
Trump Is Scaring Donors Away From Progressive Nonprofits
Fearful of Trump's penchant for targeting his perceived political enemies, some nonprofit leaders say the large donors who help subsidize their operations are pulling back. Even though the Trump administration has said it will not move forward with a series of rumored executive actions targeting nonprofits, this retreat by large donors poses a critical problem — especially as the federal government has slashed grants and issued stop-work orders already restricting key services.
'It's kind of a perfect storm of the federal cuts happening and philanthropy not moving as quickly as one would hope,' said Lynn English, president and co-founder of English Hudson Consulting, a development and consulting firm that works with dozens of nonprofits across the United States, including groups that have been outspoken against Trump. 'Anyone who has federal money is cutting expenses, cutting staff, and trying to figure out where they can possibly make up the gap.'
Threats from senior administration officials to foundations and nonprofits' tax-exempt status have heightened donors' concerns about giving to causes that might be perceived as opposing Trump and singled out for retribution — like law firms, universities, and news organizations, leaders of nonprofits told The Intercept.
The consequences are being felt at nonprofits that focus on climate, transgender rights, racial justice, and gender equality.
Both Trump and Vice President JD Vance have made no secret of their animosity toward certain nonprofits and major funders. In his 2021 Senate campaign, Vance argued that major foundations and academic institutions should lose their tax-exempt status. 'The Ford Foundation, the Gates Foundation, the Harvard University endowment, these are fundamentally cancers on American society, but they pretend to be charities so they benefit from preferential tax treatment,' Vance told Tucker Carlson during a 2021 Fox News interview.
More recently, Trump has publicly threatened to revoke Harvard University's tax-exempt status, while implying broader risks to other nonprofit organizations and foundations. 'Tax-exempt status, it's a privilege. It's really a privilege. And it's been abused by a lot more than Harvard,' Trump told reporters last Thursday. Last week, the administration cut billions of dollars in federal funding to the university for research purposes, though its tax-exempt status for now remains unchanged.
At the Thursday news conference, Trump also threatened specific nonprofit organizations, namely Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a government watchdog organization that has repeatedly sued the Trump administration. 'It's supposed to be a charitable organization,' Trump told reporters. 'The only charity they had is going after Donald Trump. So, we're looking at that. We're looking at a lot of things.'
Were a nonprofit to lose its 501(c)(3) status, it would have to pay corporate income tax, and in some cases back taxes. It would also block an organization from receiving most types of federal and foundation grants. Donations to that group would no longer be tax-exempt, making it significantly more difficult to fundraise.
A rumored executive order targeting climate organizations on Earth Day did not materialize. The White House told Politico this week 'No such orders are being drafted or considered at this time.'
However, Trump on Thursday urged Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate alleged unlawful foreign contributions on ActBlue, a fundraising platform widely used by Democratic campaigns. Many nonprofits, including The Intercept, use ActBlue Charities to process donations.
This climate is causing hesitation among large donors, said English. 'They're being much more cautious,' she explained, 'and I think it is the threat of either litigation or attacks on their 501(c)(3) status or attacks on their endowment that are causing some real delays in getting money on the ground.'
'If they're going to be attacking us, I want to show people why.'
Kaniela Ing, national director of the Green New Deal Network, said that organizers focused on climate change have been warned to stay quiet to avoid attacks on their 501(c)(3) status, like those in the rumored executive order. 'Some of the advice that I've been getting is to be silent on social media,' said Ing.
But he rejects that logic.
'If they're going to be attacking us, I want to show people why. I don't want to have to tell them after the fact,' Ing said. 'I want to make it clear that this a fight of good and evil. And we're the good guys.'
While it's still too early to get a full financial picture of how donors are responding across the nonprofit ecosystem, layoffs at large nonprofit organizations working on left-leaning issues like LGBTQ+ rights provide a clue. In February, Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBTQ+ advocacy organization in the U.S., laid off 20 percent of its staff. Another major LGBTQ+ nonprofit, GLSEN, laid off 60 percent of its staff that same month.
English said donors were much more willing to support causes in opposition to Trump in his first term, illustrating how much landscape has shifted in a second term focused in large part on revenge. 'They are trying to figure out what position they can take under the administration,' she said. 'Under Trump 1.0, the foundations came out very quickly to fund the pushback, and they came out with a lot of money to fund litigation and movement-building organizing. This time around, they are taking more time.'
Part of the problem with hitting so many nonprofits at once with federal funding cuts and freezes is that all of these groups are fighting for the same pool of funding of nongovernmental funding. At least 30 percent of the estimated 1.8 million nonprofits in the U.S. receive federal grant funding. Larger organizations are more reliant on grants, with 55 percent of nonprofits with budgets over $5 million receiving at least one government grant. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin announced that the administration had canceled over 400 environmental justice grants, totaling $1.7 billion in losses across multiple organizations. In the foreign assistance sector, Trump slashed 90 percent of the U.S. Agency for International Development's foreign aid contracts in February, totaling $60 billion, meaning the thousands of contractors relying on this funding now have to fight for the same pot of donor money.
So even if an individual donor isn't fearful of attacks by the Trump administration and might have more leeway than a corporate donor or a large foundation, demand for their dollars is now at an all-time high.
alicia sanchez gill, executive director of Emergent Fund, which provides rapid-response funding to BIPOC and LGBTQ+ organizations and also co-runs the Action for Transformation Fund along with the Transgender Law Center, said the groups they fund are seeing donors pull back at a critical moment.
'What we're seeing from the philanthropic ecosystem is that there is not [the] bump that we saw in 2016,' she said. 'And in fact, we're seeing a lot of funder retraction in this moment.'
sanchez gill argues that funders are scared of associating with nonprofits that could be targets. 'We are seeing our grantees actually be either denied funding in order to minimize funder risk,' she said. 'Or just complete — for lack of a better term — ghosting by funders.'
sanchez gill noted that many of the organizations Emergent Fund and the Action for Transformation Fund work with already struggled to get funding. Less than 1 percent of philanthropic dollars goes toward support trans-led organizations, according to the Equitable Giving Lab.
'Many of the groups that we fund, actually, at Emergent Fund and at the Action for Transformation Fund already are deeply divested from the federal government and from state institutions and from philanthropy itself,' she said. If their organization no longer existed, many of these organizations could go without the 'rapid-response' funding they need to survive.
The bitter irony is that this is the exact moment that marginalized communities need these resources the most. 'We've really seen a surge in applications from groups that are facing state violence and surveillance,' said sanchez gill. Last year, sanchez gill said that her organization received roughly 70 to 100 proposals in a month. Last month, it received roughly 180 proposals, underscoring the increased need in the communities it serves.
'There is no greater risk in this moment than defunding the communities who are doing the most mission-oriented and necessary work right now,' she said.
Federal cuts to nonprofit grant recipients have already had devastating consequences. Trump has frozen billions in federal grants to universities, states, and other nonprofit entities across the country.
Last month, for instance, the Trump administration cut funding to programs that provide legal services to unaccompanied minors. Unlike in the criminal legal system, in the U.S., people do not have a right to counsel in immigration court, which means that every year, tens of thousands of children are forced to represent themselves against the government. In 2023, nearly half of all unaccompanied minors represented themselves in immigration court. But federal funding cuts from the Trump administration are threatening even the existing services in place for these children, and philanthropic dollars cannot fill the gap.
A judge has blocked the implementation of these cuts for now, but the impacted nonprofits expect the Trump administration to continue its assault on the program, as well as other immigrant legal services.
'We're talking about 26,000 children across the country who will lose an attorney.'
Abegail Baguio, development and communications director for the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, said these cuts would directly impact minors in their legal services program. 'We're talking about 26,000 children across the country who will lose an attorney,' said Baguio.
The threat to the organization runs deeper than just its program for unaccompanied minors. Baguio said that the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights receives roughly 70 percent of funding through federal contracts. Even with an outpouring of new philanthropic support, it won't be able to make up the loss of federal funds if the Trump administration succeeds in fulling stripping them away. 'There's no way that private philanthropy can fill that gap,' she said.
If the federal coffers fully close, 'we're going to see families separated, families separated. We're going to see people being deported without having access to due process rights,' said Baguio.
Organizations with federal funding, doing work from cancer research to feeding people, are being forced to lay off up to 40 percent of staff, said English, the nonprofit consultant. Next, she said it will be cuts to services. An analysis from the Urban Institute, after Trump temporarily froze nearly all federal grants nationwide, found that in every state, 60 to 80 percent of nonprofits that receive federal funding could fail to cover their expenses if government funding remained frozen or disappeared.
Despite the risks to funders, donors, and nonprofits, sanchez gill said the worst mistake would be to concede defeat. 'Now is really the time to double down on trust-based funding that resists authoritarian control,' she said. 'Now is the time to push back. We can't cede power in advance. We can't cower in advance, or retreat in advance.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Healey to call for '50-day drive' to arm Ukraine and force Putin to negotiate
The Defence Secretary will call for a '50-day drive' to arm Ukraine when he chairs a meeting of Kyiv's allies on Monday. John Healey is expected to argue that the West should again boost its military support for Ukraine in an effort to bring Vladimir Putin to the negotiating table. Donald Trump has already threatened to impose 'very severe' tariffs on Russia if it does not agree a ceasefire by September 2, 50 days on from the US president's announcement that he would sell 'top-of-the-line' weapons to Nato that could then be given to Ukraine. On Monday, Mr Healey will use a meeting of the Ukraine Defence Contact Group (UDCG) to back Mr Trump's proposal and pledge that the UK will 'play our full part in its success to bolster Ukraine's immediate fight'. Calling for more support from Western allies, he is expected to say: 'Alongside this, the US has started the clock on a 50-day deadline for Putin to agree to peace or face crippling economic sanctions. 'As members of the Ukraine Defence Contact Group, we need to step up in turn with a '50-day drive' to arm Ukraine on the battlefield and force Putin to the negotiating table.' Monday will be the fourth time Mr Healey has chaired the UDCG, and the third occasion he has done so alongside German defence minister Boris Pistorius. The group, which brings together defence ministers and officials from Ukraine's allies, was chaired by the US until Mr Trump came to power and began rowing back on American support for Kyiv and European security. Mr Healey's comments come as the Ministry of Defence confirmed the UK had sent £150 million worth of air defence missiles and artillery rounds to Ukraine in the past two months. The deliveries are part of a commitment to spend £700 million on air defence and artillery ammunition for Ukraine this year, alongside other funding to provide more of the drones that have become key weapons in the war with Russia. The UK has delivered 50,000 drones to Ukraine in the last six months, with another 20,000 coming from a coalition of nations led by Britain and Latvia. Monday's UDCG is expected to see further commitments, with Germany and the UK agreeing to procure more air defence missiles using 170 million euros of funding from Berlin. Shadow defence secretary James Cartlidge said it was 'right' that the Government 'continues to provide all possible support to Ukraine'. He added: 'It is also important that we stand firm alongside the United States in reinforcing their 50-day deadline to ensure Putin is under maximum pressure to pursue peace. 'That means all of our allies playing their part, and following the PM's recent summit with Chancellor Merz, we hope that this 50-day drive will include German confirmation that it intends to provide Taurus missiles to Ukraine.' Meanwhile, Russia continues to bombard Ukraine with drones and missiles. Confirming a string of attacks on civilian targets in Odesa and critical infrastructure in the Sumy region on Saturday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky also thanked international leaders 'who understand how important it is to promptly implement our agreements' aimed at boosting Ukraine's defence capabilities.
Yahoo
2 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Rep. Jasmine Crockett: ‘Wannabe Hitler' Trump Is Demanding GOP ‘Loyalty' Over Epstein Files
Donald Trump's demands for loyalty are so extreme, he comes off as a 'wannabe Hitler,' said Rep. Jasmine Crockett. The congresswoman made the remarks when discussing Republican efforts to stop the Jeffrey Epstein files from being released, per Trump's wishes. '[Republican lawmakers] want to show they're loyal to this, you know, I don't even know what to call him,' Crockett told Alex Witt on MSNBC Sunday. 'I've called him so many things, but wannabe Hitler for sure.' Jasmine Crockett calls Trump a 'wannabe Hitler' #Trump #Hitler — Liam Jones (@hynpower) July 20, 2025 Last week, House Republicans repeatedly blocked a Democratic amendment that would have pushed forward a bipartisan bill that would force the Department of Justice to put the contents of the Epstein files on a public website within 30 days. The uproar over the contents of the files comes after a DOJ and FBI memo stated that the billionaire financier and sex trafficker died by suicide and did not keep a so-called 'client list,' essentially closing the case on Epstein and his wrongdoing. A contingent of Trump supporters subscribe to the theory that Epstein was involved in an international child sex trafficking ring that wields control over the government. They believe that Epstein's death in prison was part of a cover-up to protect wealthy elites who were part of the ring — and allegedly on Epstein's 'client list.' Trump played into these theories during the 2024 campaign by saying he would have 'no problem' releasing the case files. After the election, he was asked if he would 'declassify' the files, and he said, 'Yeah, yeah, I would.' 'It's not that they care about Epstein personally,' far-right influencer Jack Posobiec said recently on a podcast hosted by Breitbart News editor Alex Marlow, talking about the MAGA base who wants the files released. 'It's that they care that there's this optic that Epstein was somehow involved with a shadowy system that actually has control over our government, control over our institutions, control of our lives, and really is a ruling power over us.' A small contingent of the part, however, is attempting to release the files. GOP Rep. Thomas Massie introduced a similar bill demanding the Epstein documents be made public, co-sponsored by almost a dozen House Republicans, on Friday. In an attempt to appease both sides, House Speaker Mike Johnson asked the House Rules Committee to write up a nonbinding resolution asking the DOJ to release all information related to Epstein. This would allow Republicans to vote for the measure without forcing Trump's DOJ to release the files, angering the president. However, Johnson has not agreed to bring the resolution to a vote. 'We'll determine what happens with all that,' Johnson told reporters, per Axios. 'There's a lot developing.' 'I think [Republican lawmakers] also are concerned about the damage that it may do,' Crockett said of what would happen if the documents were made publicly available. 'If [Trump is] trying to hide it, they understand that it is most likely problematic for him as well as the MAGA brand, as well as the Republicans.' Crockett continued, 'I don't anticipate that they will be on board for doing anything that may harm them or their fearless leader.' According to a recent poll, a strong majority of respondents — 89 percent — support the public release of documents in the Epstein files. More from Rolling Stone Trump Demands Sports Teams Make Their Names Racist Again Poll: Most Americans Know Trump Isn't Targeting 'Worst of the Worst' for Deportation as He Claims Trump and the Catholic Church Fight a Law Requiring Clergy to Report Child Abuse Best of Rolling Stone The Useful Idiots New Guide to the Most Stoned Moments of the 2020 Presidential Campaign Anatomy of a Fake News Scandal The Radical Crusade of Mike Pence


USA Today
4 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump threatens Washington Commanders' stadium plans if franchise doesn't change name
The Washington Commanders have had a busy offseason. They've traded for left tackle Laremy Tunsil and wide receiver Deebo Samuel to bolster one of the top offenses in the NFL from a year ago. On defense, they added decorated pass rusher Von Miller in free agency. There's been news off the field as well with the franchise announcing plans to build a new stadium in Washington D.C. The franchise hopes to build on the site of RFK Memorial Stadium where the team played from 1961 to 1996 and is two miles east of the U.S. Capitol building. Washington may be facing a challenge as well from the highest-ranking elected official in the country. President Trump posted on Truth Social that he may restrict the team from building on the old RFK Stadium site if it doesn't change its name. "I may put a restriction on them that if they don't change the name back to the original 'Washington (name),' and get rid of the ridiculous moniker, 'Washington Commanders,' I won't make a deal for them to build a Stadium in Washington," Trump posted. He continued: "The Team would be much more valuable, and the Deal would be more exciting for everyone." He went on to state that the Cleveland Guardians should do the same and change the franchise name back to its former name. Washington also faces some question marks with getting that deal with Washington D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser needing to get approval from the D.C. Council. "I would put my level of concern – because when you're a big city mayor you're concerned about everything – I'll put it at a four [out of five]," Bowser said earlier this month. Washington started out as the Boston Braves back in 1932 before changing its name in 1933. The franchise kept its now-former name when it relocated from Boston to Washington D.C. in 1937 and it remained for decades. WASHINGTON UNIFORMS: Commanders reveal alternate uniforms that nod to their Super Bowl glory In July 2020, the franchise dropped the name and logo. "We are announcing we will be retiring the (former) name and logo upon completion of this review," the team said in a statement at the time and that team officials were "working closely to develop a new name and design approach that will enhance the standing of our proud, tradition rich franchise and inspire our sponsors, fans and community for the next 100 years." The franchise went by the name Washington Football team for the 2020 and 2021 NFL seasons before rebranding as the Washington Commanders ahead of the 2022 season. This isn't the first time Trump's voiced his dislike for the Commanders name. When asked about the stadium plans earlier in July, Trump said he wouldn't have changed the name in the first place. "It just doesn't have the same, it doesn't have the same ring to me," he said. 'But, you know, winning can make everything sound good. So if they win, all of a sudden the Commanders sounds good, but I wouldn't have changed the name.' A new stadium is one of the top priorities of the Commanders' new ownership group led by Josh Harris. That group finished a deal to buy the team in May 2023 and are hoping to finish construction by the 2030 NFL season. In the meantime, the team would continue to play its home games at FedEx Field in Landover, Maryland. The team has not released a statement in response to Trump's comments at time of publishing.