In these times, corporate philanthropy moves with caution. At least in the United States, it seems to be entering a period of adjustment. Federal scrutiny over diversity, equity, and inclusion policies has altered donation strategies. It is not something that keeps me awake at night. It leaves, rather, a curious sensation—like noticing, in a moment of distraction, that a cloud has drifted over the sun while a cold breeze lifts one corner of the notebook.

When I was responsible for certain duties at the Museum of Contemporary Art of the Americas in Kendall, I received weekly bulletins on museum management and heritage conservation. I know my work depends on charity. I am not productive, nor optimal. I generate subjectivity. And that subjectivity—attractive to a particular audience—often depends on institutional or corporate sponsorship.

Yet corporate sponsorship has begun to adopt an unusual prudence. Understandably so, since these are, in many eyes, imprudent times. Still, it shows resilience, financial discipline, and above all, coherence with corporate objectives. That is what I read in a recent bulletin from the American Alliance of Museums, which in turn cites an article from The Nonprofit Times.

Political and social pressures have led companies to prioritize their own institutional management and to avoid any public exposure that might entail reputational risk. In the recent past, funds often went to “popular” causes—initiatives that enhanced corporate image. Today, many of those causes have become politically charged, especially those linked to racial or demographic groups. Until quite recently, corporations decided what was worthy of support; now, much of that money flows into programs where employees themselves propose and vote on their “noble causes.” Another model—the matching gift—has gained favor: when an employee donates to an environmental NGO, for example, the company contributes an equal amount to the same organization.

The shift seeks to avoid political or social controversy while strengthening internal participation and a sense of belonging within the institution. It is a safer, more participatory way to channel what is now considered “necessary” corporate philanthropy.

Energy has also shifted toward the revision of internal policies and continuous collaboration with legal and compliance teams. The aim is to shield philanthropic action from litigation or regulatory scrutiny, inserting it within a logic of risk management more typical of corporate governance than of traditional beneficence.

Projections indicate that in 2026, contributions from recurring donors will remain largely stable, even as uncertainty lingers around potential tax changes that could affect their deductibility. Few expect a major impact, though most consider it premature to assess the consequences of the new fiscal policy.

Conclusion

Political and regulatory forces are redefining both how corporations conceive of their social responsibility and how organizations execute their missions. In this context, corporate philanthropy faces structural change. It has evolved from a moral or reputational instrument into a mechanism of risk management. Seen another way: under the pressure of demanding regulatory frameworks and a polarized public sensibility, companies no longer perceive giving as an altruistic gesture—or as an act of doing good. They continue to give because it helps them protect their image, comply with the law, and reinforce their position in the market.