I. Introduction
As part of its policy efforts to dismantle programs that run counter to its objectives and views, the Trump administration froze federal funding to foreign funding, nongovernmental organizations, diversity, equity and inclusion activities, gender ideology, and the green new deal in early 2025 (Holland et al, 2025). Though initially branded as a pause, the loss of funding has been catastrophic for nonprofits (NPOs) because of their dependence on these steady streams of income. The Urban Institute (Tomasko, 2023) estimates that about 90% of NPOs with $10 million+ in annual expenses receive 54% of their revenue from government sources while more than half of nonprofits with less than $100,000 in annual expenses receive about 13% of their revenue from government sources. Additional analysis from the Urban Institute shows that between 60-80% of NPOs could fail to cover their expenses if government funding remains frozen or disappears entirely. This research is supported by the National Council of Nonprofits (n.d.), which found that most NPOs have less than three months of operating reserves on hand, meaning that it is unlikely that NPOs will be able to outlast the financial impacts of the Trump administration’s efforts to cut federal funding.
Given the compounding nature of these factors, NPOs must look to alternative, diverse sets of funding from the private sector to maintain and/or grow operations. It seemed that a possible strategy could lay in the concept of “rage giving”, however, as will be explored below, it is more likely that this is a stopgap solution that only some larger, more prominent NPOs are able to leverage. That is not to say that smaller organizations should not try to utilize this tool, but they should temper their expectations for how much this tool can alleviate financial burdens.
II. Political Communication Theories and the Link to Giving
To understand how NPOs can leverage public outrage at cuts in federal funding, it is important to first examine the interlinkages of agenda setting, framing, and priming. As Kosicki (1993) notes, agenda setting is the idea that the media decides which issues are most salient for the public to consider. Framing is the concept of how these issues are portrayed (i.e. positively or negatively) to news consumers. Once this happens, voters are primed to vote in a certain way.
While these concepts are typically employed to understand how voters make decisions, the links between agenda setting and philanthropy have been well-established in the context of disaster relief. In exploring disaster relief donations for the Australian bush fires in 2019-2020, Chapman et al (2022) observe that “people perceived news coverage of the event to be a strong influence on the amount they donated to bushfire appeals, over and above past giving levels. Furthermore, media coverage was more influential in participants' charity selection than both peer influence and direct communications from the charities.”
However, as the public, particularly liberal voters, become increasingly outraged by the outcome of political or policy decision by the federal government, “rage giving” is increasingly popular. Rage giving is the idea that in response to political or cultural changes, donors channel their anger into giving to charity. First identified when Trump was elected in 2016, rage giving allows donors to alleviate anger regarding political, policy, and cultural events by giving towards their values (Childress 2024). In other words, in the face of events that run counter to personal beliefs, rage giving offers voters an avenue to vote with their charitable dollars. Frustration and anger regarding politics or policy changes prime voters to become donors.
Rage giving has often been linked to voter expectations about elections. CCS Fundraising (2024) notes that in the previous 9 out of 10 presidential election years, except 2008 because of the global financial crash, charitable giving increased. Conklin et al (2019) indicates that when an election outcome is expected, there is little discrepancy between donations to liberal versus conservative organizations. When election expectations are not met (i.e. Hillary Clinton’s 2016 loss to Donald Trump), donors are prompted to give towards NPOs that support ideologies opposite to the winner. In 2016, this resulted in a 163% increase in donations to liberal organizations (Conklin et al 2019), and Perkins (2024) adds that while this phenomenon can be observed most easily at the presidential level, it can occur in the aftermath of elections at any level depending on how incensed voters feel about the results.
III. Acknowledging the Remaining Gaps
While rage giving should be capitalized on to diversify funding sources in response to cuts in federal funding, it is unlikely to completely make up these funding gaps. As Bellegy (2025) points out, the philanthropic sector simply does not have the cash to fill in all the gaps. The Citi Foundation (2021) finds that 67% of all cash donations to NPOs come from individuals, and 60% of all philanthropy globally, or approximately $417 billion, comes from U.S.-based donors. The country with the next largest amount of philanthropy, the United Kingdom, only gave $18 billion to causes. While U.S.-based donors are extremely philanthropic compared to the rest of the world, it is unlikely that they could increase their giving enough to fill in the gaps.
Additionally, even if a NPO can capitalize on the moment rage, there is no guarantee that the monetary value of donations received will be extremely high or that donations will be recurring. Burack (2022) writes that “Rage givers typically donate in small sums ($5 or $10), are first-time donors to the organization, and are donating as much to make a statement as to make a difference.” After the initial wave of anger wears off, or perhaps more aptly the media agenda turns to a different topic, it is difficult to keep donors engaged. Organizations may see a huge influx of donations in the immediate fallout of an event only for that support to taper off shortly thereafter. For example, in the aftermath of the 2018 shooting at the Pittsburgh Tree of Life synagogue, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS) reported that they began seeing a new set of names began coming up on their donor lists, but that they were able to recognize this giving as a one-time response to people feeling compelled to state their values through donations (Burack, 2022). By comparing HIAS’s Form 990 from fiscal year 2017 to fiscal year 2018, we can see that there was not a substantial difference between pre-rage giving and rage giving. In fiscal year 2017, HIAS received $40,687,086 in contributions, whereas in fiscal year 2018, they received $46,527,210. While a $6 million increase in contributions is quite laudable, they have managed similar increases in contributions in most fiscal years.
Beyond the small, one-time nature of rage giving, the current state of the economy has left many experts questioning how philanthropic trends will shift. In a study of UK-based donors, Charities Aid Foundation (2025) found that only 50% of donors surveyed gave to charity in 2024, and that 44% of donors surveyed indicated that they did not give because they could not afford to. If inflation increases as some economists expect (Sherter, 2025), it is extremely likely that U.S.-based donors will find it difficult to allocate portions of their already stretched budgets to the ever-increasing number of NPOs that need support.
IV. Recommendations for Nonprofits
Given all these constraints, it would seem impossible to effectively maintain financial sustainability as an NPO. However, NPOs must take steps to capitalize on the moment of rage giving while it is fresh. In such a moment of financial instability and uncertainty, potential cash donations must be seized as quickly as possible, especially as competition for the limited pool of contributions will be fierce amongst NPOs. By examining the fundraising tactics of NPOs that have successfully used rage giving, the following actions are recommended:
· Lean into government failure and clearly describe impact: The whole concept of rage giving rests on the belief that in the face of government’s inability or refusal to act, the nonprofit industry will provide that service. Angry donors are motivated to support organizations that they perceive as taking tangible action against policy objectives they disagree with. For example, in 2017, when the Trump administration announced its Muslim ban, the ACLU immediately announced it was challenging the administration through multiple lawsuits (ACLU, 2017). Such quick, decisive, and public action was lauded by donors, who awarded the organization with record levels of contributions.
· Time sensitivity and pathways to give: As additional policy changes occur that threaten the existence of an NPO altogether or run counter to its mission, NPOs must act quickly to showcase their work and leverage the feelings of frustrated, liberal donors. Time is of the essence with rage giving, but beyond clearly showcasing the actions it is taking to counter government failure, NPOs must make it as easy as possible to give to avoid donor drop-off and/or capitalize on all available charitable dollars. Research has shown that asking for specific gift amounts, such as $5, $15, or $25 will result in a greater number and value of contributions compared to open-ended requests (Moon, 2022). Additionally, by reminding donors of potential workplace matching programs, NPOs can potentially double the gift they receive. Double the Donation (2025), a workplace giving platform, notes that mentioning matching gifts in fundraising appeals increases response rate by 71%. By combining an immediate, impactful appeal with intentional messaging, NPOs can potentially unlock critical contributions to keep afloat.
· Identify who these donors are and when they make gifts: NPOs should analyze their customer relationship management systems to identify who these donors are. Perkins (2024) recommends looking for when a donation was made. For example, was a donor’s first or only gift made during the election cycle or in the immediate aftermath of a motivating event? If so, NPOs should tailor their communications and solicitations to these concerns.
· Engaging donors to shift from one-time donations to recurring gifts: Charities Aid Foundation America et al (2023) note that in the immediate aftermath of a disaster, donors are asked to make charitable contributions, which often end up being one-time gifts that support short-term relief efforts, ultimately ignoring long-term rebuilding efforts. The perennial struggle for these responding organizations is capturing donors’ attention over the long-term to keep contributions consistent and sustainable, and as such, the organizations are left without vital resources. Since rage giving operates along similar agenda setting trends and given the long-term financial instability implications of losing federal grants, organizations must identify marketing strategies that appeal to the specific demographics of their rage givers. For example, in the aftermath of the influx of giving HIAS experienced from the Tree of Life synagogue shooting, they turned to educational efforts, indicating that “learning about the work itself is a powerful antidote to bigotry and fear. It helps people see the positive difference being made. And that...is a chance to not only cement those relationships, but to really provide a sense that we're all making a difference together” (Burack, 2022). Rage giving is a singular act, but by bringing donors on a journey of the larger picture their gifts have supported, NPOs have an opportunity to transform a singular gift into something more.
V. American Civil Liberties Union Case Study
As an organization whose mission is to “[take] up the toughest civil liberties cases and issues to defend all people from government abuse and overreach” (ACLU, n.d.), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a well-known NPO that is clearly establishes itself as existing to correct government failure. With this messaging firmly imbedded in its mission and programming, it comes as no surprise that liberal voters flocked to donate to it following the 2016 election. Conklin et al (2019) note that the ACLU received approximately 120,000 donations totaling $7.2 million were received in the week following Trump’s election. The ACLU experienced similar increases in giving that year during Giving Tuesday, noting that there was a 965% increase in online donations compared to 2015 (Spector, 2016).
Mark Wier, chief development officer, offers analysis for this increase in contributions, indicating that their marketing strategies and scale did not change significantly between 2015 and 2016. According to Weir, “’At least one-third of the comments from the donors had the word ‘Trump,’ in them...Some would say, ‘Love Trumps Hate,’ or ‘turning my rage [about Trump] into action.’ Others simply said ‘Trump’” (Spector, 2016). Donors were motivated by Trump’s 2016 win to contribute a NPO’s whose mission seemed diametrically opposed to the policies they anticipated him to enact. Despite the loss of the election, they believed that contributing funds to the ACLU would be a statement of their values.
However, despite this short-term, moment of rage giving, the ACLU’s annual Form 990 shows that rage giving does seem to be just that: a temporary boost. By examining Table 1: American Civil Liberties Union Revenue and Contributions FY 2015-2024, we can see that in FY 16, the ACLU brought in approximately $10 million more in contributions it did in FY 15. In its 2017 Annual Report, the ACLU credits its next soar in contributions to donors’ response to the Trump administration’s first Muslim ban, but FYs 18,19 and 20 seem to return to normal levels of giving. It is unclear what led to the large increase in contributions in FY 21, but following that increase, contributions decrease once again in FYs 22, 23, and 24. If they were able to convert rage giving into a long-term solution, we would see continuous growth, as opposed to big increases followed by years of regular or decreased contributions.
VI. Conclusion
Rage giving might give some immediate benefit but by looking at the most famous examples of organizations that have benefited from the phenomenon in the aftermath of an event, it cannot be confirmed that it has any long-term benefit for NPOs. While it is difficult to ignore the stunning figures raised by the ACLU and HIAS, these are both well-known organizations that already had publicity for their missions. $7.2 million in one week is an incredible amount, but it is unclear if these benefits are attainable for smaller, localized NPOs or if rage giving is a phenomenon that is somewhat exclusive to organizations that have their names out there.
However, the political environment is only becoming more contentious, and angry voters will continue to channel their feelings into charitable donors. As this continues and donors separately become more interested in giving to smaller, grassroots organizations, it is possible that we will get more data to confirm how much NPOs can leverage rage giving as a long-term financial sustainability option, but as of right now, there does not seem to be any benefit for large NPOs.