(Illustration by Peter Grant)
In the spring of 2023, I joined five others to write an article for The Chronicle of Philanthropy urging the sector to reaffirm its commitment to pluralism. The authors all led significant philanthropic organizations and came from different perspectives. We saw a need for the sector to steel itself against threats from political polarization that were dividing and destroying other institutions in society. We argued that, while all the ideas philanthropy supports may not be of equal value, none should be forcibly excluded or regulated out of existence simply because those in power dislike them. This principle is foundational to protecting the role philanthropy plays in contributing to progress in society.
The response surprised us. Some affirmed a commitment to philanthropic freedom, but others questioned the need. They claimed we imagined the threats. Some even challenged the idea that pluralism was an appropriate standard or that the sector should tolerate a diversity of perspectives.
While not everyone could see the threats at the time, today they are on full display and coming from the country’s highest political office. In May, the president of the United States said he intends to revoke Harvard University’s tax status, because that’s “what they deserve.” The philanthropic sector spent weeks scrambling to assess rumors that a barrage of executive orders would do the same to nonprofits who ran afoul of what those in power deem an appropriate “public purpose.”
These threats are alarming. But they’re not unique. We’ve seen similar efforts to regulate, exclude, and intimidate nonprofit organizations from previous administrations, members of Congress, and others in positions of political authority. Those efforts were wrong then and they are wrong today.
While the current targets appear to be organizations associated with the progressive left, former IRS official Lois Lerner acknowledged the government targeted groups on the conservative right between 2010 and 2012. Applications for 501(c)(3) status were delayed or denied because of a group’s political perspective. More recently, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse took to the Senate floor to intimidate groups he dislikes. He described the lawful activities of groups I lead as “a decades-long scheme led by creepy billionaires” and “a whole smelly ecosystem of secretly funded front groups … cooked up in rightwing hothouses.” Great for headlines. Not so much for civil society. Other examples abound.
Whether these are equivalent in magnitude to the threats we see today is not the point. They are different degrees of the same destructive approach: political actors who seek to regulate, exclude, or intimidate in order to shape the actions of civil society in line with their own preferences.
This tendency is a clear violation of the spirit of the “independent sector.” And no matter who they target, these actions should concern anyone who believes in a free and open society and the progress that comes from it.
It may be tempting to dismiss attacks on philanthropy when the targets are big universities or wealthy donors supporting causes we don’t like. But these attacks cut at an essential American institution.
Sixty-five years after the founding of our country, Alexis de Tocqueville saw the capacity to privately work together to solve problems large and small as uniquely American. He wrote,
Americans of all ages, all conditions, and all dispositions constantly form associations … to give entertainments, to found seminaries, to build inns, to construct churches, to diffuse books, to send missionaries to the antipodes … Wherever at the head … of some new undertaking you see the government of France or a man of rank in England, in the United States you will be sure to find an association.
Beyond the more tangible benefits, this tendency gives Americans practical experience in self-governance that makes our experiment in constitutional democracy possible. A nation of people who join and lead voluntary associations to build a school, to support orphans, or to tithe for their church develop the habits and spirit of self-governance and the citizen leaders required in a republic.
Today, the United States is the most generous nation in the world, with more than 1.5 million charitable organizations contributing well over $1 trillion in goods and services every year. Whether you’re a fan of community-led solutions that prioritize underrepresented people or a dyed-in-the-wool limited government advocate, or both, philanthropy plays a big role in achieving your goal.
Since its founding, our country has depended on a vibrant and independent philanthropic sector that often espouses and supports ideas at odds with the norms of the day and with the preferences of those in power. Abolition, women’s suffrage, and civil rights were all supported by private associations amplifying the voices of those who would otherwise be drowned out, to say nothing of philanthropy’s contributions to scientific discovery, medicine, and technology.
When politicians threaten to exclude or regulate nonprofits based on perspectives or lawful activities with which they disagree, they put all of this at risk. Rather than running with the freedom to experiment and try new things, groups become cautious and fearful of the repercussions that come from falling out of favor with those in power. It’s not hard to see how quickly the nonprofit sector could become a hollowed-out appendage of the state and a reflection of the people who control it. Indeed, this is what we see in many other countries. When that happens, we all lose.
Politicians will say that tax-exempt status is a privilege. But this argument is at odds with the Constitution and our founding principles. It assumes that property, in this case the wealth created by those who contribute to philanthropy, belongs to the government and so people should be grateful when they are allowed to keep only so much as the government deems appropriate. But the reverse is true. The government has no inherent claim to the resources used for philanthropy. The bias should be toward philanthropic freedom, not against it. The First Amendment’s freedom of association is also a compelling bulwark against arbitrary government interference in civil society.
Efforts to address these threats are not new. The Safeguarding Charities Act, which would prevent the federal government from imposing costly requirements on nonprofits, has this goal in mind. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled in favor of philanthropic freedom, most recently in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, where more than 300 groups from across the ideological spectrum filed amicus briefs to prevent the intimidation of nonprofits through forced disclosure of donor information.
But this task is not for laws alone. The sector needs to mount a united defense of philanthropic freedom that does not discriminate based on the content of the actions or the persuasion of the actor. A clear expectation that, while those of us who work in philanthropy may disagree with each other’s ideas, we must defend each other’s right to exist. We must hold politicians accountable to keep their hands off this vital institution, no matter who is in the crosshairs at any given time. We’ll know we’ve succeeded when those in both parties view attacking philanthropy as a third-rail issue, one they dare not touch for fear of frying their political future.
Crisis has the potential to unite even the most unlikely allies. Despite the threats we see today, the sector can emerge from the current challenges stronger than we were going in. But it will require determined and consistent action from all of us.
This series appeared in SSIR’s Fall 2025 Issue, including a new follow-up essay from MacArthur Foundation President John Palfrey.
Read more stories by Brian Hooks.