Study Finds Widespread Self-Censorship in the Philanthropic Sector

Since the start of Donald Trump’s second term, his administration has targeted huge swaths of the nonprofit sector for upholding the very principles they exist to protect—from embracing diversity, equity, and inclusion to defending the rights of non-citizen Americans to standing up for the freedom and independence of the press.

The Donald Trump administration signaled early on, via a sweeping executive memorandum issued in February, its intention to target nonprofits “that undermine the national interest” for “review” and defunding.

Many nonprofits face a very real bind when it comes to avoiding this arbitrary and potentially existential targeting by the Trump administration, on the one hand, and standing publicly by their values, on the other.

“Some funders have rewritten home page headers, menus, and even entire blocks of content to remove references to race, diversity, equity, or inclusion.”

NPQ reported as early as February that while Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) team was slashing grant funding across the government, many nonprofits were actively “scrubbing” their websites of language that might draw the scrutiny of the Trump administration.

In a survey released that same month, The Chronicle of Philanthropy found that nearly two-thirds of nonprofits and nearly a third of foundations were concerned about retaliation if they spoke out about Trump administration policies.

Now, a recent report by the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP), based on a review of nearly 800 foundation websites, finds that 73 percent have been silent amid unprecedented attacks on democratic norms and marginal groups. And nearly 10 percent of the foundations have actively scrubbed their websites of content that might court controversy.

“Some funders have rewritten home page headers, menus, and even entire blocks of content to remove references to race, diversity, equity, or inclusion,” the report noted. “Others have gone further, disappearing sections of their website that had formerly described their ‘commitment’ to diversity and inclusion in their funding.”

The NCRP study focuses on Candid’s Foundation 1000, the largest private and community foundations in the United States that collectively give more than $25 billion annually.

“These foundations often forget that they’re powerful,” Katherine Ponce,  NCRP’s senior research manager for special projects, told NPQ. “And so, silence is really loud when, in a really difficult moment, the leaders of our sector are not saying anything.”

Documenting Self-Censorship

The NCRP took an innovative approach to its study. Its researchers wrote a computer script to examine changes between versions of foundation websites before Trump returned to office (using the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine) and their current pages. NCRP narrowed its study group to the 773 foundations that have active websites, with content that is updated on a regular basis.

NCRP focused on websites primarily because foundations still tend to use them to project their “public image,” Ponce explained, as opposed to other social media channels. And the study found that 8.3 percent of foundations had made changes to their websites since the Trump administration began its anti-DEI campaign. A few examples include:

• A reference to “Black, Brown and all people of color” became “All people.”
• “Equity and Diversity” became “Building social capital.”
• “LGBTQ+ youth” became “Youth initiative.”

While just 8 percent of foundations had altered their websites, this group plays an outsized role in philanthropy, providing roughly 20 percent of annual giving ($5.7 billion) and nearly 25 percent of giving for marginalized communities, according to NCRP.

Legitimate Concerns of Political Backlash

To be sure, foundations, especially large ones, have legitimate concerns about being targeted by the Trump administration over what it’s termed “illegal DEIA [Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility] policies.” An executive order in January tasked the Justice Department with pursuing nine potential investigations of corporations and “large non-profit corporations or associations, foundations with assets of 500 million dollars or more.”

“These foundations often forget that they’re powerful… silence is really loud when, in a really difficult moment, the leaders of our sector are not saying anything.”

Whether the Trump administration could take action against a private philanthropy for exercising its free speech rights is another question. Multiple nonprofits and nonprofit coalitions have sued the White House on the basis of free speech, among other arguments.

Indeed, despite the chilling effect demonstrated by the new report, many in the nonprofit and foundation community have recognized the need to take a more vocal and unified position amid the current threats.

In April, the Council on Foundations issued a statement, which more than 700 foundations have now signed, declaring in part: “We are united behind our First Amendment right to give as an expression of our own distinct values.”

Ponce, for her part, said she didn’t condemn organizations that have engaged in self-censorship: “I think they probably think that if they can protect themselves, they’re able to keep doing the good work they do and fund the organizations that need it.”

But, she added, “I do think it deserves a more thoughtful response than maybe what is the most risk-averse answer.”

A Defiant Minority

Undergirding efforts to promote a more forceful response in the philanthropic community is a core principle of anti-authoritarian resistance: to “not obey in advance,” as history professor Timothy Snyder wrote in his influential book, On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century.

“Most of the power of authoritarianism is freely given,” Snyder continued. “In times like these, individuals think ahead about what a more repressive government will want, and then offer themselves without being asked. A citizen who adapts in this way is teaching power what it can do.”

“Ultimately, there is no level of silence or compliance that will satisfy the Trumpist movement’s well-articulated desire to transform not just the country’s government but its society and culture into their narrow image.”

The NCRP study singles out a significant minority of foundations that are bucking the tendency to obey in advance. It identifies 8 percent of foundations as “defiant,” that is, those that have publicly expressed opposition to the Trump administration’s policies. Another 11 percent were identified as “mobilized.” Their websites outline how they are countering the Trump administration’s policies and directing resources to the groups most hurt by these policies. Among the “mobilized” foundations identified by NCRP are the Meyer Memorial Trust and M. J. Murdock Charitable Trust.

Still, this leaves nearly three-quarters of philanthropies that have remained silent, an approach the report considers misguided at best. “Ultimately, there is no level of silence or compliance that will satisfy the Trumpist movement’s well-articulated desire to transform not just the country’s government but its society and culture into their narrow image,” the report states.

As Ponce put it: “[Some foundations] are way too comfortable with lengthy processes and red tape and a bureaucracy, which really does not match this moment. This moment requires urgency and bold action. And if we want to have a democracy to keep fighting for, we can’t be silent right now.”