
The government was once a steady partner for nonprofits. That's changing.
Advertisement
In the early days of his second term, President Trump froze, cut or threatened to cut a huge range of social services programs from public safety to early childhood education to food assistance and services for refugee resettlement. Staffing cuts to federal agencies have also contributed to delays and uncertainty around future grant funds. Altogether, his policies are poised to upend decades of partnerships the federal government has built with nonprofits to help people in their communities.
This vast and interconnected set of programs funded by taxpayers has been significantly dismantled in just months, nonprofit leaders, researchers and funders say. And even deeper, permanent cuts are still possible. That uncertainty is also taking a toll on their staff and communities, the leaders said.
In response to questions about the cuts to grant funding, White House spokesperson Kush Desai said, 'Instead of government largesse that's often riddled with corruption, waste, fraud, and abuse, the Trump administration is focused on unleashing America's economic resurgence to fuel Americans' individual generosity.'
Advertisement
He pointed to a new deduction for charitable giving included in the recently passed tax and spending law that he said encourages Americans' 'innate altruism.'
But experts say private donations will not be enough to meet the needs.
In 2021, $267 billion was granted to nonprofits from all levels of government, according to an analysis by the Urban Institute published in February. While the data includes tax-exempt organizations like local food pantries as well as universities and nonprofit hospitals, it underestimates the total funding that nonprofits receive from the government. It includes grants, but not contracts for services nor reimbursements from programs like Medicare. It also excludes the smallest nonprofits, which file a different, abbreviated tax form.
However, the figure does give a sense of the scale of the historic — and, until now, solid — relationship between the public sector and nonprofits over the last 50 years. Now, this system is at risk and leaders like Price say the cost of undoing it will be 'catastrophic.'
Government funding to nonprofits reaches far and wide
The Urban Institute's analysis shows more than half of nonprofits in every state received government grants in 2021.
In the vast majority of the country, the typical nonprofit would run a deficit without government funding. Only in two Congressional districts — one including parts of Orange County, California, and another in the suburbs west of Atlanta — would a typical nonprofit not be in the red if they lost all of their public grant funding, the analysis found.
Advertisement
But in Orange County, famous for its stunning beaches, mansions and extraordinary wealth, funders, nonprofits and researchers said that finding surprised them. In part, that's because of major economic inequalities in the county and its high cost of living.
Taryn Palumbo, executive director of Orange County Grantmakers, said nonprofits are not as optimistic about their resiliency.
'They are seeing their budgets getting slashed by 50% or 40%,' she said. 'Or they're having to look to restructure programs that they are running or how they're serving or the number of people that they're serving.'
Last year, the local Samueli Foundation commissioned a study of nonprofit needs in part because they were significantly increasing their grantmaking from $18.8 million in 2022 to an estimated $125 million in 2025. They found local nonprofits reported problems maintaining staff, a deep lack of investment in their operations and a dearth of flexible reserve funds.
The foundation responded by opening applications for both unrestricted grants and to support investments in buildings or land. Against this $10 million in potential awards, they received 1,242 applications for more than $250 million, said Lindsey Spindle, the foundation's president.
'It tells a really stark picture of how unbelievably deep and broad the need is,' Spindle said. 'There is not a single part of the nonprofit sector that has not responded to these funds. Every topic you can think of: poverty, animal welfare, arts and culture, civil rights, domestic abuse... They're telling us loud and clear that they are struggling to stay alive.'
Charitable organizations have held a special role in the US
One of the founding stories of the United States is the importance of the voluntary sector, of neighbors helping neighbors and of individuals solving social problems. While other liberal democracies built strong welfare states, the U.S. has preferred to look to the charitable sector to provide a substantial part of social services.
Advertisement
Since the 1960s, the federal government has largely funded those social services by giving money to nonprofits, universities, hospitals and companies. Several new policies converged at that time to create this system, including the expansion of the federal income tax during World War II and the codification of tax-exempt charitable organizations in 1954. Then, the Kennedy and Johnson administrations started to fund nonprofits directly with federal money as part of urban renewal and Great Society programs.
'It was a key approach of midcentury liberalism of addressing issues of poverty, sort of making a reference to civil rights and racial inequality, but not growing the size of government,' said Claire Dunning, an assistant professor of public policy at the University of Maryland, College Park. Conservatives also tended to support working through local, private, nonprofit organizations, though for different reasons than liberals, she said.
With various expansions and cuts during different presidencies, the federal government has continued to fund nonprofits at significant levels, essentially hiding the government in plain sight, Dunning said. The size and importance of the nonprofit apparatus became suddenly visible in January when the Trump administration sought to freeze federal grants and loans.
Dunning said the speed, hostility and scale of the proposed cuts broke with the long legacy of bipartisan support for nonprofits.
'People had no idea that the public health information or services they are receiving, their Meals on Wheels program, their afterschool tutoring program, the local park cleanup were actually enabled by public government dollars,' she said.
Advertisement
A coalition of nonprofits challenged the freeze in court in a case that is ongoing, but in the six months since, the administration has cut, paused or discontinued a vast array of programs and grants. The impacts of some of those policy changes have been felt immediately, but many will not hit the ground until current grant funding runs out, which could be in months or years depending on the programs.
Private donations can't replace scale of government support
Friendship Shelter in Laguna Beach has an annual budget of about $15 million, $11.5 million of which comes from government sources. Price said the government funding is 'braided' in complex ways to house and support 330 people. They've already lost a rental reimbursement grant from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. But the Samueli Foundation stepped in to backfill those lost funds for three years.
That kind of support is extremely unusual, she said.
'We don't know of any large-scale private philanthropy response to keeping people housed because it's a forever commitment,' Price said. 'That person is in housing and is going to need the subsidy for the rest of their lives. These are seriously disabled people with multiple issues that they're facing that they need help with.'
She also believes that even in a wealthy place like Orange County, private donors are not prepared to give five, six or eight times as much as they do currently. Donors already subsidize their government grants, which she said pay for 69% of the actual program costs.
'We are providing this service to our government at a loss, at a business loss, and then making up that loss with these Medicaid dollars and also the private fundraising,' she said.
Advertisement
She said her organization has discussed having to put people out of housing back on to the streets if the government funding is cut further.
'That would be, I think, a signal to me that something is deeply, deeply wrong with how we're looking at these issues,' said Price, adding, 'If I was placing a bet, I would bet that we have enough good still in government to prevent that.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Starmer to convene urgent Cabinet meeting on Gaza to set out pathway to peace
Sir Keir Starmer will convene an urgent Cabinet meeting on Tuesday as he seeks to set out a pathway to peace in Gaza. The Prime Minister will call senior ministers in during the summer recess for the meeting on Gaza on Tuesday afternoon, the PA news agency understands. Sir Keir shared plans he is working on with France and Germany to 'bring about a lasting peace' with US President Donald Trump when they met in Scotland, Downing Street said. And he plans to share details with Arab states and other key allies in the coming days. Sir Keir is facing mounting calls to recognise Palestinian statehood immediately. The Prime Minister's official spokesman said: 'This week, the Prime Minister is focused on a pathway to peace to ensure immediate relief for those on the ground, and a sustainable route to a two-state solution. 'We are clear that the recognition of the Palestinian state is a matter of when, not if, but it must be one of the steps on the path to a two-state solution as part of a wider plan that delivers lasting security for both Palestinians and Israelis.' Amid international alarm over starvation in Gaza, Israel announced at the weekend that it would suspend fighting in three areas for 10 hours a day and open secure routes for aid delivery. The UK confirmed it was taking part in airdrops of aid into the territory. Aid agencies have welcomed the new measures but said they were not enough to counter the rising hunger in the Palestinian territory. Sir Keir said that the British public is 'revolted' at the scenes of desperation in Gaza as he appeared alongside Mr Trump at his Turnberry golf course on Monday. 'It's a humanitarian crisis, it's an absolute catastrophe. 'Nobody wants to see that. I think people in Britain are revolted at seeing what they're seeing on their screens, so we've got to get to that ceasefire.' The US president hinted at sticking points in US-led negotiations over a peace deal, saying Palestinian militant group Hamas had become 'very difficult to deal with' in recent weeks. He suggested this was because they only held a small remaining number of Israeli hostages. Sir Keir has likened the plan he is working on with France and Germany to the coalition of the willing, the international effort to support Ukraine towards a lasting peace. The Prime Minister's official spokesman said the plan would build 'on the collaboration to date that paves the way to a long-term solution on security in the region'. Sir Keir is meanwhile facing calls from a growing number of MPs to recognise a Palestinian state immediately. More than 250 cross-party MPs have now signed a letter calling for ministers to take the step, up from 221 on Friday. Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds on Monday dismissed the idea that there is a split at the top of Government over when to recognise a Palestinian state, saying 'we all want it to happen'. Health Secretary Wes Streeting is among those to have signalled a desire for hastened action, calling for recognition 'while there's still a state of Palestine left to recognise', while Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood said the Government wants to recognise a Palestinian state 'in contribution to a peace process'.


New York Post
12 minutes ago
- New York Post
Trump is right to move up his too-generous peace deadline for Putin
Kudos to President Trump for realizing that his 50-day deadline for Vladimir Putin to reach a peace deal with Ukraine was far too generous — and wholly unnecessary. On Monday, the prez told reporters he's giving the Kremlin just 10 to 12 more days to agree to a cease-fire — or face real consequences. 'There's no reason to wait' the full 50 days before pummeling Russia with sanctions, potentially including a whopping 100% tariff on countries that import Russian goods, Trump declared. Advertisement He's right. As we've pointed out, his original deadline of Sept. 2 just gave Russia more time to stack up more dead bodies. Putin's goal was never peace; it is and has always been the total obliteration of Ukraine. Mad Vlad has openly operated in bad faith, telling the president what he wants to hear in one-on-one calls and then unleashing hell on Ukrainians right after. Advertisement That was exactly Putin's response to Trump's original 50-day deadline: Hours after the threat, Russia hit civilian sites in Ukraine. The message was clear: You keep giving me more string, and I'll keep stringing you along. Moscow has played tough, with one top Russian official brushing off Trump's sanctions threat as 'a theatrical ultimatum.' Advertisement But the Kremlin should worry; Russia's economy is a house on wobbly stilts. Its population is shrinking, inflation is skyrocketing and Putin has poured at least 40% of the national budget into his war machine, even as his people struggle to buy basic goods. Russia's Minister for Economic Development Maxim Reshetnikov is warning that the country is facing a recession. Meanwhile, China has been propping up Russia since the start of the war, buying hundreds of billions in goods and shipping in products of its own. India, too, imports Russian oil. Advertisement The threat of steep tariffs on these countries could get them to do business elsewhere. And that could deal a devastating blow to Russia. It's that logic that has fueled not only Trump's secondary-sanctions threat but a bill by Sen. Lindsey Graham that would slam buyers of Russian oil with a 500% tariff. Fact is, if Putin has his way, the war won't be over until Ukraine is entirely under his control. And hundreds of thousands more lives are lost. It's long past time for the West to ratchet up the pressure and make the war too costly for Putin to keep it going. Trump has no choice but to make the Russian strongman feel some real pain. And now's the time to do it.


New York Post
12 minutes ago
- New York Post
Trump's trade wins shock the experts — who are blind to business reality
If America is in the midst of a trade war, the question we have to ask is: Are we tired of winning yet? President 'Donald Trump reaps $50bn tariff haul as world 'chickens out,'' reads the Financial Times headline. 'Only China and Canada have retaliated against US president's tariff war,' its subhead adds. 'In the Trump-dominated global economy, the US gets plenty but gives nothing in return,' reads a rueful post on X from Axios — another publication with an upmarket readership — promoting an article titled, 'Trump trade deals prove access to the US still matters above all else.' Populist publications have a different take on Trump's spate of trade victories. 'Trump's trade deal bloc — let's call it The Free World — now encompasses 57% of global GDP . . . 40% of total global trade in goods,' and '18% of the world's population,' according to Breitbart's John Carney. The president has only been in office six months, and his tariffs haven't even been in place that long, but already the results are undeniable. At a time when there otherwise seems to be no end to federal deficits, Trump's trade policy put the federal government in the black for the month of June, with a $27 billion surplus — and, as it happens, about $27 billion in tariff revenue. It's one thing that Trump so often surprises political opponents who underestimate him at election time and can't understand the root of his appeal. What's more remarkable is Trump seems to defy the very laws of economics — or rather, the law as laid down by economists. Other social sciences have lately lost credibility thanks to a 'republication crisis' that shows how the results reported in leading journals of psychology and other fields all too often fail to be repeated when experiments are conducted anew and data are re-examined. Every morning, the NY POSTcast offers a deep dive into the headlines with the Post's signature mix of politics, business, pop culture, true crime and everything in between. Subscribe here! Will the economics profession — whose mainstream is fervently in favor of free trade and is convinced tariffs are madness — face a similar reckoning for getting this test wrong? Trump can do things the economists say can't be done because he approaches trade the way he conducts his real-estate business: It's a negotiation, and leverage is what counts. Precisely because the United States has such an enormous trade deficit with the rest of the world — amounting to more than $918 billion in 2024 — other nations depend on access to our market as an outlet for their goods. The size and wealth of the American consumer base is unmatchable, and countries that get cut off from it can't easily make up the difference by selling more goods and services somewhere else. Whole industries in Europe and Asia would collapse without access to the American consumer. Trump is willing to give them access — for a price. Instead of using punitive tariffs to exclude foreign goods altogether, Trump is willing to strike a deal with anyone to allow goods to be sold in America at a price that makes the trade worthwhile for Americans and foreign companies alike. The hitch: The deal must be on terms favorable for American workers and industry. The president's arrangement with the European Union levies a 15% tariff on most EU goods — but that's peanuts compared to the 30% Trump was threatening if Europe didn't cooperate. The deal calls for new European investments of $600 billion in America, as well as for EU members to buy more energy and military equipment from us. The 15% tariff is higher than what European producers were paying before Trump returned to the White House — high enough that American producers will get some protective advantage, but not so high that foreign companies won't be able to compete. Start your day with all you need to know Morning Report delivers the latest news, videos, photos and more. Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters That's crucial because competition is what keeps prices down for American consumers. Foreign firms can't easily 'pass on' a tax on their goods — which is what a tariff is — to the Americans who buy their products when those same Americans can choose from domestic producers instead. The modest protection a 15% tariff affords gives more investors at home a reason to put their capital into American companies — which is good for our workforce and consumers alike. It means more jobs and more goods; more money in Americans' pockets and more stock on the shelves, which keeps prices down. There's risk in all this, but the upside opportunity is much greater, as entrepreneurs here and abroad recognize. For the Europeans, it's a no-brainer: The American market is so rife with profit possibilities that a 15% access fee is a very modest cost of doing business. American businesses should recognize their opportunity as well — they're native to a market the entire world is desperate to be in, and they should use that advantage to the fullest, investing at home and making the sales that foreign firms are so eager to make here. In this trade war, all Americans are winning — except, perhaps, the overeducated prisoners of the Ivory Tower. Daniel McCarthy is the editor of Modern Age: A Conservative Review and editor-at-large of The American Conservative.