{"id":226960,"date":"2025-10-16T11:00:33","date_gmt":"2025-10-16T18:00:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.insidephilanthropy.com\/?p=226960"},"modified":"2025-10-16T11:39:50","modified_gmt":"2025-10-16T18:39:50","slug":"trump-calls-climate-change-the-greatest-con-job-ever-what-paths-are-open-to-philanthropy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.insidephilanthropy.com\/home\/trump-calls-climate-change-the-greatest-con-job-ever-what-paths-are-open-to-philanthropy","title":{"rendered":"Trump Calls Climate Change the \u201cGreatest Con Job Ever.\u201d What Paths Are Open to Philanthropy?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

Since taking office in January, President Donald Trump and his administration have been on a mission, or so it seems, to return U.S. energy policy to the 1980s. Political appointees, like so many Pac-Men released inside the government, have gobbled up climate funding, programs, scientific databases and even language itself \u2014 attempting to ban terms like \u201cclimate change\u201d from the federal lexicon.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Amid this full-on policy assault by the power-suit-loving president<\/a> and his staff, what does U.S. climate philanthropy plan to do to get, uh, back to the future? And what has it done so far?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I\u2019ve been trying to address these questions all year, yet answers have been hard to come by<\/a>. Most funders, and particularly legacy foundations and billionaire-backed operations, have been tight lipped amid fears of being targeted, and almost no foundations are announcing major new climate grants. Trump\u2019s recent threats<\/a> to prosecute the Open Society Foundations<\/a> and the Ford Foundation<\/a> will likely deepen the silence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But in conversations over the past few months with leaders at regrantors, philanthropy-supporting organizations and consultants, a few common ideas have emerged about opportunities for the sector and current areas of focus in this moment \u2014 i.e., the year 2025, not the era of Rubik\u2019s Cubes, waterbeds and VHS.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

None of these topics are new, but for each, I encountered multiple people (including some who did not want to be quoted) who either feel philanthropic capital can still make a difference on these fronts, or believe such endeavors are crucial to overcoming the climate movement\u2019s current challenges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ensure the U.S. can build the energy infrastructure needed for the future<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

This one should come as no surprise: Siting and permitting reform \u2014 i.e., making it easier to build the energy infrastructure we need for a future where everything is electric \u2014 has been the talk of energy analysts for years. It even briefly looked like it would become law. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Democrats secured Joe Manchin\u2019s vote on the Inflation Reduction Act by promising to take up permitting reform, and a rare bipartisan group got behind a draft in 2022, though opposition from both sides of the aisle, particularly from environmental advocates worried communities\u2019 voices would be silenced, left the bill well short<\/a> of the 60 votes needed to advance. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Despite that shortfall, the following years have seen a variety of push factors. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Debate over regulatory obstacles has surged, with books like \u201cAbundance\u201d <\/em>by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson arguing that liberals should support what they call the \u201cabundance agenda,\u201d which focuses on reducing red tape for housing and energy infrastructure in particular. A cross-ideological cadre of philanthropic billionaires<\/a>, from perennial anti-climate donor Charles Koch to liberal-leaning effective altruists Dustin Moskovitz and Cari Tuna<\/a>, have shown interest. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Demand for energy infrastructure has also spiraled upward due to AI and data centers, while energy prices have surged. Add in the Trump administration\u2019s enthusiasm for AI, not to mention cryptocurrency, another resource-intensive technology, and some see a recipe, if risky, for bipartisan agreement on permitting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Johannes Ackva, the climate lead at Founders Pledge, a network of entrepreneurs who commit to funding climate action, said that permitting reform would be harder under Trump, particularly after the Republican budget bill ended many energy tax credits. But he remains bullish about its prospects, even if the path is unclear.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cI think the next big thing is going to be permitting reform,\u201d he said. \u201cIt’s essentially, next to the tax credits, the other thing that can unleash clean energy.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Peter Colavito, executive director of Invest in Our Future, the multifunder collaborative formed<\/a> to speed implementation<\/a> of the IRA, suggested there\u2019s a need for targeted action, such as mobilizing spokespeople to advocate for key projects.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThis is not just about changing federal regulations,\u201d he said. \u201cThis is, a lot of the time, the blocking and tackling at the ground level to persuade people that these projects are good for them.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Given the challenges, both in D.C. and within many states and regions, it\u2019s worth considering measures that will achieve climate goals under a different name, while addressing community needs, said Laurel Blatchford, former chief implementation officer for the Inflation Reduction Act at the U.S. Department of the Treasury.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“Even in this rapidly changing policy environment, there are opportunities to improve policy design and delivery,\u201d she said in an email. \u201cOne such example is permitting, which is getting a lot of important effort and attention at the state and local level.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Build a bigger U.S. climate and environmental tent<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Since Trump was elected, I\u2019ve been hearing<\/a> about the climate movement\u2019s need to broaden its coalition. That has not changed. The call seems to be coming from across the philanthropic landscape, though some of the particulars advanced by advocates may differ.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Stephanie Chan, who recently started as co-president of the Neighborhood Funders Group, said one focus for them has been bringing together unlikely allies around climate and environmental justice goals. She recalled a 2018 South Dakota campaign that brought together rural white farmers and Indigenous organizers to challenge pipeline projects on the initial basis that the \u201cenemy of my enemy is my friend,\u201d but ultimately led to deeper alignment. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThese are two groups whose politics are incredibly different, but they have this shared, common goal around protecting the land that they are on,\u201d she said. In a state with a population of less than 1 million, such partnerships were widely noticed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ackva at Founders Pledge had argued<\/a> prior to Trump\u2019s election for supporting eco-right groups<\/a> to diversify the climate coalition, and repeated that argument after the election in a January report<\/a>, \u201cAll In: Strategies for Climate Philanthropists in a New Political Landscape.\u201d (For context, see my 2022 piece<\/a> on eco-right funding.) He said the surge of post-election funding such groups received has not changed what he views as the urgency of that call.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIt would be a misconception to think that the eco-right is now well-funded, or that the eco-right was well-funded to engage on this,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In reviewing these conversations, I was struck by some leaders, such as Chan, who talk about building a bigger climate tent in language that feels like an extension of the community, and by the power-building work \u2014 often referred to as climate equity \u2014 that was gaining momentum following George Floyd\u2019s murder. Ackva and others put the emphasis on moving funding to areas, such as the eco-right, that historically have not had support from climate philanthropy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

These two areas do not need to be in conflict. There are places, such as rural communities, where both can find purchase, not to mention around the general idea of building a long-term foundation for an economy that works for everyone<\/a>. But how best to pursue the goal of a more expansive climate movement seems likely to remain a source of tension within the movement in the months and years ahead.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Related Inside Philanthropy Resources:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

For Subscribers Only<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n