Prepping Your Nonprofit's Fundraising Strategy for Trump 2.0

Having worked for nearly two decades in fundraising spanning nonprofits, political campaigns and nonprofit tech, my conversations with friends and colleagues since the election have included a healthy dose of curiosity infused with anxiety. 

In 2016, Donald Trump’s first electoral victory qualified as a major surprise. As everyone returned from Thanksgiving, the key questions didn’t revolve around whether change was afoot. Instead, the focus was on where to expect disruption, and how best to capitalize. 

In the short term, the months after the 2016 presidential election ended up being one of the most lucrative fundraising periods in history for many nonprofits, particularly those with missions aligned with liberal causes, leading to the rise of the phrase “rage giving.”

“Rage giving,” however, describes a longstanding phenomenon. Major news that sparks strong opinions and emotions also inspires activism. This drives donations. Outcomes of presidential elections are prominent examples. Nonprofits that are roughly aligned with the losing party often benefit from sharp increases in giving, especially when the result is a surprise. This has occurred after numerous other elections. The Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade in 2022 also notably led to a surge in funding for liberal-aligned charities. 

While Trump’s return elicits strong reactions, it’s much less of a surprise in 2024 than in 2016. In conversations with leaders of charities, funders and others, I sometimes hear that it’s 2016 all over again due to “rage giving.” Others are hoping for the same 2016 energy but aren’t seeing it. Leaders with less of a nexus to politics are carrying on with business as usual while trying to plan for policy changes. 

Obviously, how you think about Trump 2.0 depends on who you are and where you sit. I see opportunities as well as concerns — although I’m quite cautious about putting too much stock in my ability (or anyone’s) to predict the future actions of Trump, whose unconventional approach is one of his most defining traits. There are a lot of unknowns. 

However, I’m thinking about fundraising during Trump 2.0 through multiple time horizons: now through his first 100 or so days in office, his full term in office, and the longer-tail legacy of the policies that get enacted over the next four years. 

Planning for the Immediate Term

My sense is that “rage giving” will be as strong as ever for liberal-aligned organizations before Trump’s first 100 days in office, but it will come in waves. As noted, the result this time is less of a surprise. The 50% dip in viewership MSNBC has experienced since the election demonstrates fatigue and disengagement from Americans aligned with the losing party. It could be short-lived. If Trump 1.0 serves as a guide, his swearing-in occurred Jan. 20, 2017, and he issued a controversial travel ban Jan. 27, leading to protests and a surge in donations for humanitarian and rights groups. 

Even if it initially appears that “rage giving” has tapered since 2016, it’s coming. Conservative-aligned organizations won’t have the same advantage of being seen as the force of resistance. They should diversify fundraising streams in anticipation of somewhat diminished grassroots energy, echoing the experience of liberal organizations in 2021. 

Of course, most nonprofits aren’t ideologically aligned. We just exited year-end solicitation season in a highly buoyant market for asset prices. While I have heard concerns that the heightened amount of political giving this election cycle could cannibalize end-of-year giving, that worry hasn’t historically been justified. Blackbaud studied the 2012 election cycle and found that donors who contributed to presidential and federal candidates also boosted their charitable giving that year. 

Charities should be hyper-focused on driving giving right now, knowing that some gifts could be transformational in nature. Whether that includes tailored calls to action based on current news depends on the mission. 

Planning for the Medium-Term: The Next Four Years

Trump’s tax policies are critical. We can safely assume that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, set to expire in 2025, will continue in some way. 

This legislation doubled the standard deduction, which reduced the number of taxpayers itemizing deductions, decreasing tax-advantaged giving from middle-income Americans. Its extension should keep the focus on high-net-worth giving, especially through tax-efficient channels, like stock gifts and donor-advised-funds (DAFs). 

1. Stocks and Appreciated Assets

Stocks and other assets performed extremely well during the Trump 1.0 years. The S&P 500 rose by more than 60%, and Bitcoin’s value climbed by nearly 4,000%, according to Yahoo Finance data. Asset prices have also risen precipitously since Trump’s reelection, driven in part by the expectation of reduced regulation. 

Assets are more complicated to fundraise from than cash, but as Russell James will counsel anyone who listens, “Cash is not king.” Cash averages just $115 per donation, while stock and crypto donations average well into the thousands. Planning to leverage “found money” during the Trump 2.0 years through stocks, crypto (for younger donors), mutual funds, private bonds, etc., is a wise strategy. 

2. DAF Largesse and an Increased Role for Private Foundations

DAFs have exploded in recent years. Roughly $250 billion sits in DAFs today, ready to be stewarded to working charities. By my estimate, anywhere from $65 billion to $70 billion in grants from DAFs will go to charities in the 2024 calendar year. Stewarding funding from DAFs should be an enormous source of funding over the next several years. DAFs had a payout rate of nearly 24% of their assets in 2023, so the vast majority of their assets today should be disbursed during the Trump 2.0 years. Notably, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 popularized “batching” by many donors, making large contributions to DAFs in one year to secure a tax deduction while granting that money to working charities later. Including DAFs in regular solicitations is non-negotiable. 

Additionally, foundations should play a major role. After the 2016 election, many foundations amplified their support for civil liberties, environmental protection and social justice initiatives. In the current climate, funders might prioritize areas such as voter engagement, democratic processes and community resilience. Nonprofits can benefit greatly from engaging with foundations in the near- and medium-term by applying for funding from foundations (private and corporate) that they may not have been previously funded by. A wide net is a good idea. 

3. Grants and Federal Priorities

Finally, during Trump 1.0, there was a notable emphasis on workforce development, vocational training and self-sufficiency programs aimed at reducing dependency on government assistance. Nonprofits focused on job readiness, skill-building and vocational education could see increased opportunities through grants. The focus on small business growth and entrepreneurship during Trump 1.0 also suggests the potential for grants to create job opportunities. Faith-based organizations may also find expanded opportunities in community service and social support initiatives. Nonprofits should closely monitor federal priorities.

Planning for the Long-Term

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 doubled the federal estate tax exemption. This means fewer estates are subject to federal estate taxes. Nonprofits cannot depend on just a shrinking pool of a few estates to meet their goals. It’s important to appeal to a mass audience. 

At the same time, I am very bullish on fundraising from estate plans via planned giving efforts due to demographic trends combined with many of the previously mentioned observations about asset growth. The oldest baby boomers (those born in 1946) are now pushing 80 years old and the youngest are of retirement age. In 2022, it was estimated that $84 trillion will change hands between now and 2045. 

If asset prices continue to appreciate under Trump 2.0, the $84 trillion figure could swell. If taxes are low, that could also contribute to higher estate values. Moreover, interest rates have an inverse correlation with housing prices. If Trump is successful in lowering interest rates, housing prices could appreciate. While housing price increases are only realized when selling, aging boomers have the highest rate of home ownership. Given their age, there should be plenty of selling in the next decade or two, making interest rates an additional factor in driving estate values.

The Bottom Line

I’ve heard a mix of glee and gloom regarding the outlook for fundraising relative to the recent election result. I do think the result matters, but mostly on pure policy grounds. There are going to be plenty of opportunities across differing time horizons. I would encourage fundraisers to stay the course and focus on their planning right now, delineating among near-, medium- and long-term planning. It should pay plenty of dividends. 

The preceding post was provided by an individual unaffiliated with NonProfit PRO. The views expressed within do not directly reflect the thoughts or opinions of NonProfit PRO.