Facing Free Speech Threats, Foundations Prepare for Next Volley From the White House

Following the shooting death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk and the subsequent calls from the White House to dismantle networks of nonprofits funded by progressive foundations, a definitive policy action hasn’t emerged from the White House.

But some members of a group of more than 150 grant makers who last week signed a statement condemning political violence and championing freedom of speech say they are ready for the Trump administration’s next move. Their letter signals a key part of a developing strategy: to take a forceful, public stand, no matter how an attack from the administration materializes.

“They’re going to try and test whatever they can and use the full force of the government however they can,” said Nat Chioke Williams, president of the Hill-Snowdon Foundation, a national grant maker based in Washington, D.C., referring to White House policy makers.

Trump administration officials have suggested a range of tactics to hobble the work of progressive grant makers, which they say contributed to a violent atmosphere that led to Kirk’s killing. During a speech from the White House recorded for the Charlie Kirk Show last Monday, Vice President Vance singled out the Ford and Open Society foundations as part of a group of organizations that “foments, facilitates, and engages in violence.” Since the shooting, Trump administration members and allies have threatened to revoke liberal grant makers’ tax exempt status and pushed for new definitions of what constitutes illegal hate speech. (The Ford Foundation is a financial supporter of the Chronicle of Philanthropy.)

In preparing a response to expected policy changes, foundation leaders appear to be walking a delicate line between exposing themselves to threats from the administration and remaining stalwart — and visible — institutions in the communities they serve.

While some foundation leaders say there has been a lot of behind-the-scenes work sharing legal contacts, combining funds for legal support, and providing physical security, they also have expressed a wariness of telegraphing their plans in a crackling, dangerous political atmosphere.

A big part of some progressive foundations’ plans is to remain visible and attempt to shape the debate, Chioke Williams said. The killing of Charlie Kirk seems to have narrowed the scope of dialogue about political violence to that one incident, he said. It is up to foundations to forcefully communicate that intimidation and coercion, such as threatening leading grant makers or flooding the streets of Washington, D.C., with National Guard troops, are also forms of political violence.

“We do not want to be pushed into a dark hole,” he said. “Part of the point of the whole thing is to ‘invisibilize’ folks and, more importantly, make those folks who need our support feel like they don’t have it.”

Neither Well Understood nor Unified

A challenge for philanthropy — unlike for universities and corporations that also have faced scrutiny from the administration — is that many people don’t understand how foundations improve their lives, said Saskia Brechenmacher, senior fellow at the Democracy, Conflict, and Governance Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

That’s why the public letter sent last week was important, she said. Over the spring, the philanthropic sector did not present a unified front, with some leaders pushing for a more public confrontation with the administration and others wanting to “keep their heads down.”

“The fact that there’s a significant group of funders now getting together and speaking out is an important first step,” Brechenmacher said.

The group of philanthropies that signed the letter is much smaller than the more than 700 organizations that added their names to a similar letter in April, which laid out a more generic defense of philanthropic freedom. That group included a more diverse set of foundations, including many progressive organizations and some with a more rightward tilt.

Leaders of conservative foundations that support aspects of Trump’s agenda but cherish free speech and the freedom to give don’t always feel welcomed among progressive groups with whom they may find common cause on the First Amendment — something progressive leaders must address, Brechenmacher said.

“That is a weakness,” she said.

The Philanthropy Roundtable, a membership group of conservative donors and grant makers, said that it is tracking developments but declined to comment further.

Unless followed by specific policy changes, the talk coming out of the White House may amount to just “bluster,” said David Keating, president of the Institute for Free Speech, a conservative group that advocates for protecting the First Amendment.

Given that the Ford and Open Society foundations are well-staffed with lawyers, Keating, the former executive director of the Club for Growth, an anti-tax advocacy group, said he would be shocked if the grant makers did anything to put their tax-exempt status at risk under current policy..

Keating stressed that if an investigation finds progressive funders directly supported Kirk’s shooter, then possible criminal investigations should follow. But he suggested that Trump’s circle is simply targeting left-leaning organizations because Trump has been the focus of so many lawsuits supported by progressive foes.

It’s a vicious cycle, Keating suggested, adding that he doesn’t “have any solution to get both sides to somehow come to a ceasefire.”

Calls for Grant Maker Action

Kirk’s death highlights the need to protect people’s freedom to speak out, in a civil manner, when they have differences, said Angelique Power, president of the Skillman Foundation.

The foundation’s main focus is improving education in Michigan, a state that Power describes as “proudly purple.” The variety of political viewpoints in the state, she said, makes it important for a philanthropy to speak to all residents and ensure they can find solutions to problems together.

“Mr. Kirk stood for being shoulder-to-shoulder with people you disagree with, and he stood for vibrant exchange where the goal isn’t silence or agreement,” she said.

That said, it is imperative that foundations protect members of the communities they serve. Free and open conversation is essential, she said, but it must be accompanied by other action. “Building dialogue is not the antidote,” she said.

The real medicine is to put up more cash, suggested Rajasvini Bhansali, executive director of the Solidaire Network, a donor group focused on social justice movements.

In her view, progressive funders have a short window of time to bolster the strength of social-justice, racial-justice, and climate organizations that are under attack by the Trump administration.

In previous crises, foundations have often been too worried about protecting their endowments and have been reticent to flood cash to grantees. By coming together as a group, foundations might gain confidence to continue supporting progressive causes even amid Trump attacks.

“It’s our job to really show up,” she said. “And it’s easier to show up, and to … feel bolder, when you’re not standing alone.”