The list of institutions negotiating with or capitulating to the Donald Trump administration seems to grow longer every day, including universities, law firms, and companies that have quietly scrapped diversity programs.
However, on April 9, a coalition of foundations defiantly bucked this trend. The leaders of three prominent US philanthropies—the McKnight Foundation, the Freedom Foundation, and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation—preemptively called for resistance and solidarity. Suggesting that it was only a matter of time before foundations were targeted as part of the administration’s wide-ranging campaign against all things perceived as diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA), the leaders called on philanthropic groups to sign a statement issued by the Council on Foundations.
By the end of the week, about 20 groups had answered the call. Less than a week later, the number of signatories has grown more than tenfold. At the time of publication, 394 organizations have signed the statement since the initial call.
“We wanted to make sure we were speaking in solidarity,” Sam Bressi, the president and CEO of the Lancaster County Community Foundation—one of the early signers—told NPQ. “We’re prepared to obey the law, but we’ll fight together against things that would diminish our ability to express our free speech rights, including through giving.”
A Unique Position to Resist
Philanthropic foundations were singled out explicitly in January’s White House executive order concerning “illegal DEI and DEIA policies,” which has been used since then to justify funding freezes targeting nonprofits and universities. The order tasks departments to “identify up to nine potential civil compliance investigations of publicly traded corporations, large non-profit corporations or associations, foundations with assets of 500 million dollars or more.”
The foundations that have signed the Council of Foundations’ statement include some of the largest in the United States, such as the Ford Foundation and the Open Society Foundations. (Although not every major foundation has signed at this point; the Gates Foundation, which is considered the world’s largest philanthropy with around $70 billion in assets, has yet to join the statement.)
“[Kara Mikulich] pointed specifically to the call to not ‘obey in advance.’”
The vast majority of signatories are smaller charities, many of them community foundations that pool donations in specific cities, towns, and regions to support local causes.
Kara Mikulich, the interim president of the Berkshire Taconic Community Foundation, which operates in three abutting counties in New York, Massachusetts, and Connecticut, said the statement issued by the three foundation leaders immediately resonated with her.
She pointed specifically to the call to not “obey in advance,” through altering missions and programs or downplaying commitments to causes like social justice, out of fear.
“That is the best possible advice that you can find when you’re in an environment in which we’re really seeing this potential turn toward authoritarianism,” Mikulich told NPQ.
She noted that community foundations like hers are in some ways “fortunate” because they have independent funding sources that are not reliant on federal grants: “We recognize that many of our grantees that do receive federal funds, they’re in a very different position from us.”
Philanthropic leaders say the fact that many nonprofits—and many of the people they serve—find themselves in a precarious position in the current political and economic climate is a reason to redouble their moral and financial support.
“That’s why foundations exist. We exist to strengthen the nonprofits that meet so many community needs…and they’re especially vital for our most vulnerable neighbors,” Mikulich said. “We fund a lot of basic needs around food, medical care, and early learning.”
The work supported by community foundations and others around the country will likely become even more vital given the deep cuts to social programs championed by the Trump administration and spearheaded by the Department of Government Efficiency or DOGE. Nonprofit organizations, on average, get roughly 15 to 20 percent of their funding from private foundations, while a slightly larger share comes from government sources.
Foundation leaders stress that, while priorities differ among organizations and donors, there is a consensus that they should be able to act according to their consciences and the needs of their communities.
“Within our community foundation, we have donors who have very different priorities,” said Bressi. “All of those funders should be able to exercise our free speech rights to give to and to support the causes we care about. We shouldn’t have the federal government come in and dictate our giving and our priorities.”
Sign up for our free newsletters
Subscribe to NPQ's newsletters to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.
By signing up, you agree to our privacy policy and terms of use, and to receive messages from NPQ and our partners.
As Kevin Corcoran, the strategy director at the Lumina Foundation, put it in an interview with NPQ: “Once you have to worry about everything you’re saying the question is, ‘Are you living in a free society?’”
The Importance of Solidarity Under Authoritarian Regimes
The United States has by far the largest philanthropic sector in the world: 60 percent of global foundation assets are held by US organizations, totaling close to $1 trillion, according to the Harvard Kennedy School’s Global Philanthropy Report.
In targeting the funders of civil society, some of the administration’s policies bear a resemblance to those of Vladimir Putin in Russia and Viktor Orbán in Hungary. Putin and Orbán have made weakening civil society groups and their funders central to their consolidation of power, selectively writing and enforcing laws to target opposition groups and those espousing liberal values.
The fact that foundations are joining forces and mobilizing now, before being targeted, could prove to be a sound strategy.
Andrea Pető, a Hungarian historian, recently told NPQ that liberal-minded groups failed to mount enough resistance in the early stages of Orbán’s rise to power. The fact that foundations are joining forces and mobilizing now, before being targeted, could prove to be a sound strategy.
Fear and mistrust of others often powers authoritarian populist parties through division, which is accomplished by providing a common enemy. Anti-immigration often tends to be the scapegoat of economic crisis and the center of campaign promises—look no further than at the rise of Germany’s Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party or Trump’s rhetoric toward immigrants during his presidential campaign.
But as john a. powell candidly pointed out, “The solution to othering is bridging, not more othering.”
powell continues, writing:
While many social justice activists may view “breaking” as a way of protecting themselves from external forces who seek to blame, injure, or divide, this response harms movements’ ability to build power. As we know, there is power in diversity, numbers, and transformation—all of which require cross-group engagement, not merely in-group bonding.
This act of “bridging,” at its core, is about uplifting the voices of those unheard or acknowledging the identities of those ignored. According to powell, movements are built and strengthened by defending “the rights of those most vulnerable to attack from anti-democratic actors, while strengthening our democracies and continuing the perpetual work of making social structures more inclusive and just.”
Part of this comes, in turn, from acts such as the Council of Foundations’ and philanthropic leaders’ public statement. Whether this act—and others, such as Harvard University’s refusal to comply with the Trump administration’s demands—yields meaningful change remains to be seen.
As we know, there is power in diversity, numbers, and transformation—all of which require cross-group engagement, not merely in-group bonding.
While that may take time, that doesn’t mean there is no further movement following that initial statement.
Since then, on Thursday, April 17, the Council of Foundations, along with Independent Sector, National Council of Nonprofits, and United Philanthropy Forum, released a joint statement opposing the Trump administration’s threat of revoking Harvard’s tax-exempt status.
The statement goes on the remind the Internal Revenue Service of “its vital role as an independent agency, one that must carry out its responsibilities free from political pressure or influence.”
“This moment is about more than one institution,” the statement declares. “It is about how thought, knowledge and expression are essential to our freedom and to our national identity, and must be protected.”
In this moment, more than ever it is crucial to stand in solidarity and hold power to account, according to the latest joint statement: “A robust civil society cannot survive when political leaders decide which institutions deserve protections based on ideology or political convenience.”
