Know who needs this? Forward it. Did someone send this to you? Subscribe here
Driven by economic jitters and the uncertainty of the 2026 landscape post USAID, many foundations have shifted toward a "wait and see" posture. It sounds responsible on the surface: "Let's pause our giving until the political dust settles."
But this conservation of resources is a dangerous illusion. While funders sit on the sidelines to protect their capital, the frontline organizations they support are navigating very real, very current disasters. By the time the "perfect" moment to give arrives, the infrastructure of the grassroots partners we rely on may have already eroded.
In a recent conversation with an wonderful leader and donor, we discussed this exact paralysis. We realized that when we pause, we are making an active choice that has a physical and systemic cost.
In philanthropy, we often fixate on the risk of doing something. We ask, "What if this model doesn’t scale?" or "What if the government repercussions are real?" But we rarely apply the same rigor to the risk of inaction.
The Praxis Redemptive Philanthropy Playbook offers a framework for this. While "ethical" philanthropy tries to do no harm and play fair, "redemptive" philanthropy goes a step further. It enters into stagnant systems by willingly bearing a cost or taking a risk to restore them.
And it’s redemptive for both sides:
When donors move from the "savior" story—where we carry the crushing burden of being the sole financial "solution"—to a genuine "partner" story, the pressure on is eased.
As we look toward the remainder of the year, I challenge you to flip the script. Don't ask what you risk by acting now. Ask: "What do I risk by waiting?"
Is your organization currently in a "wait and see" posture? Reply to this email and tell me one area where the risk of waiting is starting to outweigh the risk of acting. I’d love to hear how you’re navigating the tension.
What would make you most likely to forward this email?
