

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

The new analysis details how the ultra-wealthy use charitable giving to avoid taxes and exert influence, while ordinary taxpayers foot the bill.
On November 15, the Institute for Policy Studies released a crucial new report revealing the true cost of billionaire philanthropy to taxpayers, the nonprofit sector, and our society.
The report comprehensively details how the ultra-wealthy use charitable giving to avoid taxes and exert influence, while ordinary taxpayers foot the bill.
As communities prepare to enter the season of giving and highlight charitable donations as a critical way to support communities’ urgent needs, this report reveals how the wealthiest donors in our society give differently than ordinary donors.
As wealth concentrates in fewer hands, the imbalance is having a corrosive impact on our nonprofit sector. U.S. nonprofit charities are currently experiencing a transition from broad-based support across a wide range of donors to an increasing reliance on a small number of ultra-wealthy people, a trend IPS has named “top-heavy philanthropy.”
The report sounds the alarm over the way that wealthy donors are using taxpayer-subsidized giving systems to create perpetual foundations that extend their private power and influence.
Key findings include:
WEALTHY DONORS RECEIVE THE BIGGEST TAX BREAKS.
Millions of U.S. donors give directly to local charities without any reduction in their taxes. Less than ten percent of households use the charitable deduction. Wealthy donors, in turn, receive most of the taxpayer subsidies for charitable giving. The taxpayer subsidy for charity is hundreds of billions of dollars –and the wealthier the donor, the greater the taxpayer subsidy.
RISE OF DONOR-CONTROLLED INTERMEDIARIES.
Low and middle income givers are more likely to give directly to local nonprofit charities in their community including youth centers, food banks, and organizations addressing poverty, social needs, arts, and environmental issues.
In contrast, the report finds that wealthy donors are more likely to contribute to their own private foundations and donor-advised funds (DAF), intermediaries that they continue to control. These donors receive immediate tax reductions in the year of their donation, but as this report shows, the funds may take decades to reach working charities, if ever.
An estimated 41 cents of every 2022 individual donation going to charity went to either a private foundation or DAF, up from 37 percent in 2021. In 2022, 27 percent of individual donations went to DAFs, up from 22 percent in 2021. In 2022, 14 percent of individual donations went to private foundations.
“One of the main drivers of DAF growth is the financial industry’s aggressive marketing of DAFs for their considerable tax benefits, secrecy, and non-existent payout rate,” observed Chuck Collins, author of the report.
Over the past five years, the median payout rate for private foundations has hovered between 5.2 and 5.6 percent. And this payout includes compensation to trustees, overhead, and donations to donor-advised funds (DAFs) which have no payout.
Donations to DAFs are now more than a quarter of all U.S. individual charitable giving. The $85.5 billion donated to DAFs in 2022 made up a full 27 percent of the $319 billion in individual giving that year, up from $73.34 billion and 22 percent in 2021.
The largest DAF sponsors now take in more money each year than our largest public charities. By 2021, seven of the top ten recipients of charitable revenue in the country were DAF sponsors, including the four largest affiliated with Fidelity, Schwab, Vanguard and the National Philanthropic Trust.
A significant amount of DAF grants go to other DAFs. We found $2.5 billion in grants going from national donor-advised funds to other national donor-advised funds in 2021 alone.
GIVING PLEDGERS NEED TO PICK UP THE PACE.
The report analyzes the progress of the Giving Pledge, founded in 2010 by Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, that has inspired over 220 billionaires to pledge to donate half of their wealth during their lifetime. The report found that while a handful of donors are moving funds in a timely manner, most have seen their wealth dramatically increase over the fourteen years since the start of the Giving Pledge and need to pick up the pace of giving.
The report suggests that most of these pledges will be fulfilled by donations to private family foundations and donor-advised funds, delaying the public benefit of the taxpayer subsidized donations. In the worst case, some Pledgers have used their philanthropy for self-serving purposes, such as taking out loans from their foundations or paying themselves hefty trustee salaries.
The 73 living U.S. Giving Pledgers who were billionaires in 2010 saw their wealth grow by 138 percent, or 224 percent when adjusted for inflation, through 2022. Their combined assets increased from $348 billion in 2010 to $828 billion over those twelve years.
Of these 73 people, 30 of them have seen their wealth increase more than 200 percent when adjusted for inflation. Those with the greatest growth include Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan (1,382 percent), Dustin Moskovitz and Cari Tuna (1,166 percent), Elaine and Ken Langone (755 percent), Arthur M. Blank (739 percent), and Bernie and Billi Marcus (714 percent).
Of the $12 billion in identifiable gifts of over $1 million that the Giving Pledge signers donated to charity in 2022, 68 percent — more than $8 billion — went either to foundations or to DAFs.
The action of some billionaire donors raise concerns that what began as a civic-minded initiative to spur generosity is instead serving to concentrate private wealth and power at taxpayer expense.
“The missing voice in the philanthropy discussion is the U.S. taxpayer, who subsidizes the private giving of billionaires to the tune of several hundred billion a year,” explains Chuck Collins, co-author of the report and the director of the Program on Inequality and the Common Good at the Institute for Policy Studies. “We should be alarmed at the ways billionaires use philanthropy as a taxpayer-subsidized extension of their private power and influence.”
“We need to update the laws governing philanthropy to keep the financial industry from capturing it and turning it into another tax dodge for the wealthiest people in our society,” Collins adds.
Key recommendations to reform charitable giving and ensure more money ends up in the hands of actual active charities, where it’s needed most:
“We have to make sure that the tax breaks we underwrite are actually funding charities actively working for the public good,” warns Helen Flannery, co-author of the report and a researcher at the Institute for Policy Studies who is an expert on philanthropy and charitable giving.
“We hope this report will encourage policymakers, the media, and the public to look at the charitable pronouncements of billionaires with more scrutiny,” she adds. “Sometimes their giving is a genuine attempt to give back, but other times it is more about enhancing their political voice, their reputation, or their wallet.”
Full report: https://ips-dc.org/report-true-cost-of-billionaire-philanthropy
Institute for Policy Studies turns Ideas into Action for Peace, Justice and the Environment. We strengthen social movements with independent research, visionary thinking, and links to the grassroots, scholars and elected officials. I.F. Stone once called IPS "the think tank for the rest of us." Since 1963, we have empowered people to build healthy and democratic societies in communities, the US, and the world. Click here to learn more, or read the latest below.
"If Israel has evidence against Abu Safiya, it should indict him and present that evidence," said the editors of Israel's oldest daily newspaper. "If it doesn't have evidence against him, it needs to release him."
Defenders of Palestine, human rights, and the rule of law denounced the Israeli Supreme Court's rejection Tuesday of an appeal from Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya, the Gaza hospital director imprisoned by Israel for 535 days without charge or trial and allegedly tortured by his captors.
In its decision, Israel's highest court cited a 2002 law allowing the government to detain people it classifies as "unlawful combatants" without charging them with a criminal offense or prosecuting them as prisoners of war.
The Times of Israel reported that because the Supreme Court's decision was based on classified intelligence, it will not be publicly released.
Israel claims Abu Safiya—a 52-year-old pediatrician who was the director of Kamal Adwan Hospital in Beit Lahia when he was abducted on December 28, 2024 during one of multiple Israeli sieges and assaults on the facility—is a colonel in Gaza's Military Medical Services. Israeli officials cited the service's own records and a 2016 photo showing the doctor wearing a uniform and seated beside members of Hamas, which carried out the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel.
However, supporters of Abu Safiya, human rights groups, and many medical organizations contend that "colonel" is a state medical corps rank rather than a combat command role, and note that Hamas' political wing rules Gaza. They point to positions and organizations like the US surgeon general and US Public Health Service Commissioned Corps—which is one of the nation's eight uniformed services but not part of the military—as illustrative of the concept.
“The rejection of Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya’s appeal and his continued detention without charge represent a profound moral and legal failure,” said Naji Abbas, director of the Prisoners and Detainees Department at Physicians for Human Rights Israel, following the court's decision.
"Dr. Abu Safiya’s case is not an isolated one. It illustrates how judicial review proceedings for Palestinian detainees from Gaza have, in practice, become little more than a procedural formality," Abbas added. "Every month, hundreds of detention review hearings take place, yet to the best of our knowledge, they have not resulted in the meaningful reconsideration or revocation of detention orders—even in cases involving doctors and other medical personnel."
The Palestinian Center for Prisoners Advocacy said the high court's rejection of Abu Safiya's appeal "constitutes a clear violation of international humanitarian law and the Geneva Conventions, which provide special protection for medical personnel during armed conflicts and prohibit their targeting or arbitrary detention for carrying out their humanitarian and professional duties."
"Dr. Abu Safiya remains held in solitary confinement at Nafha Prison under harsh and degrading detention conditions, while being denied necessary medical treatment and the most basic fundamental rights guaranteed to prisoners and detainees," the center continued, adding that it "holds the Israeli occupation authorities fully responsible for the life and safety of Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya, and calls for his immediate release, the provision of urgent medical care, and an end to the policy of arbitrary detention against medical and humanitarian personnel."
United Nations experts in March cited "reports that Dr. Abu Safiya has been subjected to torture and other cruel and degrading treatment, and that his health condition remains dire," as well as "flagrantly arbitrary" detention, in calling for his release. UN agencies, human rights groups, elected officials, and professional groups including the American Academy of Pediatrics are among those demanding that Israel free Abu Safiya.
Last week, Abu Safiya—who showed visible signs of his alleged torture—appeared remotely via video before the Supreme Court to demand his release following at least four major detention extensions or renewals.
“My detention is unjust and arbitrary, and I demand my immediate release,” he told the court. “I am a pediatrician who provides medical services and care to patients, the wounded and vulnerable people in the Gaza Strip.”
Abu Safiya was abducted while defying an Israeli forced displacement order by refusing to evacuate Kamal Adwan Hospital as long as patients were still being treated. In one of several Israel Defense Forces attacks on the facility, Israeli troops surrounded, bombarded, and then stormed the hospital over three weeks in December 2024, killing and wounding staff and patients while terrified children and other people were being treated inside.
During a previous Israeli attack on Kamal Adwan, Abu Safiya’s 15-year-old son was killed in a drone strike, and the doctor was seriously wounded in a separate drone attack that left six pieces of shrapnel in his leg.
As the invaders expelled Kamal Adwan's patients and staff, Abu Safiya sounded the alarm on the "catastrophic" conditions inside the facility, which, according to alleged victims and witnesses, included Israelis sexually assaulting women and girls as young as 13.
After his capture, Abu Safiya was first jailed at the notorious Sde Teiman prison in Israel’s Negev Desert—where dozens of detainees have died and where torture, sexual assault, and other abuses have been reported—and then Ofer Prison in the illegally occupied West Bank. He was subsequently transferred to Ketziot Prison and then Nafha Prison in the Ramon Prison complex.
Abu Safiya said he has endured torture by his captors—including beatings with batons and electric shocks—and suffered severe weight loss, broken ribs, and other injuries, for which he was allegedly denied adequate medical care.
Israeli authorities deny these accusations. However, there have been many documented and otherwise credible reports of health and medical workers being tortured by Israeli forces—sometimes fatally, as in the case of Dr. Adnan al-Bursh, who headed the orthopedic department at al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City.
According to Francesca Albanese, the United Nations special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, al-Bursh was “likely raped to death."
Responding to the Israeli Supreme Court's decision, former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis—an outspoken advocate for Palestinian rights—said Tuesday on social media that "the heroic doctor's torture by Israel continues."
"They continue to torture Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya for the crime of not abandoning his patients," he added. "Without laying charges [or] offering him anything resembling due process, Israel is killing him slowly. One day, everyone will say they were against this."
On Monday, the editors of Haaretz, Israel's oldest daily newspaper, asserted in an editorial that Abu Safiya's "continued detention, and that of the other doctors from Gaza, is an injustice and constitutes collective punishment for Gaza's residents, who need their service" amid an ongoing public health crisis.
"If Israel has evidence against Abu Safiya, it should indict him and present that evidence," the editors argued. "If it doesn't have evidence against him, it needs to release him, and all the other jailed doctors, promptly."
"Is this what happens when you have zero scientists in your administration?" said one critic.
National Park Service employees on Tuesday were seen pouring a bleaching agent into the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool in Washington, DC, apparently to kill algae that had sprouted up shortly after the completion of a $14.2 million renovation commissioned by President Donald Trump.
The bleaching of the pool was spotted by CBS News journalist Bob Kovach, who posted video of workers dumping 12% hydrogen peroxide into the water.
This morning at the reflecting pool pic.twitter.com/uygkbcn7Mn
— bob kovach (@bkovoDC) June 16, 2026
The pool in recent days has turned a bright green due to algae growth, which threatened to spoil Trump's effort to make it appear "American flag blue" ahead of the celebrations of the country's 250th anniversary next month.
As noted by The New Republic, 12% hydrogen peroxide is strong enough to "cause problems if inhaled and burns if the chemical touches the skin, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."
"Hydrogen peroxide is generally considered less environmentally destructive as its compounds readily break down in water," The New Republic added, "but the high concentration could nonetheless pose a risk to some of the pool’s frequent visitors, such as ducks or other birds."
Michael O'Brien, a Washington DC-based primary care pediatrician, expressed skepticism that the plan to dump bottles of hydrogen peroxide into the pool would succeed in fixing the algae problem.
"Y’all, not to be a huge nerd but for the reflecting pool you would need a minimum of about 8,000 liters of 12% hydrogen peroxide to reach the 50 parts per million concentration to kill algae," O'Brien wrote. "Is this what happens when you have zero scientists in your administration?"
NOTUS reporter Igor Bobic, upon seeing the chemical being dumped into the pool, remarked it was a "bad day to be a duck."
A Fox News reporter on the scene tried to put a good spin on the pool being green by pointing out that "there's pool guys cleaning it up," and then exclaiming, "No other president would do that!"
FOX: I'm here at the newly renovated reflecting pool. It's painted American flag blue. The Democrats will tell you there's green algae. There's pool guys cleaning it up. No other president would do that. pic.twitter.com/19MzxnEcq5
— Acyn (@Acyn) June 16, 2026
Trump's efforts to renovate the reflecting pool raised eyebrows even before it became overrun by algae. According to a Tuesday report in The Guardian, the pool was renovated by Atlantic Industrial Coatings, which received a no-bid contract from the Trump administration after having "previously carried out work on a swimming pool at one of the president's golf clubs."
"Everyone in Canada deserves to be safe and healthy," said one organization leader. "Instead, our government is putting people at risk by dismantling key climate policies without a credible plan to reduce emissions."
"You cannot abandon the map and still expect to reach your destination. Yet that's exactly what the federal government has done with its 2030 climate plan."
That's according to Charlie Hatt, climate director at Ecojustice, Canada's largest environmental law charity and one of the groups that partnered with a trio of young citizens this week to challenge Prime Minister Mark Carney's "failure" to bring the country's 2030 emissions reduction plan into compliance with a key federal law.
"Right now, its only climate plan is a plan to fail—and that's not just irresponsible, it's unlawful under the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act," said Hatt. "Neither the climate nor the law can tolerate rollbacks today in exchange for promises of action many years from now."
The act requires the federal government to set science-based climate goals, create a plan to achieve them, and report on its progress. However, Carney has recently pursued various rollbacks and boosted fossil fuel development, putting his nation's 2030 emissions reduction target out of reach—which the groups and young people argued violates the law.
"Everyone in Canada deserves to be safe and healthy," said Dr. Samantha Green, president of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment. "Instead, our government is putting people at risk by dismantling key climate policies without a credible plan to reduce emissions. Climate change is not an abstract future threat: It is a public health emergency that is already harming patients and communities across Canada. That's why CAPE is joining this lawsuit."
The fossil fuel-driven climate emergency isn't just a danger to public health. As Environmental Defence's Julia Levin noted, Canadians "are paying the price through wildfires, heat domes, rising food insecurity, and high costs of living."
"PM Carney is betraying Canadians by taking a wrecking ball to our hard-fought climate progress," Levin declared, accusing the Liberal Party leader of following in the footsteps of Big Oil-backed Republican US President Donald Trump.
"The rest of the world is rapidly adopting clean energy systems that are already more reliable, affordable, and secure than fossil fuels," she said. "Meanwhile, our prime minister is copying President Trump's playbook, ensuring that Canada will be left behind."
Carney's climate policies as prime minister—especially compared with how he talked about the crisis before rising to his current position last year—have frustrated many citizens and left "climate-anxious voters... feeling a major case of buyer's remorse, disoriented by the dissonance between who they thought they were supporting and a climate plan that is now a complete shambles," as Canadian climate writer and activist Seth Klein wrote for The Guardian last month.
Youth applicants in the new legal fight made that frustration clear on Tuesday. Montréal, Quebec-based climate organizer Shirley Barnea said that "the Carney government's gutting of climate policy is a massive insult. After presenting himself as a climate leader, our prime minister is now abdicating responsibility—to Canadians, to future generations, to the law. As long as governments continue ignoring climate science and rolling back protections for our futures, young people will continue taking them to court."
Marie Maltais, who is from Sainte-Catherine-de-la-Jacques-Cartier, Québec, and has advocated for the climate since her early teens, said that "my generation has grown up surrounded by climate disasters and broken political promises to address them. We're told to trust the government's climate commitments—but commitments mean nothing without a real plan behind them."
Sudbury, Ontario-based Sophia Mathur, an early participant in Greta Thunberg's Fridays for Future movement who recently met with Carney and urged him to keep his climate promises, added that "young people are being handed the consequences of decisions we didn't make. We are going to live with the impacts of unchecked climate change for the rest of our lives—so we're standing up for our futures, now."
The young citizens and advocacy groups are seeking a court order that would compel Carney to comply with the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, stressing that "climate change is an existential threat to all Canadians."