Philanthropy’s Role in a Volatile Political Climate
📷 credit: Miguel Bruna on Unsplash
The philanthropic sector is facing a defining moment, as we’ve talked about in previous blog posts, with strategies to defend democracy and specific funding recommendations. The choices funders make today will set the tone for generations to come. While that has always been true, the volatility of our current political climate makes it more urgent than ever.
Over the past few months, our team at Ktisis also conducted a series of confidential interviews with philanthropic peers. We wanted to understand how leaders are navigating this turbulent environment, one marked by federal funding rollbacks, heightened political attacks, and intensifying threats to justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion. What we heard was both sobering and instructive.
If there’s one consistent theme that emerged from these interviews, it’s this: philanthropy must lead with principle. This moment does not require reinventing strategy, but it does require reasserting organizational values and leading with courage both internally and externally.
That means preparing with integrity, not fear. It means investing in nonprofit resilience as a long-term commitment to justice. And it means remembering that coordinated, public, values-driven leadership is both a strategic necessity and a moral obligation.
A Growing Disconnection
Recent data underscores the urgency: nearly 90% of nonprofit leaders report burnout as a pressing concern, for themselves and their staff (Center for Effective Philanthropy, State of Nonprofits 2025). And according to the Building Movement Project, 73% of politically active nonprofits face threats, reputational risk, or funding cuts when working on issues like DEI, LGBTQ+ rights, or reproductive freedom.
Despite these realities, many funders remain cautious or even silent. This creates a troubling dissonance between the scale of the crisis that nonprofits are navigating and the scale of the philanthropic response. The leaders we spoke with were clear: philanthropy cannot afford to retreat into neutrality.
The Risks & The Cost of Inaction
We heard candidly from funders who are weighing political and legal risks every day. Some are considering how to prepare for audits or legal challenges; others are adjusting their language to deflect political scrutiny. But several pushed back on the idea that caution is the only safe path forward.
As one funder put it: “If you’re committed to racial justice, you don’t just scrub your website. You commit to it and find strong justification.” Another reminded us that risk, when aligned with values, can strengthen credibility: “Pick a fight you know you can win — or even if you lose, it’s worth picking because you shift narrative.”
The message was clear: the cost of silence may be greater than the cost of action.
Four Ways Philanthropy Can Show Up
From these conversations, four field-level imperatives emerged as concrete ways funders can choose to show up in this volatile period of time:
Reground in risk and values. Risk awareness is essential, but it must be tethered to clearly articulated values. Foundations that scenario-plan around “red lines” and thresholds of action are better prepared to move decisively under pressure.
Align internal culture with external strategy. Program staff (often BIPOC, closest to risk) frequently see the clearest path forward, while boards and senior leaders may hesitate. Institutions that bridge this gap and back it up with a courageous public voice are able to respond authentically and in real-time.
Resource movement resilience. Frontline groups need more than program grants. They require flexible, multi-year support and infrastructure investments that enable them to remain strong under pressure. Even simple shifts, such as accelerated payments, reduced reporting, and backend support, can make the difference between sustainability and exhaustion.
Synchronize with peers for field-level impact. The threats facing nonprofits are coordinated. Philanthropy’s response too often isn’t. Whether through collaboratives, joint funds, or informal intelligence sharing, funders who align their strategies on legal defense, narrative power, and infrastructure multiply their collective impact.
As one leader told us bluntly: “If risk is the reason we’re hesitating, we’ve already lost.”
For philanthropy, the question is no longer whether to take risks. The real question is: Which risks are worth taking, and which will most meaningfully advance a more just and equitable future?