Employers reconsider charitable giving strategies in the age of Trump
While corporate titans, university administrators, heads of top law firms, media chiefs, late night talk show hosts and tech bros seek favor with President Donald Trump and his administration, one power player refuses to: John Palfrey, president of the MacArthur Foundation, famous for its “genius grants” and a supporter of causes ranging from social justice to journalism and media.
Palfrey this month published a joint article on the Council on Foundations website with the heads of other philanthropies announcing a public solidarity campaign supporting the independence of charities, which more than 400 organizations have already signed onto, The Guardian reported. “We’ve seen this before in American history and across the globe,” Palfrey and his colleagues wrote. “Weaponized oversight. Intimidation dressed up as transparency. It is not new. But our response must be: we in the philanthropic community must not wait like sitting ducks.”
The statement comes as some companies and institutions are fighting back against what they see as intimidation from the White House — most recently Harvard University, which had $2 billion in federal grants slashed because of its policies. Harvard is now suing the Trump administration, which, it alleged in court documents, cut the funds to gain “leverage” over the university, part of a “pressure campaign” to force it to submit to governmental control, CNN reported.
The current political climate has had a chilling effect on the business of philanthropy, where once-safe causes like the environment have become a lightning rod — leading employers to focus their charitable activities on support for organizations they believe in and that maintain maximum impact while navigating the dicey dynamics of the culture.
Nonprofits benefitting women and girls, for example, have seen a growing wave of support, with data from the sixth annual “Women and Girls Index” from the Women’s Philanthropy Institute at the Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy indicating a 26% spike in giving. Mental health, food insecurity and youth development causes are also on the upswing, according to Elika Dadsetan, CEO and executive director at Visions, an organization that helps clients build inclusive, connected workplaces.
Charities framed around terms like “resilience” and “well-being” are particularly appealing to corporations seeking a safe harbor, as they tend to get ascribed to issues that are politically neutral while still allowing for a powerful impact on communities, she noted.
Besides the environment, which causes are losing out right now? The Conference Board’s “2025 Outlook for Corporate Citizenship and Philanthropy” reports that many companies are turning away from charities dealing with gender and racial equality — reflective of the broader campaign against DEI policies — and moving toward those connected to economic opportunity and education.
Sam Caplan, vp of social impact at Submittable, which helps organizations scale their social impact initiatives, notes that corporations increasingly are aligning their Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) programs with their business strategies. Caplan, who expects to see even greater alignment along these lines moving forward, said this approach “can unify corporate giving, employee volunteerism and other programs by centering all activities on unique nonprofit partnerships.”
Companies aren’t alone in shifting their commitments. Even though employer giving campaigns grew by 85% last year, matching programs saw a 23% decline, with just 1 in 5 employees taking advantage of them, according to Submittable.
It’s not always due to a lack of generosity. A common issue is that giving and matching software is often cumbersome to use and prevents “giving in the moment,” Caplan points out. “Those moments are often fleeting, and the challenge of opening an application, or a web browser — or worse, waiting to get in front of a laptop — are major deterrents to spontaneous giving,” he said.
Individual financial pressure is also playing a role, with many employees who want to give simply lacking the resources to do so, according to Caplan. When companies offer other ways to give, like volunteer programs or office-sponsored charitable events, employees are more likely to participate.
Companies are also experimenting with creative alternatives to traditional giving models. Some are offering employees “credit grants,” small deposits made into an individual employee’s charitable account that enable them to make donations to nonprofits of their choosing. Employee Resource Groups (ERGs) are also driving workforce participation, with companies allocating funds for ERGs that then make grants to aligned nonprofits.
How can employers navigate such an uncertain moment with integrity?
For starters, rather than simply guessing which causes are politically safe and acting accordingly, Dadsetan recommends they tune into “the lived experiences” of their workforce. “What are employees navigating outside of work. Caregiving? Health? Burnout? What challenges are showing up in the workplace itself? If companies start there, they’ll often land on causes that matter deeply and align with their mission,” she said.
Dadsetan stresses that even in polarized times, staying true to one’s ideals is what matters most. “Authentic giving isn’t about playing it safe — it’s about being in a real relationship with the communities you are part of and following through over time, not just when it’s trendy or popular,” she said.
While Trumpism dominates the culture at the moment, Francesco Bogliacino, associate professor of economics at the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Milan, advises corporations to not be so quick to jump on the anti-progressive bandwagon. Abandoning causes to avoid controversy can backfire, he explained, as it “risks alienating long-standing supporters while inviting skepticism from those opposed to those causes.”