The Gilded Age
Even if philanthropy is broken, why generosity is still important
This is a bit of a wonky post, but I think it’s important given that I work at a foundation and this newsletter is about giving. Philanthropy is in the zeitgeist! In yet another head spinning turn of the last couple of years, philanthropy is now being reconsidered. Like many of the previously sacrosanct truths that our society has been flipping on its head recently (see also: are pedophiles really that bad? What can we really learn through science?), committing to giving your money away is being discouraged. Even ridiculed. Peter Thiel has even been asking people to un-sign the Giving Pledge and focus instead on innovation, suggesting that the free market can continue to provide better results for humanity. Dario Amodei, the co-founder of Anthropic, explained that other wealthy people like Thiel “have recently adopted a cynical and nihilistic attitude that philanthropy is inevitably fraudulent or useless.” While critique of philanthropy is valid — and critical in a democracy — this bad faith attitude towards generosity as inherently opportunistic or doomed to fail seems really dangerous. I don’t care about preserving the Giving Pledge, per se, but I do think the institution of philanthropy is worth defending.
Then again, I agreed with Anand Giridharadas’ argument in his book Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World that a lot of philanthropy benefits the wealthy more than it does the poor. His main point was that rich people build and profit from the systems that contribute to inequality and then fund only surface level solutions to problems without addressing structural change. My argument in favor of philanthropy in the US is similar to how I felt about the end of USAID — international aid wasn’t perfect or even something I could give a full-throated defense of, but its abrupt end caused real harm. I wish there would be a strengthening of the principles of philanthropy combined with a more robust effort at systems change, but it certainly isn’t trending that way. Is philanthropy worth saving?
We are also at a moment in the U.S. in which people are looking to philanthropy to fill the gaps. With cuts to social services at all levels, there is a lot of talk about private money saving the day. As someone whose day job is giving money away, it’s a lot of… pressure. I’ve experienced a lot more requests with a lot more urgency. Is there enough money in all of philanthropy to make up for government cuts? Giving USA reports that $592.50 billion was given to charitable organizations in 2024—a 6.3% increase from the year before. In order to cover those existing gifts AND cover US cuts to social services and safety net programs in 2025 and 2026, philanthropy (and household giving at large) is going to have to step up. I don’t think every program needs to continue, and there should be better accountability and impact metrics measured across systems over time. But to either dismiss philanthropy or wholly depend on it to fix society’s problems both seem to be missing the point. America has used philanthropy to fund education, medical advances, conservation, etc. The government is stepping back from funding those things — are we saying that they are no longer a part of American society? That the common good is to be no longer common nor good?
If anyone is coming to save us, it’s wealthy women. Melinda Gates started her own giving after separating from her husband and their foundation. Cari Tuna committed to giving away $20 billion of her Facebook/Canva fortune. Forbes recently reported that Mackenzie Scott “gave more in 2025 than Musk, Page, Ellison and her ex-husband Bezos have in their lifetimes combined.” Lol. You can only assume there is a lack of interest or a distrust of philanthropy when you look at lists like this:
To understand what might need to change to get more money out the door (which, of course, assumes that more donated through philanthropy is a good thing), we need to define the mechanisms to re-distribute wealth:
Private foundations - These entities are created by one source of wealth (family, individual, corporation) and legally have to give away 5% a year to charitable causes and expenditures. The foundation I work for is a priavte family foundation. There was an estimated $1.7 trillion held by private foundations in 2024.
Public charities - These entities are funded by a variety of sources. A lot of celebrity foundations are in fact public charities — they might put in some money, but they still fundraise from the public, friends, merch, income streams, to fund their charitable giving and expenses.
Charitable trusts - They are “irrevocable, tax-advantaged structures that allow individuals to support philanthropic causes while potentially generating income for themselves or beneficiaries.”
Donor advised funds - The chart above mentions that some may have given through a donor advised fund; they can be a bit of a black hole. A DAF is a “charitable giving account held at a public charity that allows donors to make tax-deductible contributions of cash or assets. Donors receive an immediate tax deduction and can recommend grants to qualified non-profits over time while the funds grow tax-free.” There is an estimated $326 billion sitting in DAFs in the US right now. This capital is effectively parked since donors have already received the tax benefit and it is to the benefit of those holding the assets to retain them.
Overall, more of this philanthropic money could and should be unlocked. I would love to see policy fixes to speed up the pace of giving, thereby perhaps reassuring people of the importance of philanthropy. We need to unlock DAFs by making a minimum distribution requirement — there is no legal, annual requirement to give funds away. We should also require foundations to give away more than 5% annually. Especially when market returns are higher than 5%, foundations can exist in perpetuity with a higher yearly distribution requirement.
I get that not many of you are in a position to start a tax-advantaged charitable trust and that the state of modern philanthropy might be one more thing in a long list of things you don’t want to care about in the year of our Lord 2026. But how we hold ourselves accountable as givers is just as important as looking to the rich to do their part. I spoke to a university last year about philanthropy and one student asked the question “How do we know that rich people aren’t just giving money away to make themselves look good?” My answer was that when I’m tempted to judge someone else’s motives for giving, I try to first ask myself why I give. It’s very human to do something that makes us look or feel good. Is it maybe so that others notice? Perhaps. Do I give to the KUT drive because I want a tshirt? MAYBE. We can hold politicians accountable (well, ideally), we can use our money to align with businesses that have shared values, but at the end of the day, we can mainly control how we show up in the world. What is my ratio of wealth to generosity?
It becomes clear how complicated the motivations are for giving (or not giving) if you look at your tithes or zakat or tax return from last year. Giving can and should be strategic and about minimizing suffering and promoting flourishing, but it is also deeply personal. And emotional. I have worked for all kinds of donors and nonprofits, and I do not buy the argument that giving can or should ever be purely intellectual. Effective altruism, a supposedly rational, data-driven approach to giving that’s supposed to take the emotions or ego out of giving, is a nice theory but doesn’t take into account that we are all human. Plus the most prominent guy arguing for it went to jail, so.
I mainly find this whole argument against philanthropy suspect because it is coming from wealthy individuals who also want to lower taxes and colonize Nevis to drive innovation. Thiel’s idea that we just need more innovation as a society is, on its face, hilarious. Hunger is not a problem of innovation. Domestic violence is not a problem waiting to be solved by innovation. I would say homelessness is not a problem of innovation. There will always be a place in any society for people caring for others. It’s also shaping up to be a gendered argument — men arguing that we need more innovation and giving less away while women give money at larger amounts, caregive for people in their families and communities and make up 75% of the nonprofit workforce. It is up to everyone - rich, poor and the middle class - to be generous, whatever that means for each of us.
INTO IT
Sorry I have been so absent, I’ve been working (the foundation I manage turned 15!) and took a short trip to Costa Rica. I’ve also been enjoying spring in Texas — arguably the only good time to live here. Here are a few recommendations:
I just watched Left-Handed Girl, a story about mothers and daughters filmed entirely on an iPhone in Taipei. The same producer came out with Sandiwara (a Malay and Indonesian word meaning drama, play, or theatrical performance)— similar aesthetics, shot in Penang. Both films made me miss night markets.
I have been enjoying This American Life again — I particularly liked this episode on trying to do standup comedy in Syria and this episode on immigration raids.
The documentary Listers about extreme birdwatching is so fun (and free to watch on YouTube!).
One of my favorite things, predictably I guess, is trying new coffee shops in Austin. The banana horchata latte at Please Stay and the miso cajeta latte at Leche were both real good if you like that sort of thing.
