LEILA FADEL, HOST:
The Trump administration is pulling back from major areas of government spending, slashing budgets for public health, environmental protection and education. That includes a freeze on more than $2 billion in federal funding to Harvard University, a move meant to punish the school for rejecting new political oversight. Harvard is suing the administration, and some big donors are stepping up. But what happens when public money disappears, and it's a billionaire's checkbook that fills the gap? A Martínez spoke with Teddy Schleifer about that. He's a reporter who covers philanthropy and political power for The New York Times.
A MARTÍNEZ, BYLINE: When private donors step in to replace public funding, I mean, what kind of influence does that buy?
TEDDY SCHLEIFER: You know, as a private institution - right? - you are not accountable to the public, theoretically. The twist on that, though, is that lots of these private schools take plenty of public funding. And that gives Trump leverage to sort of twist them and make them beg and make them maybe bend the knee in a way that if they were totally privately funded, these institutions could give Trump the middle finger even more, you know? But the reality is every kind of institution of higher ed is somewhat publicly funded, except for in extreme cases, and that gives the president of United States leverage to withhold money.
MARTÍNEZ: You know, outside education, we've seen foundations ramp up grant-making. I know former New York City mayor and billionaire Michael Bloomberg has pledged to cover U.S. funding for global climate work. Are these kind of things, Teddy, stopgaps, or are donors trying to set new agendas?
SCHLEIFER: You know, I think the Bloomberg example is interesting. I would argue that that is actually a bit of the exception. I think what we're seeing right now is lots of philanthropists saying that they are unable to kind of be that bulwark against federal funding cuts. Especially in the global context, you've seen lots of foundations either say explicitly or sort of implicitly message that they don't have enough money to do this sort of thing. If the U.S. government is going to stop funding USAID, for instance - which I think takes, like, $40 billion a year - like, there's no foundation in the world or no rich person in the world who could, you know, come up with $40 billion a year to be that replacement funding. So I don't even know if they're even really stopgaps. I think there's been, in the charitable sector, a lot of hands being thrown up and a belief that there's no real way to cover Trump's subtractions.
MARTÍNEZ: What worries these big-time donors right now? I mean, are they genuinely concerned about public services collapsing, or are they maybe more focused on protecting their causes and reputations?
SCHLEIFER: You know, I think lots of philanthropists are torn because they want to speak up enough to protect kind of the grantees from Trump. But they don't want to speak up too much - so much that they attract Trump's unwanted attention. You know, I think you look at an institution like the Gates Foundation right now. A lot of grantees or partners of the foundation are facing existential threats to their humanity. Take USAID. The Trump administration has gutted that agency. And Bill Gates and his philanthropic aides are concerned, but they don't want to say too much because they don't want the retribution campaign that has targeted USAID to come for Bill Gates himself.
MARTÍNEZ: You think we're seeing maybe a permanent shift here, where public services increasingly depend on private donors?
SCHLEIFER: That's been true in some places for a while. You know, a shrinking public sector can reward and empower a private sector and a billionaire class that is richer than ever, and that comes with trade-offs. You know, like, sometimes, you know, you hear private philanthropists defend themselves where they say, hey, what do you want me to do? Like, put the money under my mattress or spend it on yachts? Like...
MARTÍNEZ: (Laughter).
SCHLEIFER: ..To be involved, yes, it makes me more powerful, and it gives me, you know, the ability to put my own business interests and commingle those with my grantees' interests. But if the public sector is shrinking, wouldn't you rather have the private sector involved than not? That's sort of the counterargument that lots of wealthy people make, is that the alternative world where the public sector is shrinking and the private sector is shrinking is the worst outcome. So if you're a nonprofit or you're a - you know, a higher ed institution or a lab, a research lab out there, the worst-case scenario might be for everyone to ignore you. But there is sort of this seesawing that happens between the private sector and the public sector with regards to philanthropy and taxes and federal spending, where it always feels like if you're a grantee, you are choosing, you know, your best tormentor. You know, you're choosing the institution and the funding source that is the least bad, but everything's a little bad.
MARTÍNEZ: That's Teddy Schleifer, a reporter at The New York Times covering politics and billionaires. Teddy, thanks a lot.
SCHLEIFER: Sure thing. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
