By Stephanie Ellis-Smith

It has been less than a month since Donald Trump won the 2024 U.S. presidential election, and his inauguration is still more than eight weeks away. 

Given the freshness of the news and the uncertainty of what lies ahead, I am struck by the wave of commentators confidently declaring exactly why Trump won and detailing exactly what philanthropy and the nonprofit sector must do to prevent the awfulness they are certain is to come.  

I tend to agree with Adam Grant that the future is unknowable and that humans — myself included — are terrible forecasters. Our brains are programmed to seek evidence that validates our beliefs, and in times like this, we must be especially careful with our predictions. 

So rather than share advice based on my own guesses about the next four years, I will  share three questions that I believe all of us — advisers, donors, nonprofit leaders, fundraisers — should be asking now. 

By doing so, I am following the advice we give to our clients when the way forward is unclear: We get curious. We summon the courage to face uncomfortable truths head on. And we resolve to act differently based on what we learn. 

Do we have the stamina to fight for justice over the long haul? 

Much has been written about the cascade of “rage giving” and the resistance movement that followed Trump’s first election in 2016. It remains to be seen whether a similar surge of activity is underway now. There is certainly value in quick-response gifts that fund legal and policy efforts to advance causes that donors care about, particularly in areas like immigrant rights, racial justice, and environmental protection, where Trump has signaled loudly that he plans extreme rollbacks. 

But donors and nonprofit leaders would do well to pace themselves and plan for a long, drawn-out battle. If we learn nothing else from this election, we should heed what real resistance looks like. It’s patient, it’s organized, and it’s unrelenting in its pursuit of its goals. 

We need stamina and patience to keep pushing on creating an equitable and truly democratic nation. While we have a few long-game wins of our own (see marriage equality), we can still be too quick to follow shiny new theories or fads that may be great in a moment but can still pull us off course. Will our multi-factioned coalition of social justice practitioners be able to find a pace that is slow and steady enough to be sustained over many decades, yet with the same sense of urgency that moves us forward?

Philanthropy was meant to fund the gap left from government services. What do we do if the gap becomes a canyon?

While we cannot purport to know what the future holds, we can take seriously what we’ve been told about immediate plans for change. For example, we know that Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy will team up to run the Department of Government Efficiency, a new agency to cut “waste” from other federal agencies. They and their acolytes are signaling drastic cuts or even the elimination of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Education, the National Endowment for the Arts, and more. 

Taking these announcements at face value, donors and nonprofit leaders must plan how to serve their communities in these crucial program areas without their federal government partners. For example, what does the conservation and environmental movement look like with no EPA? Philanthropies  often promote  approaches that incorporate  lofty and sometimes academic theories of change, celebrating those that are laser-focused on fixing “root causes” or changing entire systems that contribute to intractable problems — while overlooking the need for day-to-day support.

If these agencies are dissolved and their funding dries up, donors will need to invest more in direct service while also devising new strategies for longer-term change. We may face unprecedented and urgent needs for basic assistance in our communities.  What role will philanthropy play to, at minimum, take care of the daily needs of our fellow citizens? What could the modern version of old-school “charity” look like?

If a hole is left by the withdrawal of government funding, will we allow ourselves to organize and fund in a way that is responsive to our communities without judgment, and without unhelpful infighting about what “good” and “effective” philanthropy looks like? 

The rich are likely to get richer. What will they do with the surplus capital?

Trump gave tax breaks to the wealthy in his first administration with the 2017 Tax Cut and Jobs Act and has signaled his intention to do more of the same. Investors are seeing their portfolios soar since the election. The one prediction I am willing to make is that wealth inequality will worsen as the rich get richer. 

Many philanthropists will have more resources than ever before. Call me a cynic, but I’m not sure their gains will translate to bigger gifts to the sector. While I hope I am wrong, this election was won by stoking fear in the electorate. The unpredictability of what the Trump administration may do, and when and how, likely means prolonged periods of unease and uncertainty ahead. 

Will the wealthiest take that as a sign to squirrel away more of their assets for themselves as a hedge? That’s a tough question to ask, and the answer may be even harder to hear, but history (and human nature) indicates that periods of extreme uncertainty and “scarcity thinking,” drive people to act more in their own self-interest rather than for the common good. 

I’m grateful that there are so many community-minded donors who care about underserved communities and underresourced issues. I hope their numbers rise in the coming years. But it would serve us well as a sector to understand the emotional and economic motivations that drove the election’s outcome and to ask how we may engage an increasingly fearful, and at times self-interested, population. 

No doubt there will be many more questions to ask and hard truths to swallow in the weeks and months ahead. But for now, my message to my peers and colleagues is to face our future with courage. We are such an optimistic bunch; we have to be to do what we do. We must have faith in our convictions and that we won’t be shaken off course, even when we’re forced to ask tough questions of ourselves. 

Finally, to all indefatigable donors and community organizers out there (especially to my Black sisters), make time for rest. We are in it for the long haul, and whether the electorate at large recognizes you for it or not, you make this world go around, and we would not be where we are today without you.

(Originally published in The Chronicle of Philanthropy Nov. 21, 2024)