Demoralization and fear adapted to blue America in the first weeks of the administration of President Trump left liberal groups and their allies struggling with money, harming their ability to effectively fight against the right transformation of the federal government.
The online tap in small dollar which propelled the opposition to the first Trump administration slow down to a net While the shaken liberal voters hold their gifts.
Charitable foundations that have long supported causes such as voting rights, LGBTQ equality and immigrant rights are retreating, devoting time to prepare the expected surveys of the Congress led by the Republicans.
And some of the largest liberal donors in the country have taken a break by giving, frustrated by what they consider to be the lack of vision of the Democrats and are worried about the reprisals of an avenging president. Some Democrats say that some of their reliable donors now openly support Trump, or at least seeking to create favor with him.
The fundraising slowdowns are common after a presidential defeat and before the start of the marked mid-term races. But interviews with more than 50 donors, strategists and managers of activist organizations show that many Democrats think that this year is different.
Although Mr. Trump has not taken measures against any liberal or legislative group, the Democrats fear that his frequent threats of remuneration during the campaign have led to a frightening effect on charitable foundations and the defense groups of organizations not lucrative which have long been pillars of civil society in the country.
Jeff Skoll, a billionaire from the Silicon Valley and a longtime friend of Elon Musk, said that there was “a lot of pressure” next to Mr. Trump.
This month, Mr. Skoll, who donated tens of millions to democratic candidates and causes in recent years, but said that he had not voted in the presidential election of 2024, published A Photo on social networks Of himself with Mr. Trump behind the scenes of the inauguration. Friday, he had breakfast in Palm Beach, Florida, with Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the chief of the minority, where they discussed the perspective that Mr. Schumer uses Mr. Skoll for the ideas behind To the president, Mr. Skoll said.
Mr. Schumer remembers the conversation differently, according to an assistant, Allison Biasotti.
In an interview, Mr. Skoll recognized his unique post, saying that he had heard many other people who were afraid to finance the opposition to the administration.
“There are people who were absolutely against Trump, never counterprints, who fear that they are riding and that they will have to leave the country,” said Skoll. “People who wish to oppose him – it can take some time before collecting courage.”
The result is a political environment which is surprisingly different from 2017, when money flocked in democratic causes, strengthening existing organizations and maintaining a flowering of new groups to fight different parts of the agenda of Trump .
Now, some of these same organizations find it difficult to survive, in part because few new main liberal donors have emerged since 2017. Groups that support LGBTQ rights, promoted gender equity and defend other progressive causes have reduced the staffing and announced that long -standing leaders leave.
End Citizens United, a left -wing group that aims to revise the laws on the financing of the campaigns, dismissed its six senior executives last month as part of a restructuring. Running for something, which strives to elect liberal candidates in Down-Ballot, dismissed 35% of its staff at the end of last year. And Glsen, a group dedicated to the protection of LGBTQ students, dismissed 25 people last month.
“No one gives until they see a plan on how we are going to sail in this unprecedented situation better and stop acting as a normal administration,” said Alexandra Acker-Lyons, a political consultant who is close to the donors of the Silicon Valley.
Concerns “ repercussions ” of Trump
The reduction in staff has reached some of the most legendary brands in democratic policy.
Human rights campaign, the country’s largest defense group in the country, licensed 20% of its staff In what he called a “strategic restructuring”. This month, the Center for American Progress, the most eminent political group in the party, reduced 22 people – 8% of its staff.
“It was the right time to reset our staff in the environment in which we are,” said Colin Seeberger, spokesperson for Cap.
All the biggest donors in the party are not as confident.
Aids to Reid Hoffman, the co-founder of Billionaire Linkedin and one of the greatest Democratic donors, reported that it was now much more reluctant to finance progressive political projects. A spokesperson for Mr. Hoffman said: “He thinks that the Democratic Party strategy must reform, and when it is, he is happy to hear new ideas and new locations.”
Hoffman has also publicly expressed what many donors said in private: he expects Trump’s reprisals.
“There are more than 50% chance that there are repercussions of poor direction and corruption of state institutions to answer my tried to help Harris be elected,” He declared on the podcast “the newspaper of a CEO”.
Cooper Teboe, a strategist from Silicon Valley, said that in connection with half a dozen major donors told him that they temporarily stopped giving fear of political punishment. He said he thought donors would be back in force by May, angry with Trump Rose.
“” We do not know if he will continue people, “said Teboe, paraphrasing donors. “‘We don’t want to be at the top of this list. We will hold back and see if it really is, or if everything is fanfaron. “”
Some donors hire an additional legal advisor to respond to concerns about tax audits, surveys and judgment proceedings. Others move assets abroad, or at least their foundations towards states controlled by democrat.
Donators want to remain anonymous more and more, which could slow down the flow of money to democratic super pacs, because they must possibly disclose their donors.
Liz Minnellla, the best collection of democratic funds, launched a political group this year, Connect Forward, to help create a media ecosystem of liberal votes. She said that she had structured her as a non -profit organization 501 (c) (4) – who does not have to disclose her donors – partly because she “favored the protection of our donors Against possible reprisals.
During a November meeting in Democracy Alliance, a network of liberal donors, donors were informed of measures to protect themselves from prosecution, audits and surveys. To limit legal risks, the group also plans to modify its document retention policies to hold digital communications for a month.
A large part of the concern focuses on the legislation at the Congress which would remove the exempt status of tax of non -profit groups which will support the terrorist organizations.
After Mr. Trump won the elections, the Alliance democracy urged its donors to put pressure against the bill during the lame Duck session, Fearing that it could be armed against progressive groups And could even be used to close Actblue, the online fundraising platform.
During a presentation to the donors of the Democracy Alliance, the former representative Donna Edwards, a Maryland democrat, made a slideshow showing all the democratic members of the Congress who had voted “yes” or “absent” for the measurement in the pass. She encouraged donors to push them to change their positions.
The bill adopted the Chamber last year but died in the Senate. The Democrats fear that the Republicans, who now fully control the Congress, can transmit the bill.
Pamela Shifman, the group’s president, said that the possibility of reprisals was only making donors more critical.
“Their objective is to intimidate and carry us,” she said about the Trump administration. “Our strategy is to intensify and fight for democracy.”
The discomfort extends in the eminent foundation offices, whose leaders fear being transported in high -level hearings of the congress similar to those who damaged the reputation of the best presidents of the college in 2023.
Not everyone remembers. Wednesday, Aid by George Soros, one of the biggest donors of the Democratic Party, helped to bring together a certain number of main contributors and players from Washington, including the Cory Booker Senators from New Jersey and Tina Smith of Minnesota. The group spoke of the landscape of progressive media and plotted future investments, according to three people knowing the event, which insisted on anonymity because it was private.
But some donors put new requirements on the money they distribute. Many remain frustrated that The frenzy of $ 1.5 billion in expenses To elect the former vice-president Kamala Harris led to a defeat.
They want to know what exactly the Democrats plan to do differently in the future. Some require more detailed information on the specific levels and targets of liberal groups – including the main Super Pac Pro -Harris, Future Forward – and candidates before continuing their contributions.
“People are mainly on the ropes or on the carpet while waiting for leadership, scratching their heads and giving grace to Schumer and Jeffries, who say:” Choose your battles, “said Robert Raben, Democratic consultant, referring to Representative Hakeem Jeffries, the Democrat chief of the Chamber.
John Morgan, a rich donor from Florida who was a vocal supporter of former president Joseph R. Biden Jr., said that he was thinking more carefully about his future contributions to the Democratic Party and his candidates. He is not concerned about the reprisals of the new administration. But he is furious at what he considers as tactical missteps of democrats and unnecessary expenses during the elections.
“For Me, it will give people, not to party, “said Morgan, who now considers himself independent. “The DNC has not learned anything from the last elections.”
Some democrats are still reconciled with the actions of their party last year.
At the end of last month, Dmitri Mehlhorn, a former adviser to Mr. Hoffman who remains close to him, sent an email to his political list complaining that the Democrats should not have engaged what he called “Bidencide” by putting pressure on the former president to leave the race.
“I believe that the United States is fully completed as the type of political project that lends itself to your work,” wrote Mr. Mehlhorn, who will not be there to directly feel the consequences of the defeat of Democrats.
He moved to Canada.