After George Floyd's murder, Boston groups pledged $1 billion toward equity causes. Where did it go?
Related
:
Advertisement
But five years later, it's difficult to discern what all that money bought. Anecdotally, those in Greater Boston on both the giving and receiving end agree the energy for social change has waned. People moved on — and took their money with them.
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
'That's part of the problem that we see in philanthropy over time,' said Shanique Rodriguez, executive director of the Massachusetts Voter Table, a nonprofit coalition of more than 40 advocacy groups. 'It's whatever is popular, whatever is urgent, whatever fire is happening right now that we see philanthropy put its energy behind.'
A mural was painted at the George Floyd memorial outside Cup Foods in Minneapolis on June 25, 2020.
Leila Navidi/Associated Press
In just four months, the Trump administration has rattled the landscape for such initiatives. The White House has targeted diversity, equity, and inclusion — and anyone who supports those initiatives. The chilling effect has hit donors and nonprofits alike, with some rescinding dollars and others scrubbing their programs of DEI-related language, while a select few approach the threat head-on.
Advertisement
Some nonprofit leaders worry philanthropic support for equity is dwindling at a crucial moment: The Trump administration is cutting all manner of federal funds, groups committed to racial justice face retaliation, and Republicans are floating laws that could strip '
The apparent retreat is a turnaround from the proclamations made in the wake of Floyd's murder, when powerful Boston-based brands, foundations, and universities promised to do better, and funded different causes. The Globe reviewed 25 pledges from roughly 20 local institutions made in the year after Floyd's death. Of those, 60 percent were grants. A select few promised pro bono services or workplace initiatives in lieu of money. Roughly one in 10 were made as investments — meaning the result also ended up benefiting the donor's bottom line.
Bain Capital promised $100 million over a decade to nonprofits. The University of Massachusetts Boston launched the
All but two of some 20 organizations contacted by the Globe said they had fulfilled or were in the process of fulfilling their promises.
Details on how those impacted the Black community, or even which programs received their money, varied.
Advertisement
One organization
shared its receipts. Most provided itemized lists of grant amounts. But web pages announcing some of those promises for racial justice are now unavailable.
A Bain Capital spokesperson said the company surpassed its 10-year, $100 million commitment ahead of schedule, but declined to share by how much. Among its recipients were the NAACP, Year Up, and the GreenLight Fund. A spokesperson for the Local Initiatives Support Corporation, or LISC, confirmed Wayfair's investment, but said it couldn't provide details out of 'fiduciary responsibility' to investors.
The tax forms that nonprofits file with the IRS provide some insights into how some are spending and receiving funds.
For private entities such as banks, firms, and agencies, there's no law mandating they make their numbers public. Instead, information is largely available from press releases, annual reports, and some tax forms.
Related
:
With the Trump administration stripping funds from groups that don't follow the White House's current ideology, advocates argue, the need for charitable giving to grass-roots organizations is more necessary.
A
Advertisement
Advocates worry the drop in federal dollars creates a feedback loop. More people will flock to nonprofits for help, and more nonprofits will turn to philanthropists for grants. But when the philanthropic pie runs out, where will the community go?
Stacey Borden, executive director of New Beginnings Reentry Services (left), and Lisa Goldblatt Grace, co-executive director of My Life, My Choice spoke during an open house organized by the New Commonwealth Fund, an organization focused on disrupting inequities in philanthropy last year.
Josh Reynolds for The Boston Globe
'There's not really an answer,' said Stacey Borden, executive director of Dorchester-based New Beginnings Reentry Services. 'I just have to keep the faith.'
Philanthropies are responding by offering more of their donations as
unrestricted funds, providing more grant money upfront, and offering consultant support. As Bob Rivers, executive chair of Eastern Bank, put it, 'Many foundations are shifting our mindset away from transformation to preservation.'
Donors aren't starting from scratch. Massachusetts has a sizable giving economy, with at least $4.7 billion in donations reported in 2017, according to
the most recently available reliable data.
In some local circles, funders are preparing to
compensate for the gaps created by cuts to federal funding. Some organizations focused on racial equity say they have seen support grow in some cases.
Lee Pelton, chief executive of the Boston Foundation, said his organization is on track for another record year in donations.
'It's hard to sustain the momentum of anything from five years ago,' Pelton said. But 'that sense of urgency has been renewed since the federal regime has taken office.'
Marquis Victor, executive director of Elevated Thought, a nonprofit in Lawrence that provides creative outlets to artists of color, said the organization has had 'rapid growth' over the past few years. It's building out a new space and several programs have reached their two-, three-, and four-year marks without fear of discontinuing.
Advertisement
The main headquarters for Elevated Thought, an arts nonprofit, featuring a mural by Boston-based artist SOEMS, in Lawrence on May 21.
Danielle Parhizkaran/Globe Staff
Elevated Thought doesn't receive federal funds, but Victor anticipates Trump's attacks on DEI might indirectly affect the nonprofit's operations. Funders might avoid supporting its work to protect themselves from attacks.
Still, Victor is steadfast. 'It's a natural occurrence to tweak your mission to make it more accessible, but not at the sake of changing who you are, the work that you do.'
Even if the collective energy toward racial justice has dimmed some, some changes to philanthropy have survived, several
leaders told the Globe. Some foundations now give nonprofits more money at the front end of a multiyear commitment, or immediate grants to cover overhead. There are fewer applications and progress reports to fill out. And more funders are adapting their systems to meet the ever-changing needs of the organizations they support.
The
type of
social causes it supports
to better reflect the range of groups addressing equity.
Makeeba McCreary, CEO of the New Commonwealth Fund, said philanthropy, especially from corporations, is still struggling to adjust its infrastructure to better address racial equity.
Craig F. Walker/Globe Staff/File 2021
Makeeba McCreary, its CEO, said the changes were driven by its deep relationships. To date, the fund has raised over $40 million and provided roughly $17 million in grants.
Nonprofits will say, ''We feel safe, we feel seen, we know that you're not going away,'' McCreary said. For the New Commonwealth Fund, justice 'is not the flavor of the week.'
Nevertheless, McCreary said donors, especially corporations, are still struggling to adjust their methods to better address racial equity. Too few are diversifying their boards, restructuring staff and resources to meet nonprofit needs, or pledging multiyear commitments and lump sums together. Some conversations about racial justice are now whispered behind closed doors.
Advertisement
It's similar to the bystander effect, McCreary said. 'Unless you tell folks who are doing the harm to stop, you're part of the problem.'
Vince Dixon, formerly of the Globe staff, contributed to this report.
Tiana Woodard can be reached at
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
11 minutes ago
- Forbes
Is Donald Trump An Authentic Leader?
On the performative nature of authenticity, and why Trump exposes the paradoxical and unscientific meaning of the term. In a world obsessed with personal branding, real and deep fake influencers, and AI-fueled persuasion, 'authenticity' seems more valuable than ever, as the distinction between what's real and what isn't transcends everything and everyone. We no longer expect our leaders to be merely competent — a trait that, inconveniently, remains hard for most voters to identify. We want them to be 'real,' too, though no one can quite agree on what that entails in an era where even authenticity can be performative. From viral LinkedIn mantras to inspirational TED Talks, authenticity is praised as the antidote to crooked leaders, political doublespeak, and robotic managerialism, not to mention phony politicians. Indeed, research suggests that people rate 'authentic leaders' as more trustworthy, relatable, and morally grounded. And yet, despite its near-universal appeal, authenticity remains vague and elusive as a concept. We want, admire, demand it — but few can define it, especially in a sensible or cogent way, and even fewer appear to know how we would go about measuring it, at least with some degree of precision or objectivity. In the leadership literature, authenticity is generally associated with transparency, consistency, and self-awareness. In line, leaders who are seen as authentic inspire greater followership, because they appear more predictable and less manipulative. Employees trust them more, and citizens are more likely to forgive their mistakes. Consider why figures like Nelson Mandela or Angela Merkel continue to command admiration — not merely for their achievements, but for the perceived harmony between what they believed, said, and did. They were not just competent, but coherent. Conversely, politicians who appear to shapeshift with every poll are penalized — not always for their views, but for the whiff of inauthenticity. Voters would rather support someone they disagree with than someone they suspect of pandering. Indeed, perceptions of authenticity are less about ideological alignment and more about emotional resonance. People tend to see those they like as authentic — and label those they dislike as fake. Unsurprisingly, Trump supporters view him as the embodiment of authenticity, just as Obama's admirers did with him. Ask their detractors, however, and the verdict flips. In a way, the real litmus test of authenticity is whether even your critics concede that you are 'the real deal.' On that front, Trump may score higher than Obama, unless you deny the possibility that more authentic doesn't always equate to more effective… Therein lies the philosophical catch: authenticity, for all its cultural currency, is not a fixed trait. It is an attribution — something we project onto others. We can't scan a person's soul (Neuralink hasn't cracked that yet) to verify the alignment between their inner essence and their outer behavior. In truth, we struggle to verify even our own. As neuroscientist David Eagleman put it, 'The conscious mind is like a broom closet in the mansion of the brain.' Much of what drives us is hidden from ourselves, let alone others. What feels authentic might just be a well-rehearsed act — one we've repeated so often, we've come to believe it ourselves (which, admittedly, sounds great, except for the fact that the most brutal dictators in history were pretty good at it). That's why psychologists argue authenticity is socially constructed. It's not some universal signal — it's context-dependent. A CEO crying in a board meeting might be praised for vulnerability in Silicon Valley, and ridiculed as unfit in Frankfurt. Compare Obama's curated 'cool dad' persona with Merkel's austere pragmatism: both were labeled authentic, but by very different cultural standards. In the end, we judge authenticity not by some Platonic essence of the self, but by how well someone's performance matches our expectations of who they ought to be. Which brings us, inevitably, to Trump. The question is not whether he is authentic — we can't ever truly know — but why he seems authentic to so many. Trump checks all the cultural boxes of 'realness': he's blunt, unfiltered, often incoherent (even when not spontaneously so), and defiantly unrehearsed. He rants on social media at ungodly hours and insults opponents with the fervor of a WWE heel. These are not behaviors traditionally associated with leadership—but to many, that's the point. His refusal to play by the rules of political etiquette is precisely what makes him persuasive. Unlike the focus-grouped politician who triangulates every utterance, Trump performs spontaneity. And for a certain kind of voter, that performance is more persuasive than policy. So how do we assess authenticity more analytically? As I illustrate in my forthcoming book, we can determine this by examining Trump vis-à-vis the four mainstream tenets or mantras for examining authenticity in others (not just leaders), namely: (1) always be honest with yourself and others; (2) always be true to your values, no matter what; (3) don't worry about what people think of you; and (4) bring your whole self to work. 1. Is Trump brutally honest with himself and others? Trump is certainly honest with others — at least in the sense that he says what he thinks. Whether those thoughts are factually accurate is another matter entirely. Although there's little evidence of self-reflection or self-critique, we simply don't know whether his statements are improvised or calculated, even when they seem spontaneous. Furthermore, there's no way to know whether he truly believes some of the over-the-top comments he makes, for instance on his own capabilities. When he tells us that he is 'a very stable genius', does he truly believe it? It would be easier to prove or disprove whether such statements are factually correct than whether he actually believes them himself. Evolutionary psychology shows that truly believing such statements even when they are not factually correct (what psychologists refer to as self-deception) is rather common in humans because it helps us display convincing signs of confidence and be regarded as competent. In other words, the best way to fool others is to fool yourself first. This introduces an interesting paradox: your likelihood of being perceived as authentic increases when you are not honest with yourself. By the same token, if you are honest with yourself, and therefore aware of your limitations, you may not be perceived as confident and therefore competent! In this way, Trump's self-deception may be a powerful tool to come across as genuine and competent – people are more likely to believe you are a stable genius if they see that you truly believe it yourself when you make such statements. 2. Is Trump uncompromisingly true to his values? Trump's values are difficult to pin down ideologically, but he is consistent in tone and temperament. He prizes dominance, loyalty, and personal success — values that appear deeply ingrained across decades of business and political life. He doesn't pivot or play nice to broaden appeal. That may limit his coalition, but it boosts the perception that he 'sticks to his guns.' Also, his decisions seem consistently optimized to enhance self-interest (either at national, party, or individual level), and despite his self-presentation as master deal maker he seems quite transparent in the goals and outcomes he pursues. To be sure, those who don't share his values will not accept that he is acting authentically by 'following his values no matter what'. This is an important reminder of the fact that value-centricity is not inherently beneficial or effective in leaders: what matters is what your values are, whether they are shared by others, and how they impact others (not just your voters, but society at large). In fact, history is replete with examples of leaders who were clearly true to their values, and impressively executed against them, but without having much in the form of positive effects (and often many negative effects) on their followers. 3. Is Trump unbothered by what people think of him? This one seems tailor-made for Trump. He thrives on attention but is often indifferent — when not hostile — to criticism. Most politicians spin, apologize, or moderate. Trump doubles down. Whether it's calling opponents nicknames, attacking journalists, or airing grievances, he seems genuinely unconcerned with being liked by everyone. In the authenticity game, that's a powerful signal: he performs as someone who is beyond calculation. To be sure, breaking prosocial etiquette norms does not make you authentic, just like being controversial doesn't make you right. Still, given that overt and aggressive confrontation tends to be uncharacteristic in a typical politician (and even someone with traditional political skills), it can make you seem authentic regardless of whether this is a calculated self-presentational strategy. It's like being a social media troll: you offend, and some people will celebrate your radical candor! That said, this disregard for what people think of you is also emblematic of a narcissistic personality, whether in its clinical or sub-clinical (highly functioning) form. Research on vulnerable narcissism suggests that those who lash out or seem impervious to criticism may in fact be protecting a fragile ego—especially when rejection threatens their self-image. Trump's combative and adversarial style, far from indicating thick skin, may signal the opposite: a compulsive need to dominate the narrative to avoid feeling diminished. As a result, what looks like radical candor may actually be a meticulously constructed performance of invulnerability. 4. Does Trump bring his whole self to work? Unquestionably. Trump does not compartmentalize. The same persona that tweets 'covfefe' at midnight is the one addressing (and trying to dismantle) the UN General Assembly. His speeches, interviews, and online posts share the same syntax, cadences, and vocabulary. His business brand, political identity, and personal life blur into one. That's the very definition of bringing your whole self to work—for better or worse. In fact, applying one of the most common scientific and popular criteria for defining authenticity, namely consistency between what leaders say and do, there's no question that with Trump (at least his current iteration) what you see is what you get – after nearly 150 days of presidency, he has enacted most of his intended plans and promises. To be sure, unlike Melania, who also has access to the private or personal version of the president, we will never know whether the home version of Trump is radically different from his professional self, which is the norm with most leaders (and people). Conclusion: More Authentic, Less Effective? So, is Trump an authentic leader? From the perspective of public perception, probably yes — at least to those who admire him. Even many critics concede that his rawness makes him 'real.' He stands out precisely because he does not seem like a conventional politician. But here's the irony: the very traits that enhance his reputation for authenticity—lack of filter, abrasiveness, impulsivity — also limit his effectiveness as a leader, particularly in contexts that require diplomacy, coalition-building, and emotional intelligence. Indeed, if you were tasked with coaching Trump, the likely strategy would be to curb his most 'authentic' impulses: inject some tact, broaden his emotional bandwidth, tone down the narcissism, and embrace more perspective-taking. That might make him more effective — but also less 'himself.' Such is the paradox of authenticity in leadership: being too true to yourself can inhibit your leadership talents. Ultimately, the case of Donald Trump reminds us that authenticity is not an unqualified virtue. Like most traits, it is only beneficial in moderation and context. What followers experience as authenticity may simply be a refusal to conform. But in politics — as in life —there's a fine line between being genuine and being a jerk. The best leaders know how to walk that line without losing either their compass or their followers. In other words, they are clear about where their right to be themselves ends, and their obligation to others begins. Importantly, while people seem to genuinely love the concept of 'authenticity' (not just in leaders, but humans in general), we would do well to acknowledge that, alas, there is just no objective way to quantify how authentic someone is, or whether someone is acting in an authentic way or not. Rather, authenticity is retrofitted to affection: we tend to deem people authentic if we like them, and fake if we don't. In politics, this creates a curious paradox. Donald Trump is hailed as the very embodiment of authenticity — by his supporters. So too is Barack Obama — by his own. But ask the other side, and the verdict flips. Same goes for charisma: it is an attribution we make about people we like and admire, because they seem better able to influence and persuade us, because we share their beliefs, values, and personal attributes, to the point of embodying a part of who we are or want to be. In that sense, Freud was onto something when we noted that our connection with leaders is in itself narcissistic: we love people who represent who we are, and when they are also leaders who appear to love us, our love is a subliminal and socially legitimate way of loving ourselves. In the end, authenticity may be less a moral virtue than a psychological illusion —comforting, relatable, and occasionally dangerous. We crave it in leaders because it reassures us that someone, somewhere, is being 'real' in a world that often feels fake. But the paradox is hard to escape: the more someone tries to prove their authenticity, the less authentic they seem. Perhaps the lesson is this: in leadership, as in life, being true to yourself only matters if your 'self' is worth following.
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Reporter Gets Hit By Rubber Bullet At L.A. Protest, Sparking Shock Allegation
A journalist covering the protests in Los Angeles was blasted by a rubber bullet during her report, prompting allegations that she was purposely targeted by an LAPD officer. (Watch the video below.) As demonstrations against the Trump administration's ICE raids and deployment of the National Guard intensified, 9 News Australia reporter Lauren Tomasi said, 'This situation has now rapidly deteriorated. The LAPD moving in on horseback firing rubber bullets at protesters, moving them on through the heart of L.A.' She is then hit by an apparent rubber bullet in the leg, screaming 'whaa!' as he jumps in pain. Video showed an officer taking aim in her direction, and Australian politicians alleged the attack was deliberate. 'The first thing he [Prime Minister Anthony Albanese] must tell [President Donald Trump] is to stop shooting at our journalists,' Senator Sarah Hanson-Young said, per the Guardian. 'Freedom of the press is a fundamental pillar of a strong, functioning democracy.' Senator Matt Canavan told the outlet 'it looks like there was a targeting there' but didn't want to jump to conclusions. U.S. Correspondent Lauren Tomasi has been caught in the crossfire as the LAPD fired rubber bullets at protesters in the heart of Los Angeles. #9NewsLATEST: — 9News Australia (@9NewsAUS) June 9, 2025 Reporting that Tomasi was indeed struck by a rubber bullet, News 9 said in a statement to the Daily Beast: 'Lauren and her camera operator are safe and will continue their essential work covering these events. This incident serves as a stark reminder of the inherent dangers journalists can face while reporting from the frontlines of protests, underscoring the importance of their role in providing vital information.' The LAPD told the Daily Beast it was not aware of the incident. The BBC reported that British photographer Nick Stern sustained a leg wound from a rubber bullet amid the protests. He required emergency surgery to remove the projectile. Protests Intensify In Los Angeles After Trump Deploys Hundreds Of National Guard Troops Republicans Offer Cowardly Lack Of Pushback To Hegseth Suggesting Marines Could Quell Protests National Guard Troops Ordered To Los Angeles By Trump Find Quiet Streets And Few Protests
Business Insider
14 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Travel ban: 10 exceptions that allow citizens from restricted countries to enter the U.S.
Some select groups of people from the 12 countries affected by President Trump's travel ban may still be allowed entry into the United States. President Trump's travel ban affects citizens from 12 countries, imposing restrictions due to national security concerns. Certain exceptions allow entry based on humanitarian grounds, national interest, or specific visa classifications. Critics argue the travel restrictions disproportionately affect vulnerable populations and strain international relations. Despite the travel ban in place, there are specific exceptions that allow citizens from the affected or restricted countries to enter the United States. These exceptions are typically based on humanitarian grounds, national interest, or specific visa classifications and are designed to accommodate urgent or essential travel needs that align with U.S. policy considerations. The travel ban which takes effect from today, bars nationals from Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Congo-Brazzaville, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen from entering the U.S. Additionally, nationals from seven other countries - Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela, face partial travel restrictions. The U.S. government justifies these measures on national security grounds, citing concerns over terrorism, insufficient passport controls, and high visa overstay rates in the affected countries. However, exceptions exist that allow certain individuals from these nations to enter the U.S. These exemptions reflect the government's recognition of humanitarian, diplomatic, and strategic factors that require flexibility beyond the broad restrictions. Here are 10 exceptions to Trump's travel restrictions According to the BBC, the travel restrictions do not apply to specific categories of individuals, as detailed in the list below. "Lawful permanent" US residents Their immediate family members who hold immigrant visas US government employees with Special Immigrant Visas Adoptions Dual nationals when the individual is not travelling on a passport from one of the affected countries Afghan nationals holding Special Immigrant Visas Holders of "immigrant visas for ethnic and religious minorities facing persecution in Iran" Foreign nationals travelling with certain non-immigrant visas Athletes, their teams (including coaches and supporting staff), and their immediate family when travelling for major sporting events, such as the men's football World Cup in 2026 and the Summer 2028 Olympics in Los Angeles In addition, the US Secretary of State may grant exemptions to individuals on a "case-by-case" basis, if "the individual would serve a United States national interest". Trump's travel restrictions criticized President Trump's travel restrictions have sparked widespread criticism both internationally and domestically. Numerous countries and organizations have voiced dissent, arguing that the ban unfairly targets certain nations and exacerbates existing geopolitical tensions. The African Union was among the first to publicly condemn the policy, urging the United States to engage in meaningful dialogue with the affected countries rather than impose broad restrictions. The group emphasized that cooperation and diplomatic engagement would better address security concerns without harming innocent civilians. In a notable response, the President of Mali took retaliatory measures by limiting visa issuance to U.S. citizens hoping to travel to Mali.
