Category: Academic Reportage

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Alexander L. Metcalf, Associate Professor of Human Dimensions of Natural Resources, University of Montana

Management of gray wolves (Canis lupus) has a reputation for being one of the most contentious conservation issues in the United States. The topic often conjures stark images of supporters versus opponents: celebratory wolf reintroductions to Yellowstone National Park and Colorado contrasted with ranchers outraged over lost cattle; pro-wolf protests juxtaposed with wolf bounty hunters. These vivid scenes paint a picture of seemingly irreconcilable division.

But in contrast to these common caricatures, surveys of public opinion consistently show that most people around the world hold positive views of wolves, often overwhelmingly so. This trend holds true even in politically conservative U.S. states, often assumed to be hostile toward wolf conservation. For example, a recent study of ours in Montana found that an increasing majority of residents, 74% in 2023, are tolerant or very tolerant of wolves.

Still, the perception of deep conflict persists and is often amplified by media coverage and politicians. But what if these exaggerated portrayals, and the assumptions of division they reinforce, are themselves contributing to the very conflict they describe? In a study published Jan. 6, 2026, we explored this question.

The human side of conservation

We are social scientists who study the human dimensions of environmental issues, from wildfire to wildlife. Using tools from psychology and other social sciences, we examine how people relate to nature and to each other when it comes to environmental issues. These human relationships often matter more to conservation outcomes than the biology of the species or ecosystems in question. Conservation challenges are typically people problems.

One of the most powerful yet underappreciated forces in these dynamics is social identity, the psychological force that compels people to sort themselves into groups and take those group boundaries seriously. Social identity theory, a foundational concept in psychology, shows that once people see themselves as members of a group, they are naturally inclined to favor “us” and be wary of “them.”

But strong group loyalties also come with costs: They can distort how people see and interpret the world and exacerbate conflict between groups.

When identity distorts reality

Social identity can shape how people interpret even objectively true facts. It can lead people to misjudge physical distances and sizes and assume the worst about members of different groups. When this identification runs deep, a phenomenon called identity fusion can occur, when someone’s personal identity becomes tightly linked to their group identity.

This phenomenon can lead people to act in questionable ways, even ways they might otherwise find immoral, particularly when they believe their group is under threat. For example, it’s possible these forces contribute to high-profile cover-ups of reprehensible behavior.

In our recent research, we tested how activating people’s political identities – simply reminding them of their own political party affiliations – affected their perceptions of wolves in the U.S.

Across two studies involving over 2,200 participants from nine states with wolf populations, we found a striking pattern. When we activated people’s political identity, their attitudes toward wolves became more polarized. Democrats’ affinity for wolves increased, as did Republicans’ aversion.

On the other hand, when our particants’ political identities were not activated, they generally liked wolves, regardless of their politics. In a follow-up experiment where we had people guess their fellow and rival party members’ attitudes toward wolves, we found this identity-based polarization was driven by people’s assumptions about their in-group but not their out-group. People incorrectly assumed others in their party held extreme views about wolves, and those assumptions in turn shaped their own attitudes toward the species.

In other words, the caricatures themselves created the conflict.

This is an ironic and tragic outcome: A situation where many people actually agree became polarized not because of deep-seated differences but because of how people imagined others feel.

Bridging the gap

Fortunately, the same psychological forces that divide people can also bring them together. When we showed our research participants the actual views of others, specifically that most of their fellow political party members held positive attitudes toward wolves, their own attitudes moderated.

Other strategies for uniting people involve activating “cross-cutting” identities, or shared identities that span traditional divides. For instance, someone might identify both as a rancher and a conservationist, or a hunter who is also a wildlife advocate. More broadly, our respondents are all Americans and community members who share a common humanity. Highlighting these blended and shared identities can reduce the sense of “us vs. them” and open the door to more productive conversations.

The debate over wolves may seem like an intractable clash of values. But our research suggests it doesn’t have to be. When people move beyond caricatures of conflict and recognize the common ground that already exists, we can begin to shift the conversation and maybe even find ways to live not just with wolves, but with each other.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Americans generally like wolves − except when we’re reminded of our politics – https://theconversation.com/americans-generally-like-wolves-except-when-were-reminded-of-our-politics-267511

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Shelley Inglis, Senior Visiting Scholar with the Center for the Study of Genocide and Human Rights, Rutgers University

The U.S. military operation in Venezuela and capture of President Nicolás Maduro on Jan. 3, 2026, topped off months of military buildup and targeted strikes in the Caribbean Sea. It fulfills President Donald Trump’s claim to assert authoritative control over the Western Hemisphere, articulated in his administration’s 2025 National Security Strategy.

Some national security experts say U.S. military action in Venezuela – taken without U.S. congressional approval or U.N. Security Council authorization – is unlawful. It may violate domestic and international law.

The Venezuela attack represents the clearest example during Trump’s second presidency of the shift from traditional American values of democratic freedom and the rules-based international order to an America exerting unilateral power based purely on perceived economic interests and military might. Autocratic leaders are unconstrained by law and balance of power, using force to impose their will on others.

So, what does this transition from a liberal America in the world to an autocratic U.S. look like? After decades of working internationally on democracy and peace-building, I see three interrelated areas of long-standing U.S. foreign policy engagement being unraveled.

1. Peace and conflict prevention

The Trump administration’s actions in Venezuela reflect its “peace through strength” approach to international relations, which emphasizes military power. The actions also follow the emphasis the administration places on economic pressure and wins as a deterrent to war and a cudgel for peace.

This approach contrasts with decades of diplomatic efforts to build peace processes that last.

Foreign policy experts point out that the Trump administration’s emphasis on business deal-making in its conduct of foreign relations, focused on bargaining between positions, misses the point of peacemaking, which is to address underlying interests shared by parties and build the trust required to tackle the drivers of conflict.

Trump’s focus on deal-making also counters the world’s traditional reliance on the U.S. as an honest broker and a reliable economic partner that supports free trade. Trump made it clear that U.S. interest in oil is a key rationale for the Venezuela attack.

Before Venezuela, the limits of the Trump administration’s approach were already showing in the global conflicts Trump claims to have halted. That’s evident in ongoing violence between Thailand and Cambodia and in ceasefire violations in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Moreover, U.S. expertise and resources for sustainable peacemaking and preventing conflict are gone.

The entire Bureau of Conflict Stabilization Operations in the U.S. Department of State was dismantled in May 2025, while funding for conflict prevention and key peace programs like Women, Peace and Security was cut.

Trump’s unilateral military action against Venezuela belie an authentic commitment to sustainable peace.

While it’s too soon to predict Venezuela’s future under U.S. control, the Trump administration’s approach is likely to drive more global conflict and violence in 2026, as major powers begin to understand the different rules and learn to play the new game.

2. Democracy and human rights

Since the 1980s, U.S. national security strategies have incorporated aspects of democracy promotion and human rights as U.S. values.

Trump has not highlighted human rights and democracy as rationales for capturing Maduro. And, so far, the administration has rejected claims to the Venezuelan leadership by opposition leader María Corina Machado and Edmundo González, widely considered the legitimate winner of the 2024 presidential election.

Much of the U.S. foreign policy to build democracy globally and promote human rights was delivered through foreign assistance, worth over US$3 billion in 2024. The Trump administration cut that by nearly 75% in 2025.

These funds sought to promote fair elections, supporting civil societies and free media globally. They were also meant to help enable independent and corruption-free judiciaries in many countries, including Venezuela.

Since 1998, for example, the U.S. has funded 85% of the annual $10 million budget of the U.N Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture. The fund, now imperiled, helps survivors recover from torture in the U.S. and around the world.

The congressionally mandated annual Human Rights Report issued by the State Department in August signaled the Trump administration’s intent to undermine key human rights obligations of foreign governments.

However, the White House has used tariffs, sanctions and military strikes to punish countries on purported human rights-related grounds, such as in Brazil, Nigeria and South Africa. Equally concerning to democracy defenders is its rhetoric chastising European democracies and apparent willingness to elevate political parties in Europe that reject human rights.

3. International cooperation

A major aim of U.S. foreign policy has traditionally been to counter threats to America’s security that require cooperation with other governments.

But the Trump administration is ignoring or denying many transnational threats. They include terrorism, nuclear proliferation, pandemics, new technologies and climate change.

Moreover, the tools that America helped build to tackle shared global threats, like international law and multilateral organizations such as the United Nations, have been disparaged and undermined.

Even before the U.S. attack on Venezuela, scholars were warning of the collapse of the international norm, embedded in the U.N. Charter, that prohibits the use of force by one sovereign country against another, except in specific cases of self-defense.

Early in 2025, Trump signaled an end to much of U.S. multilateral engagement, pulling the country out of many international bodies, agendas and treaties.

The administration proposed eliminating its contributions to U.N. agencies like the fund for children. It is also allocating only $300 million this year to the U.N., which is about one-fifth of the membership dues it owes the organization by law. A looming budgetary crisis has now consumed this sole worldwide deliberation body.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration says migration and drug trafficking, including from Venezuela, pose the greatest security threats. Its solutions – continuing U.S. economic and military might in the Americas – ignore shared challenges like corruption and human trafficking that drive these threats and also undermine U.S. economic security.

There is also evidence that the Trump administration is not only disregarding international law and retreating from America’s long-standing respect for international cooperation, but it’s also seeking to reshape policy in its own image and punish those it disagrees with.

For example, its call to reframe global refugee protections – to undermine the principle that prohibits a return of people to a country where they could be persecuted – would alter decades-old international and U.S. domestic law. The Trump administration has already dismantled much of the U.S. refugee program, lowering the cap for 2025 to historic levels.

Even for those who work in international institutions, there could also be a price to pay for an illiberal America. For instance, the Trump administration has economically sanctioned many judges and prosecutors of the International Criminal Court for their work.

And the administration has threatened more sanctions unless the court promises not to prosecute Trump – a more salient challenge now with the apparent U.S. aggression against Venezuela, which is a party to the International Criminal Court.

Some democracy experts worry that the U.S. military action in Venezuela not only undermines international law, but it may also serve to reinforce Trump’s project to undo the rule of law and democracy at home.

Until July 1, 2025, Shelley Inglis served in the Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance at the United States Agency for International Development (U.S.A.I.D).

– ref. 2026 begins with an increasingly autocratic United States rising on the global stage – https://theconversation.com/2026-begins-with-an-increasingly-autocratic-united-states-rising-on-the-global-stage-271670

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Lisa Bosman, Associate Professor of Technology Leadership and Innovation, Purdue University

Many engineering and science undergraduates are approaching January application deadlines for prestigious summer internships and study abroad programs – or, in some cases, a spot in the National Science Foundation’s highly competitive Research Experience for Undergraduates, a specialized, paid summer research internship.

Roughly 6,000 American undergraduates take part in this internship each year. Landing this competitive research internship is a big deal. It can give young people interested in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) careers hands-on experience, real confidence and a clear picture of what to expect when enrolling in science and engineering graduate programs.

And even if a student decides graduate school isn’t for them, an REU, as it is often known, still shows young people that there are many exciting paths to consider in STEM professions.

A shift for REU internships

These in-person, 10-week summer research experiences mostly take place at approximately 150 to 200 universities in the United States, but also at schools in the United Kingdom, Singapore, Germany and other countries.

REU internships don’t always produce immediate research breakthroughs, but their real purpose is to spark students’ interest in science and prepare them for graduate school and research careers.

During the pandemic, many universities shifted to running REU programs online. Students participating in online REUs conducted research from home and met mentors online, rather than in person.

Surprisingly, this change not only saved money, but it also improved student outcomes in terms of what they said they learned, entrepreneurial skills they developed and the confidence they gained in applying to engineering and technology graduate programs.

Purdue University, where I work as a researcher and innovation professor, piloted one virtual and facilitated two in-person REU programs between August 2021 and August 2024. We found that the virtual model delivered the same – if not better – learning outcomes at a fraction of the cost.

The 14 students who participated in the virtual REU over the course of one or two semesters reported stronger gains in research skills than those who joined the full-time, in-person summer program.

Virtual learning

There are several reasons why this virtual REU approach likely worked.

First, the virtual students met with faculty mentors more often than students who participated in an in-person REU program.

While summer, in-person undergraduate researchers usually met with their mentors around 10 times over the course of 10 weeks, virtual students met weekly with their mentors over 16 to 32 weeks – sometimes having three times as many meetings.

That regular contact helped students stay on track and dive deeper into their renewable energy-focused projects.

Second, because they weren’t spending time in labs, virtual students spent more time doing the kinds of research activities that prepare them for graduate school, like reviewing academic literature, writing up results and thinking through complex problems. These are the kinds of skills that matter most when students make the leap from college to research careers.

Third, the longer, part-time structure of the virtual program gave students more time to absorb new information, reflect on what they were learning and connect ideas. Instead of cramming everything into a 10-week sprint, they took a marathon approach, which helped them learn more.

And finally, virtual REUs made it possible for more students to join the program – especially for those who couldn’t leave home for the summer due to family or other obligations. In our virtual program, we were able to accommodate 14 students, instead of the 10 students who had previously participated in a lab setting.

Cost-effective research

From a financial perspective, the contrast is striking between virtual and in-person research experiences for undergraduates.

The National Science Foundation recommends budgeting about US$1,550 per student per week for summer REUs. Of that, only $600 goes to the student as a stipend – the rest is spent on housing, meals and travel.

For the cost of offering an in-person summer program to two students, we could serve five in a two-semester virtual REU, or even 10 in a one-semester online version. The potential to reach more students, for longer periods, is undeniable.

In other words, virtual REUs are not just a pandemic-era stopgap. They’re a smarter, cheaper and more inclusive way to deliver on the promise of undergraduate research.

To be sure, there can be some downsides.

While virtual REUs still offer valuable research experience and guidance, students participating in remote programs do miss out on working directly in labs and building natural connections with mentors and peers. Because of this, students can feel less connected and less supported than they would in an in-person program.

Also, not everyone thrives with remote learning.

As the National Science Foundation and other agencies that do scientific research grapple with potentially steep budget cuts, I believe that they should take a hard look at what we’ve learned. Virtual REUs aren’t a compromise – they’re a proven, cost-effective strategy that stretches public dollars while giving students more of what they actually need: access, mentorship and real research experience.

I believe that if the U.S. wants to build the next generation of scientists, engineers and innovators, the government needs to try to meet students where they are – and sometimes, that means meeting them online.

Lisa Bosman receives funding from the National Science Foundation.

– ref. Virtual National Science Foundation internships aren’t just a pandemic stopgap – they can open up opportunities for more STEM students – https://theconversation.com/virtual-national-science-foundation-internships-arent-just-a-pandemic-stopgap-they-can-open-up-opportunities-for-more-stem-students-257853

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Jenn Finders, Assistant Professor of Human Development and Family Studies, Colorado State University

Colorado is the sixth-least affordable state for child care in the nation. Costs for center-based care average 14% of a two-parent household’s median income and 45% of a single parent’s median income. The federal affordability benchmark is just 7%.

Colorado also faces significant shortages in access to slots in licensed child care programs. In 2023, more than 40,000 Colorado parents reported quitting a job, turning down a job or significantly changing a job because of problems with child care.

Recently, several Colorado counties passed measures to subsidize child care through local taxes. Despite these advancements, Colorado’s child care system is facing a fiscal crisis that is likely to affect families and children for years to come.

Child care disruptions for families with infants and toddlers are estimated to cost the state more than US$2.7 billion in lost economic productivity and revenue. Ensuring access to affordable child care supports workforce participation and enhances the well-being of children and families.

I study early care and education policies and programs that promote children’s cognitive, behavioral and social-emotional learning. My research lab at Colorado State University has been investigating the consequences of a lack of access to high-quality, affordable child care on child and family outcomes.

Colorado’s Child Care Assistance Program

Since the late 1990s, the Colorado Child Care Assistance Program has subsidized the cost of child care for parents and caregivers with lower incomes who are working, searching for work or pursuing education. My research shows these subsidies are a critical lifeline that help lower-income families access child care.

Subsidies allow families to prioritize factors other than cost, such as location, in their search for child care. From 2023 to 2024, the Colorado subsidy program served more than 30,000 children in the state. That’s about 10% of those who qualified, which is typical for most states.

A federal March 2024 rule from the Administration for Children and Families caps family co-payments at no more than 7% of household income. It also requires reimbursement rates to reflect the full cost of care, whereas previously subsidy payments were based on what families could afford to pay.

Although intended to improve affordability for families and adequately compensate child care programs, the rule included no additional federal funding. In Colorado, meeting these new requirements is projected to cost the subsidy system approximately $43 million more per year.

These changes, combined with the expiration of COVID-19 relief funding that provided Colorado an additional $465 million to stabilize and expand child care assistance, has created growing financial instability for the subsidy system.

Approximately one-third of Colorado counties are experiencing an enrollment freeze for their child care subsidies. This means new applicants cannot access subsidized care until the freeze is lifted. There is no set timeline for when that will occur.

Without additional funding that would allow the freeze to be lifted, enrollment in Colorado’s Child Care Assistance Program is estimated to decline by 64%, falling from about 30,000 to just 10,000 enrollees. As children age out or families no longer qualify, spots that would normally open up for new enrollees will remain unfilled during the freeze.

Zooming in on Larimer County

I have been studying the impacts of the enrollment freeze in my hometown of Larimer County, Colorado. It’s a geographically diverse region that includes urban centers such as Fort Collins and Loveland, mountain destinations such as Estes Park, and rural agricultural communities. Like elsewhere in the state, child care costs pose a significant financial strain on local families.

A household in Larimer County with a median income of $64,919 and two children under the age of 5 spends approximately 37% of its income on child care. Due to budget constraints, Larimer County has had an enrollment freeze in the Colorado Child Care Assistance Program since February of 2024. The county has effectively paused the intake of new applicants for subsidies.

Recently, we administered surveys to 88 families in Larimer County. Approximately half of those surveyed were currently receiving a subsidy and half had applied but were unable to access it because of the freeze. We compared families using advanced statistical modeling that controlled for any differences between groups, allowing us to isolate the effects of the subsidy freeze on family outcomes.

In unpublished research that is being prepared for peer review, we found families affected by the freeze used fewer paid child care hours, faced higher costs, expressed greater concerns about costs, and reported more difficulty paying for care. They also had less reliable and stable arrangements, were less satisfied with their care, experienced higher child care-related stress and displayed greater risk of depression.

But that’s not all. Families without a subsidy reported missing twice as many workdays. When extrapolated across the 425 families in Larimer County affected by the freeze, this translated to over $2.2 million in lost annual earnings.

Local initiatives driving solutions

Recognizing the gaps in affordable child care, counties across Colorado introduced ballot measures to fund local solutions through tax revenue.

These measures come after the state established a universal preschool program in 2022. The following year, the program provided up to 15 hours per week of tuition-free, high-quality preschool for more than 85,000 children.

Measures in Larimer, San Miguel, Garfield, Pitkin and southwest Eagle counties will directly fund child care through sales or property taxes. Measures in Gilpin, Hinsdale, Ouray and Eagle counties will generate funds through lodging taxes.

In Larimer, voters passed a measure that established an additional countywide sales tax of 0.25%, or 25 cents per 100 dollars. The measure is expected to generate $28 million annually for child care assistance and workforce compensation.

In San Miguel, voters passed a measure to opt-out of a state limit on the existing property tax levy of 75 cents for every 1,000 dollars of assessed property value. This will allow the county to retain nearly $1 million annually to support local child care affordability.

In Eagle County, voters passed a measure approving a lodging tax increase from 2% to 4% on hotel stays and short-term rentals that will raise approximately $4.5 million annually to lower child care costs.

Revenue from these initiatives will provide child care tuition to families, expand child care slots, support quality improvement and raise wages for child care workers.

These local investments cannot by themselves resolve Colorado’s statewide child care funding deficit, but they have the potential to transform access and quality within communities where they are implemented.

Colorado is not alone in these issues. Many other states are facing subsidy enrollment freezes and are exploring regional solutions to stabilize funding.

For example, ballot measures in Cincinnati, Ohio, and Seattle, Washington, also recently passed, providing reliable funding for child care assistance, preschool quality and workforce compensation.

With the uncertainty of the state and federal funding landscape, municipalities across the country may look to Colorado as a model for locally driven strategies that address community needs.

Read more of our stories about Colorado.

Jenn Finders has received funding from the National Science Foundation, Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, and North Central Regional Center for Rural Development.

– ref. Colorado faces a funding crisis for child care − local communities hope to fill the gaps – https://theconversation.com/colorado-faces-a-funding-crisis-for-child-care-local-communities-hope-to-fill-the-gaps-270560

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Ray Madoff, Professor of Law, Boston College

Law professor Ray Madoff is the co-founder and director of the Boston College Forum on Philanthropy and the Public Good. In an interview with Emily Schwartz Greco, The Conversation U.S. philanthropy and nonprofits editor, Madoff sums up some of the main points about charitable giving she makes in her 2025 book, “The Second Estate: How the Tax Code Made an American Aristocracy.” This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

How has charitable giving changed over the past 50 years?

Giving has pretty much remained flat as a percentage of personal disposable income. It’s been stable by that measure at about 2%. What’s changed is where that charitable giving is going.

In the early 1990s, about 6% of all giving was going to intermediaries, like foundations and donor-advised funds, and 94% was going directly to charities: hospitals, universities, churches, organizations curing diseases, all sorts of things.

Donor-advised funds, or DAFs, are charitable investment accounts that can serve many of the functions of a foundation – but with fewer rules and regulations.

Fast-forward to today, and there’s been a huge transformation with dramatic growth in giving to intermediaries. Today, around 40% of U.S. giving from individual donors goes instead to charitable intermediaries, and 60% of those donations go straight to charities.

When money donated to charity through intermediaries primarily went to foundations, those assets were subject to a 5% payout rule. It was imperfect, but still, at least 5% of those funds, for the most part, had to go to charity.

Now, due to the rise of donor-advised funds, none of this money going to intermediaries is subject to payout rules.

That’s because there are no payout rules that apply to donor-advised funds, and foundations can meet their payout minimum by giving to a donor-advised fund.

Charitable giving, in other words, used to be more connected to what I’d call “charitable getting.” Now, the money is often landing in what’s essentially a halfway house, with no obligation to get out.

What is the current state of play with respect to the tax rules governing charitable giving?

There’s a tale of two systems for charitable giving.

Most Americans have no ability to get any tax benefits for their charitable giving, while the wealthiest Americans can get benefits that are worth up to 74% of the value of their donations.

The reason most Americans get no tax benefits is that they can only offset their income tax if they itemize their tax returns, instead of taking the standard deduction.

Prior to the tax reform package that President Donald Trump signed into law in 2017, about 70% took the standard deduction and 30% didn’t. Once those reforms took effect, the share of taxpayers who were itemizing fell below 10%.

The more than 90% of taxpayers who claimed the standard deduction in 2022, for example, couldn’t get any tax breaks tied to their charitable giving.

What do you expect to see change due to provisions in the big tax and spending package that Trump signed into law on July 4, 2025?

The government is adding a new deduction for non-itemizers. Starting in 2026, they will be able to deduct up to US$1,000 of their taxable income when they file their taxes, if they give at least that amount to charity. That means some charitable tax benefits will be available for people who take the standard deduction.

It’s very hard to tell what kind of impact that is going to have.

If charities publicize this, it might encourage some people to give who might not otherwise give to donate. But it could also cause a lot of confusion and make other people think that there is a $1,000 cap on tax benefits for all charitable donations. I think it’s going to be a difficult messaging problem.

As a matter of policy, I also think it’s not very well drafted. I do think we should be giving charitable tax benefits to non-itemizers, but a better format would be to give everybody a tax credit so they have the same dollar-for-dollar benefit, regardless of their income bracket.

And rather than imposing a ceiling, we should impose a floor, as a certain amount of giving is going to happen even with no incentives.

It’s going to be interesting to see what happens.

Are there other policy changes that you support?

I have two proposals.

First, I believe that private foundations and donor-advised funds should have to distribute their funds that are reserved for charity within some set time period.

Second, I think that just as other Americans are subject to limitations on their tax benefits, the wealthiest should be subject to limitations on their tax benefits too.

If it’s important for you and me to help pay down the national debt, then why isn’t it important for Warren Buffett to do so?

Is there a risk that giving might decline due to these changes?

If they had to spend it quickly, maybe there would be less money set aside in these charitable intermediaries.

But if someone has no intention to disburse those funds, then I think it wouldn’t matter that their money is no longer getting halfway to actually being received by charities.

Do you believe that the philanthropy of rich people is helpful?

Philanthropy is often used as shorthand for something that is great for society.

But philanthropy includes a lot of not-great things.

Sometimes people make mistakes. Just because someone is good at making money, it doesn’t mean they’re good at solving other people’s problems.

For example, actor Brad Pitt, maybe with good intentions, decided he was going to fix housing problems after Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans’ 9th Ward. He got architects to build houses that are now falling apart. It’s a massive problem.

Sometimes their gifts aren’t so well-intentioned.

Rich philanthropists may donate to groups calling for lower taxes. Or they try to curry favor with the White house by helping pay for the construction of Trump’s new ballroom, which is going to be built with charitable money.

Charity expert Bill Schambra has brought to light what he calls “philanthropy’s original sin: Early U.S. foundations supported eugenics – the pseudoscience movement that sought to encourage “fit” people to have kids and to stop people deemed “unfit” from doing so, sometimes through forced sterilization.

Today, there’s another common problem: the philanthropy of whimsy.

One example is what happened with the nonprofit pre-K-8 school for low-income children in East Palo Alto, California, that Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan, funded. He was saying “Oh hey, I think I’m going to solve the problems of poverty in East Palo Alto.” And then, “Oops, I changed my mind.”

The school is slated to close at the end of the 2025-2026 year.

That’s why, generally speaking, I don’t think we should assume that what’s done with philanthropy is better than what’s done with tax dollars.

What about MacKenzie Scott, Jeff Bezos’ ex-wife? She’s given about $26 billion to charity since 2019.

I am a big supporter of how MacKenzie Scott does her philanthropic giving. She seems to be trying to do the right thing. She’s trying to build civil society, which I think is good. She’s giving to existing organizations, with no strings attached.

A lot of it is about power. If you give money to institutions, as Scott is doing, then the institutions have power. If you keep the money yourself, and you drip it out, then you have power.

Ray Madoff was an adviser to and supporter of the Initiative to Accelerate Charitable Giving, a coalition of philanthropists, foundations and academics.

– ref. With less charitable giving flowing directly to charities, a tax policy scholar suggests some policy fixes – https://theconversation.com/with-less-charitable-giving-flowing-directly-to-charities-a-tax-policy-scholar-suggests-some-policy-fixes-271677