November, 15 2023, 08:09am EDT

New Report from the Institute for Policy Studies Reveals the True Cost of Billionaire Philanthropy
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.
- The ultra-wealthy claim the lion’s share of the hundreds of billions in annual tax subsidies to incentivize charitable giving.
- Yet most donations by the ultra-wealthy flow to private foundations and donor-advised funds (DAFs), intermediaries controlled by these donors (As our report shows, 41 cents of every dollar of individual giving in 2022 went to one of these intermediaries). At best, this delays the flow of funds to working nonprofit charities on the ground. At worst, it leads to a warehousing of charitable funds. Private foundations are only required to payout 5 percent of assets annually to charities and donor-advised funds (DAFs) have no payout requirement. To make matters worse, some wealthy donors are playing shell-games to fulfill these minimal obligations.
- The most charitably-orientated billionaires in the U.S., those who have signed the Giving Pledge to donate half their wealth during their lifetime, are not immune from these trends. At their current pace, most funds will end up in perpetual family foundations, not in the hands of active charities.
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.
- The direct taxpayer subsidy for charitable giving was $73.24 billion in 2022 due to personal and corporate charitable deductions and is $111 billion including other known reductions in taxes. But the subsidy is several hundreds of billions a year if estate and capital gains tax reductions are included.
- The wealthier the donor, the greater the taxpayer subsidy for their donation. For every dollar a billionaire donates to charity, taxpayers chip in 74 cents in lost revenue. This is because wealthy donors not only reduce their income tax obligations, but also capital gains, estate and gift taxes.
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:
- Implement a payout requirement for donor-advised funds
- Raise the minimum payout rate requirement for private foundations
- Prevent grants to DAFs from counting towards foundation payout
- Require sponsors to report on DAFs on an account-by-account basis
- Implement a universal charitable tax credit for non-itemizers
“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.
LATEST NEWS
Big Tech Ramps Up Propaganda Blitz As AI Data Centers Become Toxic With Voters
One Michigan state legislator said data centers are emblematic of the divide between "tech billionaires who are seizing power and… the working and middle classes."
Dec 18, 2025
As voters across the country begin to rally against the unchecked construction of data centers, artificial intelligence companies are panicking and investing millions into propaganda to paint the energy-sucking facilities in a more positive light.
By 2030, the amount of energy demanded by US data centers is expected to more than double, according to the International Energy Agency.
Energy costs have spiked considerably in the states with the most data centers. And as the industry continues its breakneck expansion, one watchdog report found that consumers on America's largest electric grid are expected to pay hundreds of dollars more to meet increased power demand from now until 2027.
These costs became an unexpected point of emphasis for Democrats in November, whose calls for greater transparency from tech companies seeking to build data centers propelled them to victory in elections from New Jersey to Virginia.
But tech companies want to keep building, and as AI threatens to become a central villain of the 2026 midterm elections, Politico reports that companies are putting the wheels in motion to portray themselves "as job creators and economic drivers rather than resource-hungry land hogs."
As Gabby Miller wrote on Wednesday:
A new AI trade group is distributing talking points to members of Congress and organizing local data center field trips to better pitch voters on their value. Another trade association, the Data Center Coalition, nearly tripled its lobbying spend in the third quarter of this year from the previous quarter, according to US lobbying disclosures.
The social media giant Meta, with billions invested in its own fleet of data centers from Stanton Springs, Georgia, to Richland Parish, Louisiana, has been running a multimillion-dollar ad campaign depicting data centers as a boon to agricultural towns in Iowa and New Mexico. It has spent at least $5 million nationally in the past month on TV ads plugging Meta’s $600 billion pledged investment in tech infrastructure and jobs.“
"There’s a very bad connotation around data centers. And this is something that, frankly, the data center industry needs to figure out,” said Caleb Max, president and CEO of the National Artificial Intelligence Association, a new trade group established in January to accelerate AI infrastructure development.
Tech giants are also putting focus on swaying policymakers. Max told Politico that his group has been making the rounds to talk with elected officials in critical battlegrounds for the AI future, like Georgia, Ohio, and Texas, to craft a "positive pro-data center campaign message for elected officials, for businesses, for current lawmakers who are going to be up for reelection in 2026."
Meanwhile, Meta reportedly aired its 30-second TV spots "featuring small-town imagery of farming equipment and mom-and-pop diners" in Washington, DC, and nine state capitals. Miller says this suggests "that policymakers might be Meta’s real target audience, rather than the rural Americans impacted by these energy-hungry server hubs."
AI and tech firms plan to ramp up the lobbying and ad blitzes as the next election draws nearer, and their attempt to reframe the narrative about data centers comes as no surprise, as communities across the US in recent months have increasingly come out in force to push their representatives to halt the construction of the facilities.
In Saline Township, a small community just outside Ann Arbor, Michigan, more than 800 residents descended upon a public input session earlier this month to protest against the construction of a $7 billion center—predicted to consume as much energy as the entire city of Detroit—fearing it would raise energy costs, pollute groundwater, and force the state to abandon its nation-leading climate policies.
The town initially blocked the plans, but reversed course following a lawsuit from a real-estate billionaire closely aligned with President Donald Trump, whose administration has backed the $500 billion "Stargate" initiative by OpenAI, SoftBank, and Oracle to expand data centers.
On Tuesday, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel joined Saline residents at a gathering outside the state Capitol, where they called for a statewide moratorium on data centers.
Data center projects have run into similar resistance nationwide. As of March, the group Data Center Watch found that more than $64 billion worth of projects had been blocked or delayed due to local opposition since May 2024. This opposition has reached a fever pitch in recent months.
Last week, after it received hundreds of angry comments from residents, the city council of Chandler, Arizona, unanimously rejected plans for a $2.5 billion data center that had been pushed by former US Sen.-turned lobbyist Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.).
Even in Trump country, backlash has been fierce. Last week, the planning commission of Starke County, Indiana, voted unanimously to recommend a one-year moratorium on the construction of centers bigger than 5,000 square feet after residents flooded a meeting to raise concerns about water pollution and energy costs.
"In Memphis, Tennessee, Elon Musk's AI company has built a data center whose energy demands have outgrown the region's energy capabilities," said one resident, Sophia Parker. "We've heard from everyone else saying that our infrastructure does not have the capacity to support a data center. And as a result, gas turbines are emitting nitrogen oxide to the point where residents cannot breathe. Their community is being used as a sacrifice for others to get rich. We cannot allow that to happen to us."
Last month in Montour County, Pennsylvania—a state where electric prices have surged by 15% this year, double the national average—environmentalists formed an uncommon alliance with conservative farmers and the Amish to stop the county planning commission from rezoning 1,300 acres of agricultural land for a massive new center.
“Stay out. We wouldn’t even be having this conversation without federal involvement,” said Craig High, a 39-year-old Trump supporter quoted by Reuters. “Both parties are pushing data centers and giving regulatory relief—water permits, permitting, all of it.”
“This is part of an experience that America and the world is having around tech billionaires who are seizing power and widening the gap between those who have much too much… and the working and middle classes,” Yousef Rabhi, a former Democratic state legislative leader from Michigan and clean energy advocate who opposes the construction of data centers, told The Guardian. “That’s what these data centers are symbolic of, and they’re the vehicle for the furtherance of this divide."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Straight-Up Nazi Stuff': Trump Admin Plans to Strip More Naturalized Americans of Citizenship
"Requiring monthly quotas that are 10 times higher than the total annual number of denaturalizations in recent years," said one former immigration official, "turns a serious and rare tool into a blunt instrument and fuels unnecessary fear and uncertainty."
Dec 18, 2025
Policy experts were skeptical Wednesday that the Trump administration could legally or practically carry out its threat to strip more naturalized Americans of their citizenship. Still, they warned that new guidance issued by the White House to immigration officials would ramp up "fear and terror" in immigrant communities and could portend the targeting of naturalized citizens who President Donald Trump views as adversaries.
The guidance was issued Tuesday to US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) field offices, with officers directed to supply the Department of Justice (DOJ) with "100-200 denaturalization cases per month” in the 2026 fiscal year.
The denaturalization process is "deliberately hard" for the federal government, noted American Immigration Council senior fellow Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, and stripping people of the citizenship is a rare step only taken in cases of fraud when they applied to be a citizen or in other narrow circumstances.
As such, between 2017-25, there have been just over 120 denaturalization cases filed with the Office of Immigration Litigation at the DOJ.
Under the first Trump administration, denaturalization cases peaked at 90 in one year in 2018, and the directive issued Tuesday signaled the White House is aiming for a far bigger escalation as it also continues its mass deportation operation and blocks people from seeking asylum as they are permitted to under international law.
Reichlin-Melnick called the directive for a denaturalization quota "vicious and cruel," and pointed out that the president is asking USCIS and the DOJ to take on an onerous task.
"These cases are hard to file and win, and require a lot of DOJ resources, and the DOJ is stretched thin already. So we’ll see; I have serious doubts about their ability to do this," said Reichlin-Melnick.
USCIS refers cases to the DOJ, which must prove in a federal court that it has "unequivocal evidence" that someone obtained their citizenship illegally or fraudulently.
"The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that citizenship and naturalization are too precious and fundamental to our democracy for the government to take it away on their whim. Instead of wasting resources digging through Americans’ files, USCIS should do its job of processing applications, as Congress mandated,” Amanda Baran, a former senior USCIS official who served during the Biden administration, told the New York Times.
Naturalized Americans account for 26 million people in the US, with 800,000 people sworn in last year. In most cases, a person who loses their citizenship status is classified as a legal permanent resident.
Trump has repeatedly called to denaturalize Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and to deport her over her criticism of his policies, and has made the same threat against New York Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist.
In those threatened cases, wrote Michael Waldman, president and CEO of the Brennan Center for Justice, earlier this month, "it appears that crime isn’t so much a motivation as disloyalty."
"Stripping citizens of their citizenship in the name of making the electorate more 'American' is arguably one of the most un-American acts imaginable," wrote Waldman. "We are a nation of immigrants and also a nation of laws. The courts must continue to ensure that those laws protect naturalized citizens from being punished for speaking out."
Three other Brennan Center experts also recently wrote about the history of denaturalization efforts in the US, including during the "Red Scare" of the 1950s:
Sen. Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin led witch hunts, with denaturalization often used as a tool against accused communists or sympathizers. Among those targets was Harry Bridges, an Australian-born, nationally known labor leader accused of being a communist, who faced an ultimately unsuccessful campaign to revoke his citizenship. The Supreme Court ruled in his favor, not once, but twice.
"This is straight-up Nazi stuff and I’m calling on my fellow Jewish Americans who know where this can lead to be in the vanguard against it," said Dylan Willams, vice president for government affairs at the Center for International Policy, also noting that the influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee has endorsed Rep. Randy Fine (R-Fla.), who has called for the denaturalization and expulsion of Muslim Americans and immigrants.
Sarah Pierce, a former USCIS official, told the Times that Trump's quota for denaturalization cases "risks politicizing citizenship revocation" as it has been in the past.
“And requiring monthly quotas that are 10 times higher than the total annual number of denaturalizations in recent years," she said, "turns a serious and rare tool into a blunt instrument and fuels unnecessary fear and uncertainty for the millions of naturalized Americans.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
House GOP to Skip Town Early for Holiday Recess as Healthcare Premiums Soar, Epstein Files Loom
"The same GOP that voted last summer to give the richest Americans and most profitable companies trillions of dollars in tax cuts somehow can't find the funds this winter to ensure 20 million Americans can afford their health insurance."
Dec 18, 2025
The US House was originally scheduled to be in session on Friday, but the Republican leadership gave members a green light to skip town on Thursday for the two-week holiday recess without voting to prevent massive health insurance premium hikes for tens of millions of Americans.
The decision to let members leave early came after House Democrats secured enough support from swing-district Republicans to force a vote on legislation that would extend Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies that are set to expire on December 31, sending premiums soaring.
Democrats on Wednesday demanded an immediate vote on the proposed three-year extension of the ACA tax credits, but Republicans instead pushed to the floor and passed their own healthcare bill that would leave around 100,000 more Americans uninsured per year over the next decade—on top of the millions set to lose coverage due to the expiration of the enhanced subsidies.
The GOP bill is doomed to fail in the narrowly Republican-controlled Senate, which voted down a Democratic push for an extension of the subsidies earlier this month.
More than 20 million Americans relied on the tax credits to afford health insurance. With their expiration, ACA marketplace premiums are set to more than double on average, pricing many people out of coverage entirely.
"Congressional Republicans could have followed through on their promises to help families afford the basics by extending the premium tax credit enhancements to help them enroll in affordable, comprehensive coverage. Instead, they recycled old ideas, refused to address the current affordability crisis—and made plans to go home," Sharon Parrott, president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said in a statement Wednesday.
"On the brink of this deadline, some Republicans have recognized that the stakes for families are too high to do nothing," Parrott added, pointing to the four GOP lawmakers who signed the discharge petition. "A House bill to extend the premium tax credit enhancements now has the required signatures on its discharge petition to force a vote on the House floor. Republican policymakers should step up and put the needs of individuals and families first."
"If Speaker Johnson refuses to bring forth the vote, he’s telling the American people loud and clear that rising healthcare costs are acceptable to him."
It's unclear when the discharged House Democratic bill will get a vote, as the chamber is not scheduled to return until January 6, 2026—after the ACA tax credits expire.
"If Speaker Johnson refuses to bring forth the vote, he’s telling the American people loud and clear that rising healthcare costs are acceptable to him," said Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas), who is running to unseat Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) in next year's midterm election.
David Kass, executive director of Americans for Tax Fairness, said in a statement Thursday that "instead of siding with millions of everyday Americans, they voted to increase healthcare costs which will now put affordable coverage out of reach for millions."
"Congressional Republicans once again revealed whose side they're on," said Kass. "The same GOP that voted last summer to give the richest Americans and most profitable companies trillions of dollars in tax cuts somehow can't find the funds this winter to ensure 20 million Americans can afford their health insurance."
The House Republican leadership's decision to start the holiday recess also came ahead of the Friday deadline for the Trump administration to release most of the Epstein files, as required by recently enacted legislation.
"View all political developments for the rest of the week in light of the fact that the Epstein files are supposed to be released on Friday," said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY). "House Republicans just suddenly cancelled congressional session Friday and are sending everyone home Thursday evening."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


