The day after he was inaugurated — coincidentally the day after Martin Luther King Jr. Day — President Donald Trump issued an anti-DEI executive order rolling back federal progress on civil rights to the days when King was still alive. As the philanthrosphere is well aware by now, the EO included a call for every federal agency to identify up to nine potential civil compliance investigations into an array of private sector entities, including large nonprofits and major foundations.
It’s taken a few weeks for the funding sector to begin sorting out how to respond. Only one of five major funders we reached out to the day after Trump’s inauguration — the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation — had already made a public statement condemning the executive order. “It is unconscionable that the Trump administration would coopt the language and vision of the civil rights movement in these executive orders as it attempts to send our nation back to an era of rampant, state-sanctioned discrimination,” RWJF President and CEO Dr. Richard Besser said in a statement to which his staff referred IP. “Ultimately, these measures drive us farther away from a future when health is no longer a privilege, but a right for all.”
The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation was also ready to speak that day. “We continue to pursue our mission, consistent with our values and the law, and DEI is one of our core values,” MacArthur President John Palfrey told IP in response to questions about whether the foundation intended to make any changes to its funding or racial equity work. The rest remained silent.
Nearly a month later, a fuller picture is starting to emerge, as some funders say they plan to stay the course when it comes to equity work, to the extent allowed by law, while others have announced an end to programs now seemingly prohibited by the executive order.
In February, IP contacted five additional organizations — three private foundations, a racial-equity-based funders’ affinity group, and an equity-focused funding intermediary — and checked back in with the original five funders to ask the same questions we posed in January: Were these funders planning on making changes in their equity-related grantmaking as a result of the executive order? Were they planning any legal challenges to the order, as several organizations targeted by other antagonistic executive orders have done? And were they planning to financially support smaller funders or nonprofits that might be targeted by the Trump administration?
This time, six of the 10 funding entities replied, though only one — the funding intermediary Borealis Philanthropy — directly answered all our questions, suggesting that the organizations are still sorting out how to respond to the moment. MacArthur added to its original response.
“Since our inception a decade ago, Borealis Philanthropy has been — and will continue to remain — steadfast in our commitment to advancing equity, inclusion and justice for all,” Borealis Vice President of Advancement Sade Dozan said. “In light of recent executive orders, we recognize the increased urgency of this work, and are strengthening and expanding our efforts to resource grassroots organizations and historically under-resourced, excluded communities.”
Those plans, Dozan said, include an upcoming rapid-response fund “to flank organizations at the front lines of movements for justice.” Borealis is also “absolutely” planning on supporting smaller organizations that may be targeted by the administration, Dozan said.
Other funders replied more cautiously, with written statements and diplomatic language indicating support for elements of DEI to the extent allowed by law. The Bush Foundation sent a link to its February 13 newsletter. “In the midst of all the changes in our world, our guiding purpose is unchanged: to make the region better for everyone. Equity is central to this purpose,” President Jennifer Ford Reedy wrote in the newsletter. “We still believe that our approach to equity is squarely aligned with our purpose, is within the law, and makes us better at what we do.”
The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation “remains strongly committed to advancing a more inclusive and enduring multiracial democracy where every individual has the opportunity to thrive,” said Chief of Equity and Culture Charmaine Mercer in a statement emailed to Inside Philanthropy. However, Mercer noted, in a clear nod to the EO: “As a matter of longstanding practice, our grantmaking approach prioritizes the mission of an organization and does not use demographics as selection criteria.”
MacArthur’s response was equally diplomatic, with one modification from the answers the foundation sent in January. This month, MacArthur reiterated Palfrey’s original statement about pursuing the funder’s mission consistent with its values and the law, and repeated that MacArthur isn’t planning on taking legal action against the EO. Asked about supporting smaller organizations that might be targeted by the administration, Palfrey this month added: “We will continue to meet our ongoing commitment, and we will seek to do more where we can.”
The Race and Equity in Philanthropy Group, an affinity group founded in 2006 that now includes representatives from more than a dozen funders, is focused on staying the course. “We are continuing our emphasis on racial equity and directly addressing how to advance racial equity work amidst current levels of adversity,” said David Maurrasse, Ph.D., the founder and president of Marga, Inc. Marga acts as the group’s facilitator. “We are making sure to continue to collaborate with larger philanthropy-serving organizations such as ABFE and United Philanthropy Forum on how to navigate the current context.”
REPG counts some of the philanthrosphere’s heaviest hitters among its membership, including the Ford, Robert Wood Johnson and Annie E. Casey foundations. Maurrasse wasn’t able to disclose specific plans, since the alliance, which will hold its next convening in March, is still developing them. Still, Maurrasse said, “We expect that most will continue the work. Some will be more vocal about it than others. Some will double down and increase their commitment.”
Some funders are retreating from DEI entirely. Earlier this month, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute announced a decision to scrap its $60-million initiative to boost diversity in university science programs, scrubbing the program from its website. It’s discouraging to see a philanthropic behemoth like the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, with its $24 billion endowment, retreat from efforts to diversify university science medical programs without a fight. At the same time, it’s hard to see how this program could reasonably continue given the federal administration’s threats to cut funding to hospitals and universities that run programs that center race or diversity.
Meanwhile, others are putting up a fight. In early February, the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, the American Association of University Professors, the Restaurant Opportunities Center United, and Baltimore’s mayor and city council filed a lawsuit with the U.S. District Court of the District of Maryland seeking to end the order. And on February 19, the National Urban League, National Fair Housing Alliance, and AIDS Foundation of Chicago filed suit with the federal district court in Washington, D.C., seeking to overturn Trump’s anti-DEI, anti-transgender and anti-diversity EOs.
Given the Trump administration’s multifaceted attacks against racial and other minorities, civil society, and even the functioning of the federal government itself, the crux of the issue seems to be which fights funders and other entities are willing to pick. Part of that calculation has to be sizing up which battles are most likely to succeed. It’s certainly hard to imagine the current Republican Congress using its powers to significantly reign in Trump’s anti-equity edict, and a legal challenge leading to an adverse SCOTUS ruling would take far longer to undo than this and other executive orders.
Even with those caveats in mind, the world of private philanthropy is hardly powerless at this moment. Beyond the power of funders’ collective purses — some of which could be directed to support those nonprofits taking the lead in challenging Trump legally — funders have public relations arms with the ability to appeal directly to and possibly sway public opinion. The as-yet-unanswered question is how many of them will ultimately wield some of that power in a bid to save inclusive, equitable programming goals.
(2/21/25): This article has been updated to clarify that Trump’s anti-DEI executive order stipulated that every federal agency identify up to nine potential civil compliance investigations.
