Philanthropy in the U.S. is facing a shift in public perception. What was once broadly seen as a force for good is now, in some circles, framed as politicized, opaque, or even at odds with democratic values. These narratives are gaining traction—and they carry implications for how funders carry out their work and for civil society more broadly.

On August 4, NationSwell hosted a virtual Leader Roundtable designed to bring philanthropic leaders together to examine what’s driving the shift and what can be done in response—within our organizations and collectively. 

Some of the most salient insights from the discussion appear below:

Key takeaways

Center communities and partners in storytelling, while still making the case for philanthropy’s role. Focusing on the communities being served and partners on the ground can help rebuild credibility during a low-trust moment for the sector. How much philanthropy steps back varies by institution – some remove themselves from the story entirely, while others seek to elevate communities and partners alongside being honest about what philanthropy’s institutional support makes possible. 

Demonstrate values through action, including the power of air cover. Putting values into practice builds more trust than talking about them. Backing issues that partners and communities care about with institutional voice and funding can take pressure and scrutiny off of them, giving them room to speak or engage more freely.

Acknowledge the philanthropy sector’s collective complicity in the challenges it now fights. Some of the conditions driving public distrust and rollback were shaped, in part, by philanthropy’s own underinvestment in collective power-building and community voice. Naming that complicity, as a sector, can inform how funders invest going forward.

Build credibility through ongoing organizational self-reflection. Revisiting founding narratives and grantmaking mistakes can also lay a more credible foundation for external communication. Sharing what an organization has learned and plans to change in order to meet their communities’ needs resonates with audiences seeking transparency and accountability from the sector. 

Establish clear guardrails for when and how to use institutional voice. Speaking on every issue is not sustainable, and staying silent carries its own risk. Clear criteria helps leaders decide when a foundation’s voice is additive or expected – or when it should step back and elevate other voices – and ensures engagement is intentional rather than reactive.

Broaden the audience beyond peers and grantees. Philanthropy has traditionally spoken to other funders and peers, leaving the broader public and policymakers questioning the role and legitimacy of foundations. Deliberately engaging with civically active audiences and policymakers can help address stigmas around the sector and support a more comprehensive and accurate public understanding of the work.  

Simplify messaging and narrow the aim. Insider jargon and abstract theories further alienates audiences outside the sector. Plain, accessible messaging that emphasizes bridge-building and shared values grounds audiences in language they connect with and trust. 

Coordinate across the field and lean on the power of collective voice. Collaborating with other funders on crisis response and shared messaging has helped organizations hold their ground during a period of sustained attack on the sector. Whether through formal coalitions or informal peer conversations, cross-institutional collaboration allows individual organizations to speak with more confidence than they could alone.