But as charitable giving institutions, we are united behind our First Amendment right to give, as an expression of our own distinct values. Especially in this time of great need, we must have the freedom to direct our resources to a wide variety of important services, issues, and places, to improve lives today and build a stronger future for our country. The health and safety of the American people, our nation’s economic stability, and the vibrancy of our democracy depend on it.” Though mostly symbolic, 434 grant making organizations have so far added their names to the document, with hundreds more expected.
The National Council of Nonprofits circulated a bulletin Monday called Myth v. Reality to its 32,000-member nonprofits in 47 states, and posted it on LinkedIn to explain how and why “the Executive Branch and President Trump lack the authority to target nonprofit organizations.” The council’s new President and CEO, Diane Yentel, also issued a statement on LinkedIn this morning that read: “The Trump administration may, as part of its broad assault on civil society, soon issue orders aimed at directly harming or destroying certain nonprofit organizations. We won’t stand for it, and will continue a robust defense of the nonprofit sector and its essential work. Please remember that the Trump Administration does not have the authority to unilaterally target nonprofits. Any Executive Orders will be the first word on these attempts, not the last.”
Harvard University. Last week, Harvard rejected the Trump administration’s demands that it submit to extensive government oversight and overhaul its governance, admissions and hiring practices, calling the Trump administration’s orders “illegal and unconstitutional.” Trump responded by saying it would block Harvard from receiving $2.2 billion in federal grants and $60 million in research contracts. Yesterday, Harvard sued the Trump administration in federal court, saying “Harvard will not surrender its independence nor relinquish its constitutional rights.” Harvard’s President Alan Garber says Trump is trying to “gain control of academic decision-making at Harvard.” The Trump administration has made similar oversight demands of Columbia, Stanford, Princeton, Cornell and Northwestern Universities.
Innovation, required
Jane Wales, the founder and executive director of the Aspen Institute’s Program on Philanthropy and Social Innovation, says that in the current political climate, the nonprofit sector “can no longer rely on responsive government to pick up some amazing new strategy that philanthropy has piloted and scale it.” She said conversations among national and international philanthropy leaders “are happening across ideology. It’s not a Democrat-versus-Republican conversation. …There are ideas for new models for philanthropy out there. Let’s unearth those ideas.”
Wales also shared the views of many nonprofit leaders attending the Skoll conference, saying philanthropy needs to “double down” on community. “It is in our local communities that we solve shared problems, often through local nonprofit organizations, independent associations and mutual networks,” Wales said. “It’s where self-governance is practiced. Community foundations are a key vehicle for that. We need to devise a business model that lets community foundations do more to build community and ensure a robust civil society.”
Have a comment? Please share it here. We love, as always, hearing your input!