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 — attempting to ban terms like “climate change” from the federal lexicon.
Amid this full-on policy assault by the power-suit-loving president 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?
I’ve been trying to address these questions all year, yet answers have been hard to come by. 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’s recent threats to prosecute the Open Society Foundations and the Ford Foundation will likely deepen the silence.
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 — i.e., the year 2025, not the era of Rubik’s Cubes, waterbeds and VHS.
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’s current challenges.
Ensure the U.S. can build the energy infrastructure needed for the future
This one should come as no surprise: Siting and permitting reform — i.e., making it easier to build the energy infrastructure we need for a future where everything is electric — has been the talk of energy analysts for years. It even briefly looked like it would become law.
Democrats secured Joe Manchin’s 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’ voices would be silenced, left the bill well short of the 60 votes needed to advance.
Despite that shortfall, the following years have seen a variety of push factors.
Debate over regulatory obstacles has surged, with books like “Abundance” by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson arguing that liberals should support what they call the “abundance agenda,” which focuses on reducing red tape for housing and energy infrastructure in particular. A cross-ideological cadre of philanthropic billionaires, from perennial anti-climate donor Charles Koch to liberal-leaning effective altruists Dustin Moskovitz and Cari Tuna, have shown interest.
Demand for energy infrastructure has also spiraled upward due to AI and data centers, while energy prices have surged. Add in the Trump administration’s enthusiasm for AI, not to mention cryptocurrency, another resource-intensive technology, and some see a recipe, if risky, for bipartisan agreement on permitting.
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.
“I think the next big thing is going to be permitting reform,” he said. “It’s essentially, next to the tax credits, the other thing that can unleash clean energy.”
Peter Colavito, executive director of Invest in Our Future, the multifunder collaborative formed to speed implementation of the IRA, suggested there’s a need for targeted action, such as mobilizing spokespeople to advocate for key projects.
“This is not just about changing federal regulations,” he said. “This is, a lot of the time, the blocking and tackling at the ground level to persuade people that these projects are good for them.”
Given the challenges, both in D.C. and within many states and regions, it’s 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.
“Even in this rapidly changing policy environment, there are opportunities to improve policy design and delivery,” she said in an email. “One such example is permitting, which is getting a lot of important effort and attention at the state and local level.”
Build a bigger U.S. climate and environmental tent
Since Trump was elected, I’ve been hearing about the climate movement’s 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.
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 “enemy of my enemy is my friend,” but ultimately led to deeper alignment.
“These are two groups whose politics are incredibly different, but they have this shared, common goal around protecting the land that they are on,” she said. In a state with a population of less than 1 million, such partnerships were widely noticed.
Ackva at Founders Pledge had argued prior to Trump’s election for supporting eco-right groups to diversify the climate coalition, and repeated that argument after the election in a January report, “All In: Strategies for Climate Philanthropists in a New Political Landscape.” (For context, see my 2022 piece 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.
“It 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,” he said.
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 — often referred to as climate equity — that was gaining momentum following George Floyd’s 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.
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. 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.
Related Inside Philanthropy Resources:
For Subscribers Only
Networks of grantmakers are, well, networking
When grantmakers want to know what other funders are doing, they often turn to affinity groups, or networks of grantmakers who fund on a similar topic. This year, a number of those networks have amped up their own collaboration, both within the environmental space and beyond.
A wide variety of environmental groups have been holding regular meetings to track Trump administration actions on topics like food and agriculture policy and environmental justice. Other subgroups, like Health and Environmental Funders Network, The Funders Network and Neighborhood Funders Group’s Integrated Rural Strategies Group, are working on specific events.
Collaboration between these networks isn’t remotely new, but this moment has deepened some of those efforts. Several said the work has been critical, allowing grantmakers to check in on what’s happening in other communities, the needs that are arising, and how to work together.
In a more traditional vein, Sustainable Agriculture and Food Systems Funders held an August webinar co-sponsored by eight other philanthropy-supporting organizations on the impact of summer heat on farmworkers.
“It’s important for information on the current policy landscape/where things stand with federal funding freezes and unfreezes to be available to the public so we are all operating with intel that is as up to date as possible,” said Maggie Mascarenhas, the group’s public policy manager, in an email.
Amanda Andere, Neighborhood Funders Group’s other newly arrived co-president, said her organization’s rural group, along with Health and Environmental Funders Network and The Funders Network, are planning a three-part webinar series, “Pathways for Advancing and Defending Equitable Solutions In the Wake of Federal Rollbacks and Attacks,” which will cover the federal budget and potential actions for nonprofits.
But she noted the meetings actually started before the Trump administration, in a bid for better alignment between the groups, and there remains a long-term vision.
“There’s a number of things that will come out of that collaboration,” she said. “It’s not meant to be like a one-time thing.”
Michael Kavate covers climate philanthropy and billionaire donors. He welcomes feedback, disagreements, tips and requests.
