In a startling revelation, a recent investigation has uncovered how three major financial services companies - Fidelity, Charles Schwab, and Vanguard - have been channeling millions of dollars to organizations behind the controversial Project 2025 initiative, which rejects the climate crisis. The findings shed light on the growing role of donor-advised funds (DAFs) in the dark money ecosystem, as these well-known asset management firms have become the biggest sources of this untraceable funding.

Uncovering the Vast Network of Shadowy Donations

Tracing the Trail of Millions to Project 2025

Since 2020, Fidelity, Charles Schwab, and Vanguard have collectively funneled at least $171 million to the nonprofits behind Project 2025, a platform that denies the reality of the climate crisis. This staggering figure underscores the significant, yet often overlooked, role these financial giants play in the larger dark money ecosystem. While politically charged funding has been shifting into DAFs for over a decade, the mainstream financial firms have largely avoided the scrutiny that has plagued more explicitly conservative vehicles like DonorsTrust.

Obscuring Controversial Donations in a Sea of Charitable Giving

The sheer scale of overall giving by Fidelity, Schwab, and Vanguard has helped to conceal their growing role as a conduit for fringe causes. In the 2020 financial year alone, these three DAFs doled out a whopping $63 billion in grants - more than 100 times the amount disbursed by the conservative DonorsTrust. This vast pool of charitable donations serves to bury the controversial bequests to Project 2025 groups, which include organizations engaged in climate science denial and hate speech.

Undermining ESG Commitments with Dark Money Donations

The findings are particularly striking given that all three financial companies tout their strength in environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investing, which is marketed as a way to align capital gains with the greater good. However, the DAFs' support for Project 2025 groups actively undermines the very causes their ESG funds claim to support, exposing a glaring disconnect between the companies' public commitments and their behind-the-scenes funding decisions.

Donor Anonymity: A Loophole for Controversial Giving

The anonymity provided by DAFs is a key factor in their appeal for donors seeking to keep their controversial giving under wraps. Once a donation is made to a DAF, the trail of money becomes virtually impossible to trace back to the original source, making it an ideal vehicle for politically charged funding. This legal loophole has allowed the Project 2025 initiative to receive a significant influx of untraceable donations, shielding the identities of the donors from public scrutiny.

Outpacing Conservative DAFs in Funding Extremist Causes

While conservative DAFs like DonorsTrust have historically been the go-to vehicles for right-wing donors, the mainstream financial firms are now outpacing them in terms of funding for Project 2025 and other extremist causes. In fact, the three DAFs analyzed in this investigation have donated over $171 million to Project 2025 groups, far surpassing the $66 million disbursed by DonorsTrust during the same period.

Calls for Increased Transparency and Accountability

The revelations have sparked calls for policy reforms that would increase transparency and accountability around the use of DAFs. Experts argue that DAF sponsors should be required to disclose the names of individual donors who contribute $10,000 or more, as this would make it easier to track the flow of money and hold donors accountable for their funding decisions. Additionally, there are calls for the DAFs to take a more active role in filtering out organizations that are not aligned with their stated values or the public good.As the dark money ecosystem continues to evolve, the role of mainstream financial institutions in fueling controversial causes has come under increasing scrutiny. The findings of this investigation underscore the urgent need for greater transparency and oversight in the philanthropic sector, to ensure that charitable giving is truly serving the public interest.