Logo-style banner: 'The Climate & Clean Energy EQUITY FUND' in burgundy text on a lavender background.

Across multiple issue areas, movement organizers express a desire for funders to understand the importance of funding people and organizations on the frontlines of these crises. But often the conversation goes deeper: what if we as movement leaders had our own folks running these funds? This query changes the conversation from a fund being movement accountable to also being movement-led.

 I had the second of four pieces in our series on the importance of frontline movement accountable intermediaries details a conversation with the Executive Director of the Climate and Clean Energy Equity Fund [the Equity Fund], Andrea Mercado, formerly Executive Director of the movement organization Florida Rising. Mercado started her role at the Equity Fund in early 2025. Over the past year, she helped steward the Equity Fund’s core strategies – supporting movement groups by prioritizing resourcing, narrative strategy, and policy support.

A Decade of Results

The Equity Fund is turning ten this year. Starting with a goal of regranting resources to climate and environmental work, the Equity Fund began refining its state-based strategy to focus on three main pillars of change: structural policy, narrative and behavior change.

By focusing on climate equity in fourteen states, the Equity Fund supports organizations on the ground long term. The fund has moved $162 million to over 200 grantee partners with no plans to stop any time soon. The Equity Fund recognizes that by advancing a state-by-state resourcing strategy, they are building the infrastructure to support local policy wins on climate justice. When I asked Mercado what it means to fund intersectionally across multiple issue areas in service of advancing climate equity and justice, she said, “Our response has to be comprehensive…our members don’t lead single issue lives. We know that people in a lot of our communities are already underwater before it ever starts to rain.”Early in Mercado’s tenure at Florida Rising and in the middle of a special election, Hurricane Irma hit.

Canvassers pivoted to mutual aid, helping people who had lost power and did not have food or safe medication storage. They directed community members to vote early for a candidate who could ensure that their basic needs were being met before a climate disaster created a life-or-death situation. Florida Rising won extended early voting and mail in voting timelines and secured an extra $2 million in emergency SNAP benefits for impacted families. The litigation changed federal policy for emergency SNAP so that applicants across the country can apply online or over the phone rather than in person.

This mobilization illustrates the importance of funding intersectionally and highlights how important it is for organizers to be free to pivot in the moment and use all the tools in the toolbox, which can lead to big wins.

 

Accelerating Progress

In addition to nine funding priorities, the Equity Fund has both a Policy and Communications accelerator. The Policy Accelerator houses a Climate Policy Fellows program, a multi-year fellowship which helps to incubate public policy strategists within grantee partner organizations with the purpose of deepening their understanding of the climate policy landscape and growing the bench of movement-based policy practitioners This past year they had 25 fellows across 14 states. Through the Communications Accelerator, the Equity Fund supports organizations actively advancing narrative strategy and change work and guides their grantee partners toward equity driven campaign narratives. These two accelerators support each other. “[In] order to shift the politics of a state requires narrative power, in addition to electoral power or civic engagement power from a c3 standpoint,” says Mercado.

This focus on advancing state policy wins led the Equity Fund to participate in the All by April Campaign and grant out 98% of their funds by Earth Day last year, which ensures that organizations have the resources to do civic engagement work without waiting for late election season funding. They plan to move the majority of their grantmaking dollars before Earth Day again this year.

Mercado’s organizing experience reveals an important process-point for others: policy wins do not start at the statehouse, but on the ground in the communities most impacted by the issues. The Equity Fund’s longtime funding of base building in New Mexico laid the groundwork for unprecedented workforce development victories. Base building in Michigan laid the groundwork for the Money Out of Politics Ballot Initiative.

Investing in community base building helps in rapid response moments as well. Last winter, the Department of Homeland Security began Operation Metro Surge in Minnesota, flooding the Minneapolis-St. Paul area with thousands of agents. The Equity Fund has funded organizations in Minnesota since 2018 and was able to move $200,000 in January 2026 to support crisis response efforts in those communities.

In December 2025, the Equity Fund also announced that they will support more rapid response work and organizing across emerging issue areas. As one of the recipients of the latest round of funding from Yield Giving, they will increase funding across their 14 states and beyond and will push back against AI data centers through their new Data Center Equity Fund.

 

Dreaming Bigger

Supporting systems change requires not only funding frontline work, but building and maintaining non-monetary support to help achieve climate policy wins in different states. The Equity Fund is a great example of what it looks like to build the scaffolding frontline climate justice organizations need to thrive. Granting long-term, general operating support funds, in addition to deepening relationships and building capacity, is a winnable strategy.

Mercado elaborates, “I think that the opportunity for us at the Climate Equity Fund is to leverage our resources to do right by those organizers that have always been the visionaries, the architects and the implementers of our most innovative and needed solutions.[…] We need a sector wide commitment to bold campaigns and innovation rooted in the incredible leadership in Black, immigrant and native communities. The urgency of this moment requires us to not waste time on people that clearly don’t care about community self-determination. It is imperative that we find each other and find ways to move together to be ever more powerful and impactful in achieving our shared dreams.”


Andrea Cristina Mercado is the President and CEO of the Climate and Clean Energy Equity Fund. The daughter of immigrants from Peru and Argentina, she brings over two decades of experience in civic engagement, strategic campaigns, and multiracial community organizing. She served as the Executive Director of Florida Rising Together and the New Florida Majority Education Fund, where she spearheaded large-scale civic engagement programs that continue to grow political power that centers Black, Latino, and working-class communities. She is a co-founder of the National Domestic Workers Alliance, where she was Director of Campaigns and Co-Chaired We Belong Together. A former Fulbright Scholar, Mercado learned community organizing and developed a lifelong commitment to Climate Justice while working with farmworker communities in Brazil. She lives with her family in South Florida, where she was recently named Best Activist by the Miami New Times.

Alabama remains one of the most restrictive and challenging reproductive health environments in the country. The state’s laws, healthcare infrastructure, and political climate combine to create conditions where access to basic reproductive care is inconsistent, limited, and often unsafe. Black women experience maternal mortality rates three times higher than their white counterparts, meaning the burden of this hostile landscape is not shared equally. Philanthropy must respond with more than think-pieces and reports. This moment demands deep relationship and monetary investment into the solutions created by Birth Justice Leaders in Alabama and the Deep South.

In 2022, reproductive health, rights, and justice organizations across Alabama began preparing for significant changes when the Dobbs decision leaked, signaling that already fragile abortion access would face further erosion. As a trigger law state, Alabama immediately outlawed abortion following the overturn of Roe v. Wade. In the aftermath, the attorney general threatened prosecution against individuals assisting others in traveling out of state for care. Alabama Department of Public Health attempted to introduce regulations targeting birth centers and midwifery care that would have severely limited their ability to operate, while hospitals known for providing safer care for Black women closed their doors.

For rural communities, the absence of services shapes daily life. More than one third of Alabama counties lack obstetric care, forcing families to navigate long distances to access essential services. For low-income families, the cumulative costs of appointments, transportation, and childcare combined with race-based criminalization place care out of reach even when it technically exists. People living with disabilities face additional barriers through provider bias and inadequate accommodations, further reinforcing exclusion from essential reproductive and maternal health services.

JeniceFountainheadshot

We must do more than grieve. We must do more than witness. We must do more than write. Alabama Birth Equity Initiative (ABEI) is a statewide, community-driven effort that confronts Alabama’s maternal health crisis through a holistic, Reproductive Justice-centered approach rooted in the leadership, knowledge, and survival strategies of those most impacted.

The call for Alabama Birth Equity Initiative’s work is as ancestral as granny midwives, as natural as birthing in the room where your child was conceived, as familiar as scratching and surviving.

As Qiana Lewis of Holy H.O.E. Institute reminds us, “Our grandmothers caught babies in conditions that many of us would not survive. Their suffering wasn’t magical; they had an intense sense of responsibility for the people around them. We have to take the lessons and the history and build upon them.”

While ABEI is new in its public-facing form, it is not a new partnership nor a new body of work. The birth justice workers and advocates involved are people who have been doing this work independently and collaboratively for years. What ABEI represents is not a departure into new territory, but a strategic decision to formalize and scale work that already exists and already has momentum. Over the past two years, we intentionally focused on building coalition infrastructure before launching publicly. This included aligning leadership, clarifying shared values, establishing operational systems, and identifying where our individual strengths intersected most effectively. We reached the conclusion that building shared infrastructure was essential to achieving durable, statewide impact.

Alabama Birth Equity Initiative exists because we are past time to move beyond theory. Importantly, this initiative is grounded in data and direct community input, not assumptions. Through a 48-county bus tour across rural Alabama, we partnered with PhD candidate Shawnda Chapman, and Abby El-Shafei of Strength in Numbers to conduct a comprehensive reproductive health needs assessment. We engaged more than 500 community members to ensure that the services, advocacy, and systems we are building reflect what communities have identified as their actual needs and priorities from a Reproductive Justice standpoint.

Guided by the lineage of Southern midwives, mutual-aid societies, and organizers, we treat care itself as strategy: a way to dismantle the conditions that produce crisis while rehearsing the liberated future we seek. We witness the need for a new model, for care centered in community.

ABEI’s care-based strategy has three pillars. ABEI’s strategy for the workforce is to Increase the number of Black Midwives achieving licensure to practice within the state. They also want to improve access and provide mobile reproductive health units for rural Alabama. Finally for infrastructure, ABEI will build a Reproductive Justice center for birthing, working, and community resources.

ABEI builds directly on proven work that is already underway. Oasis Birth Center has helped double the number of midwives practicing in Alabama. Yellowhammer Fund has served as a trusted intermediary since 2022. In March 2025, Yellowhammer Fund served as lead plaintiff in the federal case that blocked Alabama from criminalizing anyone who helps residents travel for out-of-state abortion care. The ruling restored our travel-grant hotline, protected volunteers from prosecution, and is now cited in parallel suits across the South—proof that community-rooted organizations can move constitutional law. Alabama Birth Center has functioned as a preceptor site, contributing to workforce development. ABC has worked with countless student nurse practitioners, student midwives, and resident physicians to facilitate training in low-resource settings. Chocolate Milk Mommies works to bridge gaps by providing lactation and breastfeeding support creating safe spaces where mothers feel seen, heard, and valued, Chocolate Milk Mommies also connects families with trusted birth workers and maternal health resources, promoting awareness about disparities impacting Black maternal and infant health. Margins has served hundreds of families to ensure that pregnancy would not become a catalyst into poverty and that they would be able to raise their children with dignity and respect.

There has been a sector wide divide between abortion access and birth equity., That must end. Grassroots organizations like the members of ABEI and local abortion funds like Yellowhammer Fund serve people who are not living single issue lives. When we are asked to isolate our programming because a funder only funds abortion, we are being asked to abandon the framework of Reproductive Justice, which is central to our work. Funders can and must do better. Initiatives like ABEI are gateways to the full spectrum of care. The Combahee River Collective’s statement articulates how Black women face interlocking systems of oppression— race, gender, sexual orientation, and class— and how Black women’s liberation requires addressing all of these simultaneously. The Collective argues that identity politics emerge from material conditions of oppression and that the most radical politics come from those most marginalized. For ABEI, this provides foundational language for understanding why infrastructures of care must address food, housing, healthcare, childcare, and safety together. These needs are not separate, but interlocking. Meeting them is both practical survival work and radical political practice.


Jenice Fountain is the Executive Director of Yellowhammer Fund, where she leads Reproductive Justice work in Alabama and the Deep South with a focus on mutual aid, health equity, and economic justice. Fountain is a fearless organizer and strategist, building grassroots power in a region too often abandoned by national funders. She brings deep expertise in care-centered leadership and radical community resourcing. “My journey is fueled by rage, radical imagination and fierce love for my community. I am grounded in the belief that we can create what we need.”

Picture a room of student leaders from Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) laughing, hugging, and celebrating two years of advancing Reproductive Justice through advocacy that transformed them, their campuses, and their communities. That was the energy in the room at our 2026 Next Generation Leadership Institute Graduation Retreat in Washington, D.C.

I was filled with immense pride as we ushered this outgoing class into the next phase of their journey as budding Reproductive Justice activists. From the moment our 2026 fellows entered the program, they made history as the most inclusive cohort we have ever welcomed, with the largest representation of HBCUs to date. And what makes this distinct class even more remarkable is that they didn’t stop there. They carried that same spirit of excellence and purpose throughout their entire two-year fellowships.

As I stood in that room watching these young leaders reflect on the connections they made and the impact of the campus programming they hosted, I was moved beyond words. I was reminded of exactly why this work matters and why it demands our full investment. These students didn’t arrive at this moment by accident. They arrived because In Our Own Voice: National Black Women’s Reproductive Justice Agenda made a deliberate, sustained commitment to equip the next generation of Reproductive Justice leaders. As we close out the 2024–2026 programmatic cycle, I want to share what that investment produced, and what I believe funders need to understand about the kind of support that makes results like this possible.

In Our Own Voice is a national-state partnership that amplifies the voices of Black women leaders to secure Reproductive Justice for Black women, girls, and gender-expansive people. The Next Generation Leadership Institute is our flagship fellowship, the leading Reproductive Justice program for students at HBCUs. While it’s important to focus on what this program is, it’s equally important to focus on what it isn’t.

This is not a pipeline program designed to funnel talented young people into pre-existing structures and call that leadership development. The Next Generation Leadership Institute is built on a fundamentally different premise: that young Black people at HBCUs already have the passion and the vision to create change. What they need are the resources, infrastructure, and perhaps most critically, trust.

An Effective, Responsive Model

Why HBCUs? Why youth? Why Reproductive Justice? The majority of HBCUs are located in states with the most restrictive reproductive rights in the country. Our students are not studying these issues from a distance; they are on the frontlines. Their campuses are communities of deep culture and extraordinary organizing power. When you provide resources to young leaders, the ripple effects reach far beyond campus gates, energizing the broader Reproductive Justice movement.

Amid a hostile political climate, our fellows didn’t just show up. They showed out. Across the nation, the Next Generation Leadership Institute fellows organized 64 campus programs, each one tailored to the specific needs of their own campus community. Each fellow conducted a campus needs assessment, surveying their peers to understand what resource and programming gaps existed at their HBCUs. From that data, they built campus events that filled the Reproductive Justice needs outlined by their peers.

The results speak for themselves: more than 4,500 menstrual products distributed, 1,500 safe sex kits placed directly in the hands of students who needed them, and four Reproductive Justice Hotlines launched at Spelman College, Howard University, Xavier University, and Langston University, giving students on-demand access to contraceptives and reproductive health resources.

The beauty of our model is that it puts the decision-making power exactly where it belongs: in the hands of the young people who know their campuses best. A menstrual equity initiative at Xavier University of Louisiana looked nothing like one at Tougaloo College and it shouldn’t have. At Xavier, fellows Christina Anderson, and Alicia Spight, partnered with New Orleans Bounce artist and community advocate Vickeelo, turning what could have been a standard product distribution drive into a vibrant cultural celebration rooted in the spirit of their New Orleans community. At Tougaloo, fellow Nayla McClure, extended her reach beyond campus entirely, partnering with a local middle school in Jackson, Mississippi, to establish a menstrual care closet for young girls who needed it most. Both were made possible by a program design that gave fellows a clear framework and the freedom of trust to adapt it.

Standardized programming produces standardized results. To achieve transformative, community-rooted outcomes, our model proves that funders must resource and trust the people closest to the problem to design the solution.

Supporting Young Leaders Builds Lasting Power

Over the years of leading this work, I have learned that meaningful leadership development builds lasting power but only when it is resourced to do so. I say this not to scold, but because I genuinely believe funders who are paying attention can and will do better. Especially for organizations like ours that are pouring into young people to be fully equipped and prepared to lead the fight for Reproductive Justice. Here is what that looks like in practice.

Multi-year, flexible funding is not a luxury for this work. It is a prerequisite. Our fellows needed a full year to earn trust on their campuses, to build relationships, and to understand the landscape before their advocacy efforts could truly take root. The most powerful results such as new Reproductive Justice hotlines, coalitions, and community partnerships will long outlast our students’ fellowships. A one-year grant cannot capture that arc, and it certainly cannot sustain it.

While longevity in funding is crucial, so is trust. The Next Generation Leadership Institute works because we trust young people to identify their campus needs and design solutions to address critical Reproductive Justice issues at their HBCUs. When funders layer on excessive reporting requirements, rigid deliverable structures, or intense scope restrictions, that can send an unintentional message of distrust. The impact of distrust is not neutral. It costs time, energy, and momentum that our fellows could be spending on activating their campuses.

Black-led organizations are not high-risk investments. In fact, the Next Generation Leadership Institute’s impact including 64 programs created thousands of menstrual and contraception products distributed, and numerous hotlines launched proves that. These programs thrived, even against a backdrop of unprecedented political hostility towards reproductive rights, health, and justice. What we witnessed in those outcomes is not fragility. We saw resilience, resourcefulness, and visionary leadership, which can only be strengthened when it is funded.

I return to that Graduation Retreat room, and I find that I don’t want to leave, because what happened in that space deserves to be showcased. The fellows who fill the room know all too well the stakes when young people don’t have a seat at the table. We deliberately designed this celebratory gathering to firmly plant their seats at the helm of the Reproductive Justice leadership table. Watching them claim those seats with confidence and purpose reminded me that this is exactly what investment in young people is supposed to look like.

The lesson for funders is clear: When we trust young HBCU students, invest in their success, and fully resource them as partners in this work, the result is a stronger, more collaborative, and more resilient Reproductive Justice movement for everyone. In short, we all benefit from investing in the next generation of youth advocates.


Giovanteey Bishop is a program strategy executive and leadership development architect dedicated to advancing Reproductive Justice for Black women and communities across the nation. As Director of Programs & Training at In Our Own Voice: National Black Women’s Reproductive Justice Agenda, she leads the strategic vision of high-quality national programs and designs training ecosystems that develop the next generation of Reproductive Justice leaders. She holds a Master of Science in Administration with a concentration in Health Advocacy from Trinity Washington University, grounding her work in health program design, community needs assessment, and program evaluation. Beyond her professional role, Giovanteey serves as a mayor-appointed Commissioner on the Washington DC Commission for Women and is a proud member of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Incorporated.

To learn more about the Next Generation Leadership Institute and how to support this work, visit blackrj.org.

Contact: Jennifer Amuzie | jamuzie@ncrp.org

Suhasini Yeeda |syeeda@ncrp.org

Newest Publication Celebrates NCRP’s 50th Anniversary

The Winter 2026 Issue of NCRP’s flagship journal, Responsive Philanthropy celebrates NCRP’s 50-year legacy and looks forward to 50 more years of progressive change

 

WASHINGTON, DC – To begin its 50th anniversary commemoration, the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP) published its latest issue of Responsive Philanthropy journal, NCRP’s 50th Anniversary Issue. NCRP signed its incorporation of paperwork in February 1976 and emerged during a period of political retrenchment that mirrors the challenges faced today. This February 2026 issue celebrates the lasting legacy of NCRP’s longform work, highlights the organization’s impact on the sector, and inspires donors and movements alike to support bolder advocates.

“For 50 years, NCRP has worked to ensure that philanthropy is responsive to those with the least wealth, power and opportunity in our society,” said President & CEO Aaron Dorfman. “Our journal has been a key part of how we both hold the sector accountable and inspire donors and foundations to use their power and wealth to create lasting change.”

This issue of Responsive Philanthropy features essays from philanthropists, funders, and organizers who know NCRP’s work intimately. These authors share how they came into relationship with us and how their work inspired NCRP and how NCRP’s work inspired their careers as well.

 

INSIDE THE ISSUE

The following articles and all past issues of Responsive Philanthropy are available on NCRP’s website, ncrp.org:

 

From Legacy to Impact: How NCRP Shaped My Journey in Philanthropy 

Dr. Dwayne Proctor, NCRP Board Chair and Missouri Foundation for Health President and CEO looks back at his family’s rich legacy of advocacy, his nontraditional journey to philanthropy, and the ways NCRP helped inspire his 20-plus-year career in philanthropy.

 

Philanthropy Must Evolve 

Javier Alberto Soto, President and CEO of The Denver Foundation, recalls NCRP’s stinging critique of their lack of commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion in 1993. He describes how NCRP’s ‘critical friendship’ inspired the foundation to completely rethink their own legacy and incorporate those values into their staff and programs.

 

Honoring 50 Years of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy and Its Imprint on Women’s Funding 

Philanthropist and women’s funding pioneer Tracy Gary reflects on how a series of interactions with NCRP’s first president, Bob Bothwell, completely shifted her goals in the sector and inspired a career that radically changed how philanthropy looks at gender-based funding.

 

Fund Faith: Why Philanthropy Must Prioritize Faith-Led Advocacy Now More Than Ever 

Jeanné Lewis, a nonprofit executive, faith-based organizer and CEO of Faith in Public Life, writes about NCRP’s legacy as a thought leader pushing the field and challenges funders not to overlook the importance of faith in driving progressive change.

 

The Legacy of Longform: A Retrospective on the Responsive Philanthropy Journal 

Writer, creative organizer, and NCRP Editorial Manager Suhasini Yeeda provides an inside look at the history of NCRP’s flagship journal Responsive Philanthropy and how its legacy in longform narrative mirrors the mission of NCRP.

 

ABOUT NCRP

Since 1976, the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP) has championed justice as philanthropy’s critical friend – elevating and validating the expertise of frontline nonprofit groups with actionable research for funders. For fifty years, NCRP has been a bold truth-teller, critic, and provocateur to drive improvement in the philanthropic sector.

CONTACT(S): Jennifer Amuzie— jamuzie@ncrp.org 
Russell Roybal — rroybal@ncrp.org 

NCRP Publishes Hide or Speak: Navigating Authoritarianism Without a Playbook

A year into an unprecedented administration, NCRP’s newest report calls for a bold funder response 

Washington, DC – One year into the second Trump administration, NCRP’s newest report, Hide or Speak: Navigating Authoritarianism Without a Playbook, exposed a disturbing fault line among progressive foundation leaders. While many foundations are committed to expanding funding and strengthening partnerships, 41 percent of surveyed funders expressed that they are uncertain about how to respond effectively in the current climate.

“In conducting research for this report, I was struck that the greatest obstacle funders named was not operational challenges, or legal issues, or even fear. It was uncertainty: uncertainty about how to navigate such unprecedented challenges. Many funders said they felt like there was ‘no playbook for this,’ and yet many of those same funders told me how they were inventing a playbook as they went, often trailblazing inventive and bold strategies to protect human rights in the face of rising fascism,” said Ben Francisco Maulbeck, an author of the report.

Nearly 98 percent of foundation respondents agreed that the U.S. is facing a constitutional crisis, yet only 36 percent had spoken about human rights and democratic crises in the country in the year since the current administration took office. In fact, one in twelve foundations in the sector seem to have censored themselves, changing their websites to remove language related to concepts of diversity, equity, and inclusion in the social sector.

Hide or Speak joined a series of recent reports aimed at sparking and amplifying discussion in online philanthropy and nonprofit spaces about what it looks like for funders to step up for democracy and equity.

The Philanthropic Initiative for Racial Equity found that the total value of philanthropic grants whose descriptions included “racial justice” dropped 90% since 2020, and that philanthropic funding for the explicit benefit of BIPOC communities is down more than 30% as a share of all grantmaking since its peak in 2021.

ABFE has documented a “Blacklash” of pushback to nonprofits being explicit about being by and for Black people. 15% of Black-led nonprofits surveyed said that they had been told in 2025 not to mention race when talking about their work.

According to a ProPublica analysis, “more than 1,000 charities rewrote their mission statements in forms they filed this year with the Internal Revenue Service, removing or minimizing language tied to race, inequity and historically disadvantaged.”

Center for Effective Philanthropy talked to both funders and nonprofits; their study revealed a disconnect between nearly all foundation leaders and nonprofit leaders.

This report is a real-time documentation of how funders are combating an authoritarian regime. It is true that leaders indeed feel stuck in their response, but many are also finding ways to resist. There is a playbook to protecting democracy, and we’ve synthesized some of the best strategies funders are using to keep up the fight,” Tyler Armey, co-author of Hide or Speak, stated.

Report authors Ben Francisco Maulbeck and Tyler Armey outline many of the ways that foundations can experiment and push the boundaries to meet this moment.

This piece is informed by reproductive justice-led work in Appalachia during Hurricane Helene recovery, where community care networks step in as a matter of practice when systems fail.

For 53 years, the anniversary of Roe v. Wade has held a mirror to the sector. Too often, what it reflects back is the cost of our own silence, absence, and hesitation to invest in abortion access at a scale that the frontlines have long demanded beyond survival and beyond sustainability.

Since 2020, the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy has worked to move research, resources, and guidance toward abortion access rooted in justice, centered at the state, and local levels, and shaped by those closest to the hurt and work. And still, nearly four years after the Dobbs decision, the limits of research alone have become undeniable. Philanthropy continues to underfund, delay, and constrain the movement’s vision, while anti-abortion forces do the opposite. Anti-abortion funders build patiently, plan across decades, and their funding does not excuse itself during legislative fads and ballot calendars.

Meanwhile, much of abortion access-centered philanthropy remains preoccupied with its own sunsets. Convening to discuss exits, legacy, and the vacuums their absence will create, rather than reckoning with the damage already done by years of underinvestment, silence and stigma. As of this anniversary, several major institutions have publicly announced plans to wind down or exit the field, including the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation, the movement’s largest funder, the Compton Foundation, the Gates Foundation, the Grove Foundation, the Irving Harris Foundation, the Wellspring Philanthropic Fund, and the Tara Health Foundation.

Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation’s decision to sunset has surfaced a reckoning the sector postponed for far too long. Its scale and steadiness created tangible stability and in doing so, made it easier for the rest of philanthropy to avoid building shared responsibility, redundancy, and long-term infrastructure. The panic we are witnessing now isn’t about one foundation stepping back; it’s about a system that never prepared itself to hold the work collectively.

As others wait to make their plans public, philanthropy infrastructure organizations like Funders for Reproductive Equity and intermediaries like Groundswell Fund and Grantmakers for Girls of Color continue to fund grassroots work while also challenging the habits philanthropy has relied on for too long. Those reckonings matter. Because at this moment, abortion seekers, providers, and organizers are exhausted. Their grace is gone, and their patience is low.

And exhaustion on the frontlines is not just an emotional condition; it is the terrain on which opposition infrastructure is built. Appalachia shows us exactly how that transfer of power happens.

 

Maternal Health Deserts and Manufactured Scarcity

We are naming Appalachia not because it is marginal, but because it is revealing the impacts of a sector that has produced and sustained isolation in a region considered nonessential to national strategy. The expansion of crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) in the region is not simply the result of opposition strategy; it is the predictable outcome of philanthropic absence. When long-term, values-aligned investment fails to materialize, anti-abortion infrastructure fills the vacuum with discipline and intent.

Appalachia matters in its own right and tells the truth; power is never neutral, and power doesn’t disappear; it reorganizes elsewhere.

Crisis pregnancy centers are not a deep south problem, not a midwest problem, and not a rural problem. They are a national infrastructure. They show up everywhere, but they grow fastest where care has been stripped away. CPCs thrive in the absence of full-spectrum reproductive healthcare. In places where entire zip codes, counties and even states have been abandoned, leaving CPCs with the space to redefine what care looks like. Their expansion is not accidental. It is the predictable result of policy failure and philanthropic neglect. Additionally, CPC density in Appalachia did not emerge in isolation.

It grew alongside a collapsing maternal health ecosystem as hospitals closed, midwives were criminalized, and OB/GYNs were pushed out by policy, cost, and political hostility. Leaving rural families forced to navigate pregnancy and birth under conditions that qualify as a humanitarian crisis.

This is what underinvestment produces, manufactured scarcity that leaves people desperate for any form of support, real or not. CPCs have stepped into that desperation with precision, embedding themselves in places philanthropy has too often labeled too complicated, too conservative, too small, or too politically risky.

Our data above reflects how care actually moves. Bordering states, many shaped by Appalachian care networks and migration, often serve people traveling for pregnancy-related care. We also include a small number of rural areas outside of the region facing similar disparities, to make visible how these systems operate across places.

Appalachia makes this truth impossible to ignore. The region stretches across more than a dozen states and holds deep diversity, people whose lives cannot be flattened into a single story. What binds most Appalachian communities is their shared history of extraction and divestment. That history shows up in today’s conditions, including the more than 160 crisis pregnancy centers embedded across the region.

To focus on West Virginia, the only state entirely Appalachian, is not to single out the state, but to see the pattern clearly. Nearly half of the state’s counties, 47.3%, are maternity care deserts, and another 12.7% offer only low or moderate access, not full-spectrum care. The imbalance is obvious, one abortion clinic serving 1.8 million people, in a state where there are roughly 6.8 CPCs per million residents. In a maternal health desert with little abortion access, pregnancy is no longer a choice or a journey; it is a gamble with people’s lives, shaped by policy, neglect and abandonment.

 

Fear, Faith, and Falsehood

The CPC model thrives on its ability to weaponize fear by exaggerating medical risks and exploiting uncertainty, leveraging faith through deep integration into church networks, and deploying falsehoods by presenting themselves as legitimate medical providers.

And in Appalachia, trust is currency. Anti-abortion networks understand this and have invested accordingly, building volunteer pipelines, leadership benches of medical professionals and political leaders, and long-term relationships over decades.

They have stayed where philanthropy that professes concern for the access and reproductive justice space cycles in and out, and they have built while many funders shift focus during crises and retreat once attention shifts. Unless philanthropy is willing to learn from that strategy, not to replicate its ideology, but to match its commitment, anti-abortion infrastructure will continue to outpace and overshadow our own.

 

A National Call to Build What Comes Next

We have to tell the truth about our own delay. Too often, those of us with access to platforms and decision-makers, including NCRP, softened language where it should have sharpened. We trusted proximity over pressure, and we allowed politeness to stand in for accountability. A restraint that by no means protected the movement, but protected funders from having to change.

We have used research to try to move resources to the frontlines, and we are listening as organizers tell us plainly: research is not what is missing, reports cannot substitute for action, and data cannot replace decisions. Additionally, its delivery must demand action and leave no room for delay between plenary sessions and abortion bans. In this moment, our responsibility is not to produce more proof, but to use proximity, platform, and relationships to interrupt harm as it is happening.

That means speaking less about the crisis and speaking bold intentions into the rooms where money is held, and decisions are delayed, naming risk aversion for what it is, challenging hoarding in real time, and refusing to let delay masquerade as strategy. What comes next is a grounding in southern-rooted frameworks and leadership for understanding reproductive access and gendered violence that helps funders and frontline partners move out of silos and toward integrated, survivor-centered strategies with real resources behind them. In 2026, NCRP will curate spaces grounded and curated by the people who built this analysis, inviting funders not just to learn, but to act.

Our commitment is to use research as a door, not a destination. To leverage proximity, platform, and relationships to surface the quiet parts in real time, disrupt harmful funding patterns as they are happening, and push resources toward frontline abortion access and care infrastructure with urgency, not permission.

Working from a place grounded in values aligned between what we name, what we build, and a refusal to separate analysis from responsibility. Not cautiously. Not eventually. But now, creatively, collaboratively, and with the courage to build the future we imagine.


Brandi Collins-Calhoun is the Movement Engagement Manager at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP). A writer, educator and reproductive justice organizer, they lead the organization’s Reproductive Access and Gendered Violence portfolio of work

 

Creative and Intentional Resourcing  

In 2021, Walton, along with key frontline Climate Justice leaders, played a key role in helping to reallocate $141 million from the Bezos Earth Fund to frontline accountable intermediaries, with The Solutions Project (TSP) receiving $43 million themselves. Additionally, TSP co-developed three movement support funds with frontline organizations, The Justice 40 Accelerator, Communicating Our Power Fund and The Fund for Frontline Power (A note that this is 100% governed and stewarded by grassroots organizations and leaders and is being held at TSP at the request of those organizations).

These funds were developed in partnership with movement groups such as the Climate Justice Alliance and Groundswell. These partnerships help build trust and deepen the commitment that TSP has in ensuring that these funds go directly to frontline, grassroots organizations.

TSP focuses on granting multi-year, unrestricted grants whenever possible. And they work to be emergent and nimble when events such as climate disasters happen, working to get money on the ground quickly. They also lean heavily into resourcing narrative power and strategy, amplifying work and stories to further their advocacy for climate action, policy changes and funding.

The impact of these practices is huge. One of TSP’s grantees, Soulardarity based in Highland Park, MI ran a community-controlled energy democracy campaign to install thousands of solar powered streetlights after the original ones were taken away. These streetlights will not only provide energy cost savings for years to come, but the campaign helped to strengthen community cohesion and power. Frontline grantees know what they need and how to be responsive to the multifaceted desires of their communities even when those desires/needs do not fit into a narrowly defined grant portfolio.

Walton also hopes that movement accountable intermediaries can be more organized and strategic, continuing to show up courageously as a necessary force of the philanthropic sector. Because while TSP has moved upwards of $60 million in 2025 (with a milestone of $100 million more) to upwards of 350 frontline-led organizations, there are much larger climate focused intermediaries in the ecosystem moving three to four times that amount of money, who are not working directly with frontline groups.

By working in collaboration with like-minded collaborative funds, funders like TSP help make movement accountable funding the norm instead of an outlier. Additionally, Walton stresses that in being a movement-accountable intermediary, TSP needs to fundraise every year. This can mean getting creative and working to build partnerships between grantees and non-traditional institutions, sectors, and people to bring in additional funding. Walton elaborates, “It’s important to understand that moving resources is expansive and multidimensional, meaning it can look like moving money, making connections to other funders and opportunities, sharing our platform, paying for a grantee to attend a conference or a training, etc. It’s showing up when it counts and matters.”

An example of how TSP shares their platform is how they proudly amplify numerous frontline solutions oriented case studies to signal to other climate funders that frontline communities have always had the solutions, and those solutions are having tremendous impact on people and the planet.

 

Navigating the Political Landscape

In 2025, as the federal administration began to roll back climate protections and slash previously awarded funding; TSP launched the We Love People & Planet: Stand for Climate Justice Campaign with over 100 organizations, foundations, and individuals committing to show a “united front for climate solutions.” Signatories promised to amplify frontline solutions that include the following:

  • Implement solutions that increase clean energy, air, and water and meet community needs.
  • Increase investments, action, and policies for climate solutions that improve people’s lives.
  • Protect climate gains and wins.
  • Uplift and tell stories that show our collective power to create the future we want.
  • Support and fund those most affected by the climate crisis.

While these objectives may seem simple, it is important to acknowledge the conditions that movement groups are facing under this federal regime, while funders with very little to lose are protecting their wealth out of fear and complying in advance. Refusing to back down and boldly continuing to support those who are actually vulnerable is deeply needed during these times.

Gloria Walton - The Solutions Project

 

Building Deep Relationships

When I asked Walton what is one thing that other funder intermediaries could learn from TSP, she said, “While we are not institutional philanthropy, it is important that we still show up in a space that recognizes that there may be a perceived power differential. The onus is on us to invest the time, energy, and resources to foster an actual relationship where our grantees feel safe and comfortable to ask us questions, to admit not knowing, or to share their missteps and mistakes, without a punitive response. It’s on us to ensure that our grantees understand that their voice and experience truly matters to us – not just when things are going well or according to plan, but how do we respond with care and support when things may not be.”

Furthermore, Walton continues, “Many movement-accountable intermediaries are led by former grassroots organizers who have decades of experience, relationships, expertise, and understanding of what it takes to do the work on the ground. Therefore, the expression of movement accountable strategies and approaches often stems from empathetic leadership.”

Frontline accountable intermediaries work directly with movement groups to meet their needs as they evolve. Their role is to directly support these communities without relying on their own agenda or biases. They understand that philanthropy as it exists now is not sustainable. They recognize the importance and validity of frontline-led solutions and work to amplify them while also partnering with other aligned funders to move those resources further.

The Solutions Project has been building and experimenting for over twelve years, honoring their commitment to largely fund climate and environmental justice organizations led by Black people, Indigenous people, and other people of color whose communities are at the frontlines of racism, poverty, and pollution. Over the years, they have launched several campaigns and continue to learn and grow from the outcomes. But two things have always been clear: that resourcing and building deep intentional relationships with those most impacted by the climate crisis is the clearest way to mitigate it.

 


 

Editor’s Note: This is Part Two of a continued conversation with The Solutions Project’s Executive Director Gloria Walton. This continues NCRP’s series highlighting the importance of frontline and movement accountable intermediaries. There will be three more pieces coming out this year, each continuing to showcase how funders and other funder intermediaries can shift their practices to resource communities on the ground directly.

Resources that Make Climate Justice Work  

We have heard it all before: “well, if we had more funding, we would do x” or “we had a lot of momentum going on this project, but it was only funded for a year, so we have to focus on other priorities.” In the eleven years I’ve spent in the climate justice movement space, I have grown tired of hearing this common refrain.

In the philanthropic space, the conversations amongst progressive funders and funder organizers were similar. These conversations included conference workshops, hours-long sessions and working groups with slightly modified configurations of the same folks jumping between Zoom calls and various retreat centers around the country.

This is not to say that those gatherings were not productive. I did participate in some convenings that were and still are deep, and meaningful. There are funders doing the work of engaging in intentional solidarity with frontline organizers on the ground. They are funding way above the five percent threshold, spending down their endowments and experimenting with creative ways to get work funded –all while living under oppressive conditions upheld by governmental and private sectors.

One cannot help but be inspired by those funders whose praxis is equitable wealth redistribution and who are organizing to create the conditions where philanthropy will no longer be needed in its current form. And still, progress is ultimately a drop in the bucket given what the frontlines are up against. This is not a new revelation. In the past four years, I along with countless others have written about it hereand hereand here.

In the 2023 Challenging the Power of Billionaire Philanthropy in the Climate Funding Space campaign, the NCRP Climate Justice and Just Transition team turned its lens on climate focused funder intermediaries with the purpose of showcasing how the sector can become more frontline accountable. It is more than apparent by now that we need all hands on deck if we are going to have any chance at mitigating the worst of the climate crisis.

Therefore, this piece is not going to focus on the reasons why the frontlines need more and longer-term resourcing. I will not be spending a lot of time detailing the conditions that led us to this moment of predictable funder backlash and retention. There are plenty of pieces lifting up the problems. Here are few to read if you are interested. Instead, I want to focus on the intermediary funders who are getting it right, with the intention of showcasing some tangible solutions for other funders working to be more accountable to frontline grassroots communities.

 

True Frontline Accountability

In August 2025, I had the immense pleasure of speaking with Gloria Walton, the President and CEO of The Solutions Project (TSP); a frontline accountable funder intermediary founded in 2013. TSP is working to accelerate a just transition to a regenerative economy by funding and amplifying climate solutions initiated by disinvested communities – Black, Indigenous, immigrant, women and communities of color – who are closest to the adverse impacts of climate change and therefore often best placed to solve and address them. We discussed what being frontline accountable means to Walton and TSP, how TSP is showing up in this moment and how institutional funders and intermediaries can apply these lessons to their own resourcing practice. The rest of this piece will include takeaways from that conversation.

It is important to define what a funder intermediary is and how to distinguish between a frontline accountable intermediary versus one that is not. In 2017, an article from Peak Grantmaking defined intermediaries as “mission-driven organizations that aim to more effectively link donors (individuals, foundations, and corporations) with organizations and individuals delivering charitable services.” On the surface, intermediaries are collaborative funds or re-granting organizations who fundraise from donors and institutional funders with the purpose of granting those funds out to various non-profits.

Frontline accountable intermediaries do a lot more than that. As alluded to above, frontline organizations have been deeply underfunded for decades, with few institutional funders and donors moving money directly to those groups. And while many frontline groups prefer funding directly from institutional philanthropy, frontline accountable intermediaries offer a good alternative.

Gloria Walton - The Solutions Project

In response, Walton states, “If funding directly from institutional philanthropy is the preference, it’s because it’s the dominant theory of philanthropy that we know, but the reality is that these are historically and present-day underinvested and disinvested organizations, that’s why they shouldn’t be tasked to choose between institutional funding or movement accountable intermediaries. They need direct funding from both.”

A 2024 article in the Stanford Social Innovation Review written by several frontline accountable intermediary leaders defined their institutions as “organizations that help allocate funding to people-powered activism.” Furthermore, “These organizations came to life from movements, and [their] ultimate aim is to reduce philanthropic infrastructure.”

Intermediaries are ultimately accountable to their funders while frontline accountable intermediaries are accountable to their grantees aka frontline, grassroots organizations.

As Walton states, “We recognize that people at the frontline of the climate crisis best understand the problems and conditions of their communities, and what solutions their communities need. Therefore, being a movement accountable intermediary means trusting their expertise, experience, leadership, and their strategic vision. Our movement is currently experiencing unprecedented threats, from escalating climate disasters, shrinking federal support and philanthropic pullback, to political volatility, attacks on democracy, and increasing burnout for frontline leaders. That’s why serving as a collaborative fund is more catalytic and essential than ever.”

In my conversation with Walton, it was clear that this sentiment rang true for her and is how TSP operates. Walton comes from movement work, starting in the economic justice space in the early 2000s in South Central Los Angeles. When it soon became clear that climate justice was deeply intertwined with the economy and all forms of justice, her focus became resourcing the power building and organizing of Black and Brown frontline communities working to end the climate crisis.

Throughout our discussion, racial justice was a central theme. We talked about the performative solidarity of 2020 when many foundations increased their payouts temporarily to fund more Black, brown and Indigenous led organizations and how that funding has all but dried up five years later under the threat of fascism, despite communities on the ground needing these resources now more than ever. To Walton, funders tend to fund what they value, and BIPOC, frontline led solutions are not always the first priority.

 


 

Editor’s Note: This is Part One of Two of NCRP’s conversation with The Solutions Project’s Executive Director Gloria Walton. Click here to follow along for Part Two where we dive into The Solutions Project’s Creative and Intentional Resourcing.

New research from the National Committee of Responsive Philanthropy explores the increased investment of regressive private and public foundations in recent years.  

All figures in this reporting have been converted to 2025 dollars* 

Over the past decade, we have seen the fruition of a well-financed 60-year campaign to roll back major movement-won advances made on racial, gender and economic justice. NCRP researchers took a deeper look at the investments from funders who advocated for policies and resourced organizations which undermine our democracy and basic human rights. Across our Regressive Philanthropy Initiative focus areas, NCRP researchers examined the year-over-year funding to grantees and compared it to funding contributions to movements focused on sustaining the democratic society we all want. According to the most recent data, progressive funders are still outspending regressive funders. However, the investment over time from regressive funders is far outpacing their counterparts. This is happening at an especially alarming rate, as regressive funders accelerate their efforts while other progressive funders cower in self-censorship.

 

Anti-LGBTQ+ organizations funding increases, while funding for LGBTQ+ communities decline
Year-over-year investments in and against LGBTQ rights

NCRP researchers compared our regressive funders dataset with the latest Tracking Report published by Funders for LGBTQ Issues. This annual report has noted a decline in U.S. foundation grantmaking to LGBTQ+ communities in recent years, falling 22% from 2022 to 2023.

Looking at the average total funding from the latest three years of our data, regressive funders on average funded $223 million annually to organizations focused on limiting rights to LGBTQ+ communities. According to the tracking report, in these same years, average funding to LGBTQ+ communities was $229 million per year. While our progressive allies remain slightly ahead of regressive funders, it is increasingly only marginal.

Even adjusted for inflation, funding for anti-LGBTQ organizations has increased significantly since 2010, escalating drastically in 2016. According to data from Funders for LGBTQ Issues, total funding for LGBTQ communities has continued to decline year-over-year since a peak in 2021.

 

Regressive funders work to change policy and public opinion in their anti-immigrant campaign

NCRP researchers have spent the last several years documenting the pro-immigrant and refugee movement, (PIRM) ecosystem. PIRM grants data, includes organizations across a spectrum, from core movement groups to multi-issue groups offering direct services to immigrant and refugee communities. This movement ecosystem reached an all-time funding high in 2018 with $428,964,490 in grants. NCRP’s dataset of anti-immigrant organizations is much smaller, with only 46 organizations. However, in this dataset there are only two organizations whose primary focus is to deliver direct services; the rest work to lobby, litigate, shift public opinion and influence state and federal anti-immigration policies. While pro-immigration and refugee funding has begun to revert to 2016 levels, opposition funding has risen, jumping 98% from 2019 to 2020.

It is important to note alongside these estimates of foundation support for anti-LGBTQ+ and anti-immigrant organizations that their work is complimented on a massive scale by Fox News’ anti-LGBTQ+ and anti-immigrant narrative work. Fox News is on track to sell over $1 billion in ads in 2025, and the network regularly out-rates all other news networks.

 

Progressive funders can’t let up the gas on multi-year support for democracy organizations

Doing deep engagement work in democracy has always been difficult in the United States, but the growing opposition to progress in our federal and state legislatures continues to threaten grassroots organizations engaged in this work. Legislative trackers suggest that thousands of pieces of democracy legislation from both parties get introduced every year. Only about 10% of these bills pass. Much of this largely goes unnoticed by the public, but American democracy is feeling those slow and subtle shifts of power now.

Using the most recent available data from the year following a presidential election, the Democracy Fund projects that pro-democracy support increased from $2.5 billion in 2017 to $3.2 billion in 2021.These projections are higher than regressive funding for anti-democracy organizations in those same years ($336 million for anti-democracy organizations in 2017 and $813 million in 2021). However, all funders that care about protecting a diverse civil society and basic human rights should notice that between 2017 and 2021 post-election years, anti-democracy regressive funding almost tripled. Based on all our annual data of anti-democracy funding, NCRP researchers predict this rise in funding will only continue once 2025 data is available.

If progressive funders do not stay ahead of coordinated anti-democracy funding, they risk ceding even more ground in the years ahead. Operating from a defensive position is a losing strategy to protect democracy organizations.


Research Manager for Special Projects and current Connecting Leaders Fellow at ABFE, Katherine Ponce engages in both qualitative and quantitative research projects to advance NCRP’s mission. 

Before NCRP, Katherine’s passion to strengthen the involvement of community in philanthropy grew during her time at the Sillerman Center for the Advancement of Philanthropy. Here she analyzed data trends for the center’s publications and outreach to uplift field partners focused on participatory grantmaking.

Katherine earned a dual degree, an MBA in Social Impact and MS in Global Health Policy and Management, in 2021 from the Heller School at Brandeis University, and a BA in 2015 from Towson University.


Infographic Sources: 

Graph: Year-over-year investments in and against LGBTQ rights

The National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy. (2025, April 16). The Regressive Philanthropy Initiativehttps://ncrp.org/the-regressive-philanthropy-initiative/

Tracking report from Funders for LGBTQ issues, 2025

LGBTQ Rights Milestones Fast Facts. (2015, June 19). CNN. https://www.cnn.com/us/lgbt-rights-milestones-fast-facts

Graph: Year-over-year investments in and against immigrant rights.

The National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy. (2025, April 16). The Regressive Philanthropy Initiativehttps://ncrp.org/the-regressive-philanthropy-initiative/

NCRP PIRM data 2011-2020

Andrade, M. M., & Serrano, Dr. R. (2024). A New Wave of Hate [League of United Latin American Citizens]. LULAC. https://lulac.org/a_new_wave_of_hate/

Graph: Year-over-year investments in and against democracy

The National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy. (2025, April 16). The Regressive Philanthropy Initiativehttps://ncrp.org/the-regressive-philanthropy-initiative/

Griffin, R., Lobeck, C., Botero, M., Cooper, S., Diggles, M., McKay, C., & Steffen, E. (n.d.). The State of Pro-Democracy Institutional Philanthropyhttps://democracyfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Field-in-Focus-3.pdf

Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law. (2017, May 10). Voting Laws Roundup 2017 | Brennan Center for Justicehttps://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-laws-roundup-2017

Movement Advancement Project | Diverging Democracy: The Battle Over Key State Election Laws Since 2020. (n.d.). Retrieved October 21, 2025, from esearch.org/democracy-maps/2024-election-trends-report”/democracy-maps/2024-election-trends-report

Julie Pitta - The Phoenix Project

It’s been called “California Forever,” and described as a chance to rejuvenate a struggling rural community in Solano County, California. The slick website promises 53,000 jobs, affordable homes, good schools, and thriving local businesses.

California Forever is pitched as a “gift” from some of the state’s wealthiest to the good people of East Solano County. Among its funders are a handful of billionaires including Michael Moritz, the tech investor behind Google and YouTube, and Marc Andreessen, the venture capitalist who made early — and lucrative — bets on Facebook and Airbnb.

If it sounds too good to be true, that’s because it is.

New for-profit charter cities like California Forever are being furthered using the language of philanthropy and “community wellness.” However, they are simply another vehicle for enriching their funders, made possible by keeping their intentions in the dark. Now more than ever, resourcing aligned, community leaders – like Solano Together – is how we can support our movements like we want them to thrive and last.

Combatting Self-Interest Cloaked in Philanthropy

The most effective way to combat self-interest cloaked in philanthropy is to shine a light on the individuals involved and their true intentions. At the Phoenix Project, we report on astroturf groups – billionaire-backed political pressure organizations in San Francisco and the greater Bay Area and their attempts to use wealth to unduly influence the political process and increase their wealth at the expense of working and vulnerable people.

The National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP) has a similar goal with a project that explains the ways that grantmaking has been used both wittingly and unwittingly to attack representative government. NCRP’s regressive philanthropy research found that from 2020-2023 over $1.5 billion dollars were granted to attack representative democracy and to attempt to reverse progress on racial, gender, and economic justice in the United States. Today, philanthropy designed to maintain inequities and push anti-democratic ends is enjoying more support from foundations and giving vehicles like donor advised funds than giving intended to further justice and equality. In the case of California Forever, would-be residents of this so-called utopia will be forced to trade away rights, while the current agrarian and blue-collar population will be displaced, with long-standing environmental and social impacts. As a for-profit charter city, California Forever will not be subject to the rules of traditional governance. The billionaires, who have been secretly scooping up Solano farmland since 2017, are creating a city that will operate by its own rules. Michael Moritz has called it a chance to experiment with “alternative” forms of government. That form of government is authoritarian, or at the very least governed in a way that does not resemble representative democracy. Instead, this area and its government will operate according to the whims of the oligarchs bankrolling it and technocrats governing it. Although details are still sketchy, so-called Network State experiments like Próspera in Honduras, or Elon Musk’s Starbase in Texas, have established appointed governing board rather than elected bodies and have privatized public services like schools and police. Indeed, these largely crypto-backed ventures look more like the company towns of old than democratically run American cities.

 

Who’s Influencing These So-Called Parallel Establishments?

California Forever is part of the Network State, an idea born in Silicon Valley, and taken up among leading figures in the tech industry as well as the administration of President Donald Trump. The originator of the scheme is Balaji Srinivasan, a former partner at Andreessen Horowitz, the venture capital firm founded by storied entrepreneur and investor Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz.

As Srinivasan describes it, a Network State is a “parallel establishment,” a territory governed by technology elites. Anyone who opposes the plan — Srinivasan calls them “Blues,” a shorthand for liberals — would be made uncomfortable, and, as a result, leave. “Just like Blues ethnically cleansed me out of San Francisco, like, push out all the Blues.” Srinivasan has gone so far as to compare himself to Moses, leading fellow tech elites to the promised land.

The project, as far-fetched as it sounds, proved attractive to Silicon Valley leaders, who like to think of the tech industry as the ultimate meritocracy and have become increasingly uncomfortable with the messiness of democratic processes. A number of Network State-aligned cities have popped up over the last five years: Próspera, Honduras and Próspera, AfricaStarbase in TexasItana in Nigeria; and Balaji’s own Forest City in Malaysia to name a few. While there are variations to these Network State ventures –the Prósperas present themselves as techno-utopic colonies that allow for unregulated medical experimentation and run on cryptocurrency, while Starbase operates more similarly to a company town for employees of Elon Musk’s SpaceX facility – the overlap exists largely in their funding. Many Network State-aligned cities receive their funding from Andreesen Horowitz, Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund, and Promonos Capital, a joint venture between Marc Andreesen, Peter Thiel and Balaji Srinavasan. from Andreesen Horowitz, Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund, and Promonos Capital, a joint venture between Marc Andreesen, Peter Thiel and Balaji Srinavasan.

Politically, Andreessen, Horowitz, Thiel and Srinavasan have all become outspoken supporters of then-candidate Trump in 2024, with Srinavasan having been considered to run the Food and Drug Administration during Trump’s first term. Collectively, the billionaire posse spent millions to see him elected while a few, like fellow Silicon Valley tech elites Elon Musk and David Sacks, ultimately took prominent roles in his current administration.

In alignment with his tech billionaire backers, Trump has re-branded the Network State concept as Freedom Cities, Freedom Cities, proposing to develop the ten new for-profit charter cities as “Accelerating Zones” on federally-owned land across the countr. Among the dozen or so sites he proposes for this experiment is the Presidio National Park in San Francisco. Others have proposed that the Trump administration declare a national emergency to build a Freedom City on the site of a former Naval Air Base in the city of Alameda, California.

 

Going Global: Modern Day Colonialism Branded as Libertarian Experiment 

To understand the implications, look no further than Próspera, a Network State operating on Roatan, an island off the coast of Honduras. Próspera was founded by Venezuelan wealth fund manager Erick Brimen who began buying up land in 2017. Among its investors are Andreessen, Srinivasan and Thiel. Construction began in 2021.

Próspera has been called a “libertarian experiment.” A more apt description is that it’s a haven for businesses seeking to evade governmental oversight and regulation. Honduras Prospera Inc., the corporation established by Brimen, wields power over the city and ensures that companies operating there are not subject to the stringent labor, environmental, and other health and safety laws governing businesses that operate In the United States and other industrialized countries. Corporate taxes are a scant 1%. Plans to expand Próspera include taking the land of a long-established Black Caribbean community, leading to charges of “crypto colonialism” and legislation intended to shut down Próspera.

 

Success Stories from the Community 

Locally, the Bay Area’s own proposed Network State California Forever has been met with similar opposition. Solano Together, a coalition of community groups was successful in preventing an initiative on the November 2024 ballot that would have rezoned 17,000 acres of farmland to allow for a Network State of some 400,000 residents. After spending $9 million to see it passed, the measure, which was headed for defeat, was pulled. However, it is expected to be brought before voters in next year’s elections.

Since then, opposition, led by the Coalition of Artists Against Billionaires and Solano Together, and joined by a local chapter of the Sierra Club and Greenbelt Alliance, has continued. It has even united Solano County’s Democrat and Republican parties in opposition. Backers of California Forever recently used Vallejo’s monthly art walk as a vehicle to promote the project, drawing protests from the groups. Hundreds of residents were again warned of the threat to the community. The coalition is broad, drawing many first-time volunteers who pursue a grassroots strategy, educating residents on the more disturbing elements of Network State schemes like California Forever.

Residents’ fears are well founded. Balaji himself has alluded to California Forever as being an example of a Network State, while California Forever’s CEO Jan Sramek has increasingly described California Forever as being a tech-backed industrial manufacturing hub similar to Musk’s Starbase. After failing to convince Solano voters to support the initiative the first go-around, Sramek’s recent proposal is to build a deep sea shipping port that will be used in tandem with nearby Travis Airforce Base and the Military Ocean Terminal Concord to build military industrial technologies, which have become en vogue as of late with AI startup companies such as Thiel’s Andruil Industries and Palantir Technologies. This would be on top of massive luxury development geared towards employees of these industries, displacing the largely agrarian and blue-collar workers that currently call Solano County and the surrounding area home.

 

Phoenix Project and NCRP Model How to Fight Against Regressive Philanthropy in Network States and Beyond

Given the unprecedented wave of philanthropic funding used being leveraged to support increasingly anti-democratic ends, it is critical that those in the industry keep a critical eye towards supporting genuine community-supporting initiatives such as grassroots groups such as Solano Together and the Phoenix Project, as opposed to pro-Network State and other community-displacing initiatives. Calling out astroturfing efforts is an important first step in preventing corporate take-over and community displacement, and to do that means supporting genuine grassroot groups – those of marginalized economic and racialized identities and their efforts to protect their communities.

The Phoenix Project and NCRP believe that knowledge is power and will continue to shine a light on anti-democratic efforts masquerading as philanthropy and similar attempts happening both in the Bay Area, and across the country. To support the Phoenix Project, you can download their reports and sign up for their newsletter here. To continue to support NCRP, please continue to follow our blog highlighting the use of philanthropy towards anti-democratic ends, as well as support the ongoing work of our Regressive Philanthropy Initiative.

 


Julie Pitta is a former investigative journalist. She currently serves as president of the Phoenix Project, a nonprofit that exposes the dark money in local politics.