Welcome back to Grassroots Grantmaking, where our team at Proximate tracks the global movement in philanthropy to shift power to the grassroots.

These are changing times, and this month's issue reflects some pretty large shifts in the world of philanthropy.

We kick off the issue with a conversation with Glen Galaich, on the Gates Foundation's plans to sunset. Glen is guiding the Stupski Foundation through their own spend-down, and shares hard-earned lessons from inside that process – as well as thoughts on the debate over perpetuity.

Meanwhile: a high-stakes tax bill is winding its way through the US Congress. We dig into how fiscal sponsors (yes, you read that right) can protect grassroots groups from threats – as well as how big donors continue to silence organizations standing with Palestine.

We also step blissfully out of the US context, sharing our third issue of Proximate Brasil. I encourage American and European readers to learn from the exciting debates about power and grantmaking happening in South America’s philanthropic powerhouse.

A deep thank you to Magic Cabinet, our early believer and financial supporter for this newsletter.

With gratitude,

Ben Wrobel

The Gates Foundation is spending down. Will others follow suit?

One of my favorite details coming out of the Gates Foundation's announcement that they plan to sunset by 2045 was this line from Bill Gates' interview with the New York Times, about why he chose this path:

"It allows us to do a lot more because we’re not trying to steward our money for some weird legacy thing."

I doubt it was intentional, but this quote reminds me of how Tim Walz rode that word – "weird" – to the VP candidacy during the recent US election. While everyone else was calling Trump dangerous, Walz broke through the noise by portraying the opposition as just plain… off. It made them harder to take seriously (at least in theory).

As Glen Galaich and I discussed in our conversation, the idea that foundations should stick around forever is just plain weird. It's by no means the natural order of things – institutional philanthropy itself is only about 100 years old – and an increasing number of foundations are having internal debates about their own perpetuity.

The Gates Foundation is Spending Down. Will Others Follow?

Check out the interview for Glen's thoughts on the debate around perpetuity, the "mystery math" behind Gates' spend-down, and the role of trust-based philanthropy in this debate.

And for what it's worth, I hope that Bill Gates is doing something intentional like Tim Walz – playfully puncturing the idea of philanthropic legacy. I just hope it works out better.

The (political) role of fiscal sponsors

When I've told people that Proximate is launching a deep dive series on fiscal sponsorship, I often get a quizzical look ("That seems... oddly specific?")

But the fact is, fiscal sponsors are now a major part of the social sector in the US, and increasingly around the world. They manage tens of thousands of grassroots projects, steward billions of philanthropic dollars each year, and increasingly serve as long-term infrastructure for proximate leaders.

We’re exploring that in our new series at Proximate, Common Ground, co-curated with Social Impact Commons, with new stories publishing throughout the spring.

So how can fiscal sponsors protect grassroots leaers against a future "nonprofit killer bill"? Read Thaddeus Squire's piece to find out. And check out the full series for more, including an interesting takedown of the tech bros who are starting to circle the fiscal sponsor ecosystem.

Philanthropy continues to waver on Palestine

As Proximate has covered in the past, institutional philanthropy has had a tough relationship with Palestinian solidarity over the past eighteen months.

According to a recent report, philanthropic funders in the US have pulled at least $8 million – and likely more – from nonprofits that express solidarity with Palestinians since October 7.

We covered the launch of that report, at an event in March co-hosted by Funders for Palestine and Funding Freedom. You can read the story here.

I think it's important to keep this conversation going, amid all the news about foundations pledging to fight back against the Trump administration (see note below). That's great – but it's important that funders don't just get credit for speaking out in broad terms, while continuing to silence grassroots leaders under the radar.

What can we learn from Brazil?

I’ve been to several philanthropy conferences over the past few months, and everywhere I go, there is a large contingent of philanthropy leaders from Brazil. 

The country’s philanthropy ecosystem is in a fascinating place, growing fast and getting more complex. I’ve heard from many Brazilians that they want to learn more about US philanthropy best practices – and I’ve responded just as often to be careful about which lessons they choose to learn.

I’m excited that Proximate is building momentum with our bilingual project, Proximate Brasil, which publishes a quarterly newsletter in English and Portuguese, led by our brilliant editor Joana Ribeiro Mortari.

The newsletter is back this month with its third edition, and I’d encourage any reader interested in global philanthropy to read the selection of new stories. In particular, check out this piece by Aline Khouri on a model of participatory land management in the state of Minas Gerais that represents a form of "horizontal philanthropy".

• Not just Gates. Before the Gates news, I was all ready to talk about Marguerite Casey Foundation joining the trend and dipping into their endowment to give away money faster. It's a much bigger bump, proportionally, than the MacArthur announcement – Casey normally gives out just south of $60 million a year, and this year they pledge to double that. The Chronicle of Philanthropy also wrote about some other foundations that are "opening the vaults".

• What can 674 foundations agree on? In mid-April, the Council on Foundations put out a statement, signed by more than 600 foundations so far, ahead of anticipated attacks from the Trump administration. Around the same time, leaders from three big foundations (MacArthur, McKnight, and Freedom Together) wrote in an NPQ op-ed that foundations should “prepare for what’s coming, but don’t obey in advance”. They also called for increased spending, noting that “foundations do not exist to perpetuate ourselves.” Weird legacy thing, indeed.

• What funders get wrong about girls and young feminists. Girls and young feminists are not apolitical. That's the argument of two new reports by Our Collective Practice, which draw on curated stories from around the world to lay out the strategic political vision of girls and young feminist organizers. Proximate reached out to some of the authors and contributors – Jody Myrum, Priyanka Samy, and Laura Vergara – to hear what funders can learn.

• Participatory grantmaking in London. I’m a big fan of Rhodri Davies’ writing (check out the recent edition of his Why Philanthropy Matters newsletter). Davies just did a podcast episode with Natasha Friend who runs the deeply participatory London foundation, Camden Giving. Give it a listen.

• An argument for long-term funding on the left. Did you know that 52% of the funding that goes to anti-democracy organizations (including election deniers) is long-term and flexible, compared to just 38% of funding directed to social justice organizations? That’s true even during the peak progressive grantmaking years of 2020-2022. Capitalize Good’s Andrea Levere argues that needs to change.

Thanks for reading!

Sign up for future newsletters here.