{
  "id": 854603,
  "title": "Wall Street’s Nonprofits Use Selective, Opaque Logic to Defund Charities",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/08/14/wall-streets-nonprofits-use-selective-opaque-logic-to-defund-charities",
  "topic": "business",
  "section": "Business",
  "published": "2026-08-14T09:00:00.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "ProPublica",
    "slug": "propublica",
    "url": "https://www.propublica.org/article/donor-advised-funds-charity-contributions"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "In a recent twist involving Wall Street's nonprofit sector, the storied civil rights organization Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) found itself facing a significant threat to its funding. Amidst the indictments and fraud charges levied against the SPLC, three Wall Street-affiliated grantmaking giants—Vanguard Charitable, Fidelity Charitable, and Charles Schwab’s DAFgiving360—each made a decision in response, though they refused to fully disclose the rationale behind their actions.\n\nThese three sponsors control more than $327 billion in assets as of 2024, representing a tenfold increase in their footprint over the past two decades. They serve as the conduit for approximately a quarter of all individual giving in the United States. Donors contribute to these donor-advised funds (DAFs), which allow account holders to receive immediate tax deductions on contributions. However, the funds can later be recommended for grants to charities. The sponsors retain legal control over these charitable assets and can, at their discretion, pause payments.\n\nInvestigative reporting by ProPublica sheds light on the opaque and inconsistent nature of these high-stakes decisions. The examination of multiple nonprofits revealed significant inconsistencies in how the DAF sponsors applied their policies. While Vanguard Charitable explicitly paused payments when an organization faces formal charges, Fidelity Charitable and DAFgiving360 described their actions as more conditional, stating they \"may\" or \"might\" stop donations if organizations come under investigation by government or law enforcement agencies.\n\nDeone Powell, a former general counsel for Vanguard Charitable who now advises nonprofits, clarified that these actions are not seen as moral policing but as measures to protect the sponsors' own reputational risks. Given the potential ripple effects, these sponsors carefully weigh their choices, understanding that a single decision can establish a precedent affecting thousands of future recommendations.\n\nHowever, the investigative report uncovered that while Vanguard Charitable and DAFgiving360 froze donations to the SPLC, they permitted numerous other organizations to continue receiving funds even amid government investigations. These included entities such as hospitals, universities, charter schools, and even a white nationalist organization. While the sponsors maintain that their decisions are viewpoint-neutral, ProPublica found no evidence to support this claim. The SPLC, which has received substantial contributions from these sponsors over the past three years, remains uncertain about the reason for the decision and any potential path to reinstatement.\n\nThe legal pressure continues to mount, with the SPLC still unaware of why it was deemed ineligible for donations or if there is a possibility for reinstatement. This situation is further complicated by the current political climate, where there has been a surge in investigations into nonprofits, often driven by political agendas. ProPublica notes that Republican lawmakers have initiated over 135 investigations into charities since 2025, alleging foreign influence, support for terrorism, or promotion of diversity, equity, and inclusion. Many of these organizations have not faced legal consequences, yet they have been removed from donation portals managed by sponsors like Fidelity Charitable.\n\nExperts emphasize the problematic nature of these actions, particularly under the Trump administration, which has a history of making politically charged accusations that often do not hold up in court. Joe Goldman, president of Democracy Fund, acknowledges that while the sponsors may not be acting in bad faith, they are applying outdated rules to new circumstances without fully recognizing the changes in context. He points out that these scenarios could potentially harm tax-exempt organizations without any proven wrongdoing.\n\nThe consequences of such decisions are far-reaching. For instance, the SPLC has received $20 million through Fidelity Charitable, Vanguard Charitable, and DAFgiving360 in the last three years, with about 7% of its 2025 contributions coming from these sponsors. This not only impedes critical charitable work but also sets a dangerous precedent that could chill the rights of both donors and organizations. As SPLC spokesperson notes, \"When investment firms block donor-advised funds to nonprofits based on allegations and speculation, it not only impedes critical charitable work; it also sets a dangerous precedent that stifles the rights of donors and chills the rights of the organizations they seek to support.\"",
  "summary": "The post Wall Street’s Nonprofits Use Selective, Opaque Logic to Defund Charities appeared first on ProPublica .",
  "key_points": [],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 1,
    "also_reported_by": []
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}