I’ve been having the same conversation a lot lately. Different people, different contexts, but the same underlying anxiety: “What will happen if we are forced to stop funding certain groups and causes?” 

These are serious people asking serious questions. Foundation directors who’ve spent careers building grantmaking programmes. Wealth advisers managing philanthropic portfolios. Family office trustees thinking about legacy. They’re all doing the same calculus, wondering if the infrastructure they’ve relied on for decades might not be as stable as it once seemed.

If you’re asking the same question your concern isn’t paranoia. Two-thirds of foundation and nonprofit leaders report their work has been negatively affected by the U.S. political climate. 

We’ve watched the rules change rapidly. Issue areas that felt solidly within the bounds of acceptable philanthropy have become flashpoints overnight. Organisations doing essential work on reproductive rights, climate justice, and democracy protection, suddenly finding themselves in the crosshairs simply for doing what they’ve always done.

Meanwhile, the movements that need support most urgently can’t afford to wait while we figure this out. Climate organisers in Southeast Asia. Feminist collectives facing government crackdowns. LGBTQ+ advocates working in increasingly dangerous contexts, part of a global trend of declining civil liberties documented for 19 consecutive years. What they need right now is consistent funding, not funders paralysed by domestic political calculations.

So the question becomes: how do we build resilience into our philanthropic infrastructure before we desperately need it?

A Systemic Threat to Philanthropy

I’ve been in this sector long enough to remember other periods of political uncertainty. This feels different, and not just because of the current political moment.

What’s changed is that we’re no longer talking about isolated risks to specific issue areas. We’re talking about systemic vulnerability across the entire philanthropic ecosystem. When supporting basic democratic norms (work that is now being actively countered by over a billion dollars in funding to anti-democracy organisations), racial equity, or evidence-based climate science becomes politically contentious, we’re in new territory.

Some foundations have already experienced what this looks like in practice. Public attacks for supporting organisations challenging power structures. Threats of regulatory scrutiny. Board members getting nervous about maintaining tax-exempt status. Others are running scenarios about what happens if things get substantially worse.

These conversations aren’t happening in radical organisations pushing the boundaries. They’re happening in established foundations doing work that would have been considered mainstream five years ago.

That’s the shift we need to acknowledge.

Building Operational Resilience Abroad

To be clear, we’re not talking about moving money offshore to avoid accountability. We’re talking about building parallel operational capacity that can function regardless of domestic political conditions.

Think of it as basic organisational resilience. You diversify your investment portfolio to protect against market volatility. This is diversifying your operational infrastructure to protect against political volatility.

In practical terms, this might mean partnering with a UK-based regranting organisation that can receive your funds, conduct due diligence, and distribute grants globally. Or working with European entities that provide fiscal sponsorship for international projects.

The critical point: this doesn’t replace your existing operations. It augments them. Your US foundation continues its domestic work while simultaneously building capacity to operate internationally if needed. You’re creating optionality.

This matters especially for foundations supporting transnational movements. Climate networks operating across continents, global feminist organising, youth-led movements that refuse to respect artificial borders. These groups need funders who can be as nimble and boundary-crossing as they are.

The UK Advantage for US Foundations

There’s a reason the UK keeps coming up in these conversations, and it’s not just because of the shared language.

The UK has a mature regulatory framework for charitable giving. The legal infrastructure is transparent and well-established. More importantly, there’s already a robust ecosystem of organisations specialising in international grant distribution.

UK-based regranters have spent years developing expertise that would take a US foundation ages to build internally. They know how to conduct due diligence across wildly different contexts. They understand the nuances of supporting organisations in places where civil society space is shrinking. They’ve built systems for compliance, monitoring, and currency management. All the technical infrastructure that makes international grantmaking actually work.

For a US foundation, partnering with these organisations means accessing decades of accumulated knowledge without having to build it yourself. You can support a women’s rights organisation in East Africa or an environmental group in Latin America without navigating those countries’ regulatory systems directly.

But there’s something else the UK offers that matters more than convenience: jurisdictional distance. When your assets are held and distributed through a UK entity, they operate under UK charity law. That creates a buffer from US political dynamics. The work continues based on charitable purpose rather than domestic political pressure.

I’m not suggesting the UK is immune to political pressure (nowhere is). But diversifying jurisdictional risk is basic prudent planning.

Finding International Grant Distribution Partners

What’s interesting about where these conversations are going is that they’re pushing us beyond traditional grantmaking models entirely.

Foundations are asking about fiscal sponsorship structures that can distribute grants across borders, global grant management that can handle complex multi-country operations, and fund administration that provides real operational support rather than just processing transactions.

Because here’s what we’ve learned: supporting global social change movements requires more than transferring money. It requires infrastructure that can adapt quickly, systems that can respond when opportunities emerge or risks materialise, and partners who understand both the technical requirements and the messy realities of funding grassroots organising in challenging contexts.

This is where specialised intermediaries become genuinely valuable. The good ones don’t just move money from point A to point B. They add capacity through thorough due diligence, ongoing support to grantees navigating difficult operating environments, and handling reporting and compliance. They serve as a layer of protection between funders and the complexities of supporting social change where it’s most difficult.

Retaining Strategic Control

Every time I have this conversation, someone understandably raises the concern about control. Foundation leaders have spent years developing their grantmaking strategies. The idea of handing operational control to a third party makes people understandably nervous.

So let’s be precise about what changes and what doesn’t.

A well-structured international partnership doesn’t require surrendering strategic control. It requires sharing operational responsibility, which is completely different.

You maintain strategic direction – deciding which issues to support, what types of organisations to fund, and what outcomes you’re working toward. The international partner provides operational capacity and contextual expertise, or perhaps just a safe place to hold money outside of the U.S.

Planning for Uncertainty

What makes this moment different is the recognition that we can’t predict which scenario we’re planning for.

Maybe the current political situation stabilises and all these concerns prove excessive. Fine, you’ve built capacity for more effective international grantmaking anyway.

Maybe restrictions increase and certain types of domestic advocacy become more difficult. Then you have operational flexibility to continue supporting movements through alternative channels.

Maybe something entirely unexpected happens. Then you have diversified operations across multiple jurisdictions providing resilience that purely domestic structures can’t offer.

This is what prudent planning looks like when you can’t predict the future but know the present isn’t stable.

The foundations that will be most effective in coming years are the ones building resilience now, while they still have space to be thoughtful rather than reactive.

Questions Funders Need to Be Asking

If you’re thinking about your foundation’s resilience, here’s where to start:

How dependent is your grantmaking on US political stability? If regulations changed significantly, which parts of your work would be affected?

How much of your funding supports international work? Could you continue that effectively if domestic operations became more complex?

What relationships do you have with international partners? If you needed to deploy resources quickly through overseas channels, could you?

Funder Risk Mitigation During Political Turmoil

Supporting social change has always required courage. The courage to back movements before they’re proven successful, to fund work challenging entrenched power, and to support ideas that make people uncomfortable.

Now we need the courage to acknowledge vulnerability and build systems that can withstand pressure we hope never materialises.

International philanthropic infrastructure is about protecting your ability to fulfill your mission regardless of external circumstances.

For foundation leaders ready to have this conversation options exist right. Organisations with years of experience in international regranting and fiscal sponsorship. Legal structures providing both flexibility and accountability. Partners who understand technical requirements and the deeper purpose driving this work.

In the current environment, exploring these options is essential for foundations serious about long-term resilience.

In Support of U.S Philanthropy

At Social Change Nest, we’ve been supporting international grantmaking for years. As a fiscal sponsor (or fiscal host) We’ve built infrastructure, navigated regulatory complexity, and developed relationships with grassroots organisations across dozens of countries. We understand what it takes to move resources effectively across borders while maintaining the accountability and oversight that responsible philanthropy requires.

More importantly, we understand why it matters. Because the most vulnerable communities can’t afford for their funders to be paralysed by domestic political calculations. Because social change work requires infrastructure that can withstand instability.

If you’re thinking about resilience planning and protecting your ability to support social causes regardless of domestic political conditions then let’s talk.

The Time to Build Resilience Is Now

The people we support can’t afford for us to wait until crisis hits to figure this out. The time to build resilience is before you urgently need it. The time to establish international partnerships is before they become emergency responses. The time to protect your foundation’s ability to fulfill its mission is now. 

If you are considering strategies for future grant cycles, particularly for international climate, democracy, or DEI initiatives, we can provide safe alternative routes for grant making. We’re happy to have a confidential chat about how we can help you figure out a path forward during these turbulent times.