Featured
Report

Pushed and Pulled: How Attitudes About Race and Immigration are Settling and Shifting After Trump

June 25, 2024
  • Table of Contents

ABOUT DEMOCRACY FUND
Created by eBay founder and philanthropist Pierre Omidyar, Democracy Fund is an independent and nonpartisan foundation that confronts deep-rooted challenges in American democracy while defending against new threats. Democracy Fund has invested more than $275 million in support of those working to strengthen our democracy through the pursuit of a vibrant and diverse public square, free and fair elections, effective and accountable government, and a just and inclusive society. For more information, please visit www.democracyfund.org.

ABOUT THE VOTER SURVEY
The Views of the Electorate Research (VOTER) Survey is a longitudinal survey that Democracy Fund has conducted in partnership with YouGov since December 2016. This report is based on data that include the latest wave of the VOTER Survey, which surveyed 6,000 adults (age 18 and up) online from February 22 to March 15, 2024. The VOTER Survey is distinct because it draws from a longstanding panel of voters who have been interviewed periodically since it was launched by YouGov in December 2011, including after the 2012, 2016, 2018, 2020, and 2022 elections, with thousands of respondents repeatedly participating since 2011.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS
John Sides is William R. Kenan, Jr. Professor of Political Science at Vanderbilt University. He studies political behavior in American and comparative politics. He is an author of The Bitter End: The 2020 Presidential Campaign and the Challenge to American Democracy as well as books on the 2012 and 2016 elections.

Michael Tesler is a professor of political science at University of California Irvine. He is author of Post-Racial or Most Racial? Race and Politics in the Obama Era, coauthor of Obama’s Race: The 2008 Election and the Dream of a Post-Racial America, and coauthor of Identity Crisis: The 2016 Presidential Campaign and the Battle for the Meaning of America.

Robert Griffin is the Associate Director of Research at Democracy Fund. Prior, Griffin was the Research Director for the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group, the Associate Director of Research at the Public Religion Research Institute and the Director of Quantitative Analysis at the Center for American Progress.

 

Main Takeaways

  • Between 2011 and 2020 there was dramatic shift in attitudes on racial inequality and discrimination as well as immigration. The attitudes of Democrats and independents became notably more liberal during this period.
  • Since 2020, attitudes on racial inequality and discrimination have been relatively stable. Any changes mostly reflect modest declines in liberal attitudes among Democrats and modest increases in these attitudes among Republicans. The parties are a bit less polarized in 2024 than in 2020.
  • The initial changes in attitudes about racial inequality and discrimination resulted from Trump’s polarizing presidency and the salience of racial justice issues, especially after George Floyd’s murder. The trends since 2021 stem from declining media attention to racial justice issues and thus less priority on these issues among voters. Polling also shows that Biden is a less racially polarizing figure than Trump.
  • On immigration, there has been a rightward shift in both parties and especially among Republicans. This reflects the increasing media attention to immigration and the public salience of the issue, particularly for Republicans. Moreover, the bipartisan elite consensus on the need for more border security has helped produce parallel shifts among Republican and Democrats.
  • Taken together, these trends suggest that race and immigration might have a new “thermostatic” dynamic, with attitudes shifting in the opposite direction of the party in the White House.

 

Introduction

As president, Donald Trump’s political agenda and rhetoric often centered on polarizing ideas about civil rights, crime, and immigration. He referred to immigrants coming from “shithole countries,” defended Confederate statues, and pursued controversial policies such as separating immigrant children from their families when they were detained crossing the U.S.-Mexico border.

When Joe Biden took office in January 2021, he seemed poised to change the subject. His agenda was more centered on other priorities, such as the economic recovery from the pandemic. But Biden also inherited party coalitions that increasingly differ in their views of racial equality, immigration, and related issues. He talked about these issues very early in his presidency and reversed some of Trump’s policies.1 However, his desire to chart a different course on immigration faced significant challenges, as record numbers of immigrants entered the U.S. from Mexico. In a January 2024 statement, he called the situation at the border “broken.”2

In this report, we investigate how Americans’ attitudes about race and immigration evolved over Trump’s presidency and in the first three years of Biden’s term. We draw on several different surveys, but especially the Democracy Fund VOTER Survey (Views of the Electorate Research Survey), which has interviewed a sample of Americans multiple times since late 2011, augmenting that sample with new respondents along the way. The most recent survey is from March 2024. Together, the VOTER Survey and other surveys help us identify trends in these attitudes.

We find that views of racial inequality and discrimination changed dramatically under Trump, with Democrats in particular becoming more likely to take the “liberal” view, which attributes racial inequality to structural forces as opposed to individuals’ own failings. After Trump’s departure, those attitudes have remained relatively stable. There have been very modest declines in liberal attitudes among Democrats and an even more modest increase in liberal attitudes among Republicans. Other surveys and survey questions show a similar pattern. Thus, Democratic and Republican attitudes have converged slightly after several years of divergence.

We argue that the trends from 2016 to 2020 reflect the polarizing effect of Trump, particularly in driving Democrats to the left, combined with the renewed salience of racial justice issues after the murder of George Floyd. Beginning in the fall of 2020, racial justice issues faded from the news as the protests abated. As of 2024, voters see these issues as less important than they did four years ago. Moreover, Biden has emerged as a president who is less polarizing on these issues. These factors may have helped create this slight convergence between the parties.

The story of immigration attitudes is different. There was the same leftward shift under Trump, again mostly among Democrats. But under Biden, several measures of these attitudes show a rightward shift — with less support for a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and more support for decreasing immigration, deporting undocumented immigrants, and building a U.S.-Mexico border wall. Some of these measures show roughly similar shifts among Democrats and Republicans, and others show a much larger shift among Republicans.

We attribute these trends to two factors. One is the increase in border crossings and the resulting increase in the salience of the issue. Immigration has become more important in news coverage and in voters’ minds even as racial equality has become less important. The other is, once again, the elite leadership of public opinion. In particular, under Biden there has been some degree of elite bipartisan consensus on the need for increased border security, which may have helped move both Democratic and Republican voters in a conservative direction.

Taken together, these trends in opinions and their likely causes complicate the common narrative that the country experienced a “Great Awokening” followed by a decline from what commentators have called “peak wokeness.” The likelier story — and the more probable future for American politics — is that issues like race and immigration have become “thermostatic,” with public opinion moving against the president’s rhetoric, priorities, and policies. Thus, we should expect opinions about these issues to shift in different ideological directions in response to events, policy, and elite rhetoric, rather than rising to a single liberal peak and then falling.

The reason to expect thermostatic politics is that the two parties continue to differ on why racial inequality arises, whether racial discrimination is a problem, and how to approach both legal and undocumented immigration. Democrats and Republicans are still significantly more polarized than they were before Trump became president. Thus, we should expect Democratic and Republican administrations to govern differently on these issues, pushing policy in their preferred direction, even as some Americans move in the opposite direction.

Views of Racial Inequality and Discrimination

To measure views of racial inequality and discrimination, we focus on three main topics. The first is how citizens explain racial inequalities involving Black Americans, and specifically whether they attribute it more to structural forces or to the individual characteristics of Black people. The second is how much discrimination citizens believe that different racial and ethnic groups face. The third is how much different racial and ethnic groups are advantaged or disadvantaged because of their race.

These topics that speak to whether Americans even see patterns of racial discrimination and disadvantage to begin with, which groups they believe are most affected, and what they believe creates any disadvantages.

To measure attributions about racial inequality, we draw on a long-standing battery of questions that ask respondents whether they agree or disagree with the following four statements:

  • Over the past few years, Black people have gotten less than they deserve.
  • Irish, Italian, Jewish, and many other minorities overcame prejudice and worked their way up. Black people should do the same without any special favors.
  • It’s really a matter of some people not trying hard enough; if Black people would only try harder they could be just as well off as white people.
  • Generations of slavery and discrimination have created conditions that make it difficult for Black people to work their way out of the lower class.3

As we and others have documented, there were substantial changes in these attitudes between 2011 and 2020, as Democrats and independents became more likely to attribute racial inequality to structural rather than individual-level factors. These trends are almost entirely due to partisans updating their attitudes about race, not to people changing their partisanship.4 Other research has demonstrated that these changes were genuine and not due to survey respondents’ cloaking their real feelings behind socially desirable responses.5

In the 2022 and 2024 VOTER Surveys, overall opinion was similar to what it was after the 2020 election (Figure 1). The number of Americans who disagreed that Black people should overcome prejudice without special favors was 37 percent in the November 2020 survey and 33 percent in March 2024. The fraction of Americans who disagreed that Black people could be just as well off as white people was 45 percent in 2020 and 44 percent in 2024. A similar fraction agreed that generations of discrimination and slavery still prevent Black people from making economic progress, and this fraction also remained relatively stable between 2020 and 2024. There was a small drop in the percentage of Americans who agreed that Black people have gotten less than they deserve — from 45 percent in 2020 to 40 percent in 2024.

Four line graphs illustrate respective responses to four questions about racial inequality by all Americans, Democrats, independents, and Republicans over time. Democrats consistently express the most liberal attitudes, but views began to converge after 2020.

The overall stability in these attitudes conceals a modest partisan convergence. In 2024, a slightly higher percentage of Republicans expressed more liberal attitudes on these indicators, although most Republicans did not. Meanwhile, liberal attitudes became a little bit less prevalent among Democrats. For example, relative to 2020, fewer Democrats in 2024 agreed that Black people have gotten less than they deserve (a drop from 73 percent to 66 percent) and agreed that slavery and discrimination have prevented Black people from making economic progress (a drop from 77 percent to 73 percent).

These changes occurred mainly among white, Latino, and Asian Democrats (Figure 2).6 Notably, even with these recent shifts, Democrats in all major racial and ethnic groups are still more likely than they were 10 years ago to give responses consistent with structural explanations for racial inequality. And on most indicators, white, Latino, and Asian Democrats have attitudes more similar to those of Black Democrats than they did in late 2011.

Democrats of different races over time. Separate lines represent Black, white, Latino, and Asian Democrats. All lines move upward to indicate increases in liberal attitudes during the span between 2012 and 2024. This and some movement in a less liberal direction by some in 2020 have resulted in greater convergence of attitudes on this topic.

The VOTER Survey has also tracked Americans’ perceptions of discrimination over a shorter timespan (2020, 2022, and 2024) — specifically, how much discrimination people believe a given racial or ethnic group is experiencing. Overall, fewer Americans now say that Black and Latino people face high levels of discrimination (Figure 3). The fraction saying that Black people face “a lot” or “a great deal” of discrimination declined from 50 percent in September 2020 to 44 percent in March 2024. In addition, fewer Americans say that Latino people face high levels of discrimination (a shift from 37 percent to 32 percent). By contrast, the number of Americans who said that Asian people face discrimination increased from 23 percent to 31 percent.

Four line graphs illustrate changing responses to the question of how much discrimination there is in the United States against white, Black, Latino, and Asian people, respectively. Separate lines represent respondent groups of all Americans, Democrats, independents and Republicans.

In the first two cases, these drops were driven mainly by shifts among Democrats and independents. Between 2020 and 2024, there was a 12-point drop in the percentage of Democrats who said Black people face high levels of discrimination.7 There was a 4-point drop among independents. If anything, Republicans became slightly more likely to say that Black, Latino, and Asian people faced serious discrimination. As a result, there is less party polarization in perceptions of discrimination against these groups in 2024 than in the two prior surveys.

However, perceptions of discrimination against white people showed a different pattern: There was an increase in perceptions of discrimination — but mostly among Republicans. The fraction of Republicans who said that white people faced high levels of discrimination increased from 23 percent to 39 percent. In contrast to other trends identified in this section, this created more polarization between the parties, not less.

There was also an increase in the percentage of Republicans who appeared to believe that white people face more discrimination than do Black people or Latino people (Figure 4). For example, 29 percent of Republicans said that white people faced more discrimination than Black people in 2020. By 2024, that increased to 44 percent. Fewer Republicans (25 percent) said that Black people experience more discrimination. By comparison, in 2024 the vast majority of Democrats (82 percent) said that Black people experience more discrimination. The trends for beliefs about white and Latino discrimination are nearly identical among all Americans and partisan groups over this time period.

Stacked horizontal bar chart shows responses by all Americans, Democrats, independents and Republicans to the question of whether white or Black people face more discrimination or whether they face equal discrimination. The increase in all Americans saying white people face more discrimination is driven largely by the increase in Republicans expressing this perception.

This fits a general pattern: Democrats tend to believe that historically marginalized groups — such as Black people, women, Jewish people, and Muslim people — experience more discrimination than historically advantaged groups such as white people, men, and Christians. Republicans tend to see these groups as facing similar levels of discrimination or, as the example above illustrates, that the historically advantaged groups actually face more discrimination.8

The VOTER Survey also included several questions relating to perceptions of racial opportunities and advantages. These were asked in 2020, 2022, and 2024. Similar to the trends shown in Figures 1 and 2, there has been stability in these attitudes and signs that attitudes are a bit less liberal than they were two years ago (Table 1).

In 2020 and 2024, the same fraction of Americans (51 percent) said that racial minority groups have mostly fair opportunities to advance. There were some small shifts in other indicators, ranging from 0 to 7 percentage points, with any changes moving in the same direction: Fewer Americans agreed that society systematically advantages white people (54 percent vs. 50 percent) or, phrased differently, that white people enjoy social and economic privileges because of their race (54 percent vs. 50 percent). Americans were also less likely to agree that white people should feel guilty about racial inequality (33 percent vs. 26 percent) or that increased opportunities for Black people have improved the country’s quality of life (63 percent vs. 58 percent).

On several of these questions, the partisan gaps, although still substantial, were slightly smaller in 2024 than in 2020, mirroring the modest convergence evident in Figures 1 and 3. But Democrats and Republicans remain far apart.

Large table shows the percent of agreement with six statements, respectively, about racial opportunity and advantage. Table notes responses in 2020 and 2024, and whether there is a positive or negative percentage point change. Responses are sorted by all Americans, Democrats, independents, and Republicans, as well as white, Black, Latino, and Asian American and Pacific Islander respondents.

Similar findings emerged in the Cooperative Election Study, a different survey that was also conducted in 2020 and 2022 (Table 2). In response to questions about whether white people have an advantage and whether racial problems are rare, there were also small shifts. More often than not, any shifts meant that slightly fewer Americans expressed concern about white advantage or racial problems. There were, likewise, parallel trends among most racial groups and modest convergence between Democrats and Republicans.

At the same time, large differences between Democrats and Republicans remain. For example, in 2022, 84 percent of Democrats but only 20 percent of Republicans agreed that white people had advantages because of the color of their skin.

Large table shows the percent of agreement with five statements, respectively, about racial opportunity and advantage. Table notes responses in 2020 and 2022, and whether there is a positive or negative percentage point change. Responses to two of the statements are grouped by all Americans, Democrats, independents, and Republicans, as well as white, Black, Latino, and Asian American and Pacific Islander respondents. Three of the statements do not feature responses by white or party-specific survey takers.

The Cooperative Election Study also asked three questions only of respondents who did not identify as white. These questions asked about white people’s views of racial discrimination and racial advantages. In both years, majorities or near-majorities of Black, Latino, and Asian-American respondents expressed resentment about white people’s denial of racial discrimination, agreed that white people get away with offenses that Black people cannot, and agreed that white people do not try hard to understand the problems Black people face. Unsurprisingly, these sentiments were particularly prevalent among Black respondents. But, in line with the trends in Table 1, such sentiments were a bit less prevalent in 2022 than 2020 — and this was true among all three of these racial groups.

Changing Messages About Race

What accounts for these trends in attitudes about racial inequality and discrimination? Any answer to this question must help explain both the growing partisan differences under Trump, largely driven by Democratic voters moving in a racially progressive direction, and the modest shifts under Biden’s presidency, which reflect less progressive views among Democratic voters and more progressive views among Republican voters. It is a pattern of rapid partisan divergence followed by a small convergence.

These trends derive from a profound change in the messages that voters heard from political leaders and activists. Between 2015 and 2020, voters encountered Trump’s hostile statements about racial and ethnic minorities as well as a highly visible social movement pushing for racial justice after the murder of George Floyd — a movement that Trump attacked vociferously. But the public presence of this movement faded in late 2020, and Trump then lost to Biden, who has not been as polarizing a figure on issues related to race.

Starting in 2015 during his presidential campaign and then continuing during his presidency, Trump’s rhetoric had the counterintuitive effect of pushing public opinion about racial inequality and discrimination to the left, especially among Democrats. Trump’s positions and statements on race, immigration, and Muslims created an incongruity for Democrats who disliked Trump but were otherwise more moderate or conservative on these issues.9 The easiest way for those Democrats to resolve this incongruity was to shift their positions away from Trump’s — a phenomenon that is common for people who find themselves in the uncomfortable position of having previously supported some of the opposing party’s mostly salient policies.10

And that is precisely what Democrats did. White Americans’ feelings about Trump in 2016 were strongly associated with subsequent changes in their views of racial inequality as well as their feelings about the Black Lives Matter movement and police. In particular, the less favorably white Americans felt toward Trump in 2016, the more their attitudes shifted in a liberal direction between 2016 and 2020.

This divergence between Democrats and Republicans was only magnified during the racial justice protests after George Floyd was murdered on May 25, 2020. Initially, Americans of all partisan persuasions shifted toward a more sympathetic view of Black Americans and a less favorable view of the police. But those effects waned as the protests moved out of the news. By early 2021, any impact of these protests was visible mainly among Democrats, pushing them toward a more progressive view. As a result, Democrats and Republicans ended up further apart than they were before the protests.11

This began to change in 2021. Without a prominent mobilization around racial justice, the topics that were frequently in the news after Floyd’s murder — references to Floyd himself, to Black Lives Matter, to racism — never returned to their peak during the summer of 2020 except for a temporary spike when Floyd’s killer, Derek Chauvin, was convicted in April 2021 (Figure 5).12

Stacked vertical bar chart illustrates coverage of key racial justice topics by Fox, CNN, and MSNBC each month over a period from 2010 into 2024 with two significant spikes occurring between 2020 and 2022.

Alongside this decline in news attention, fewer voters perceived racial equality and police reform as important issues (Figure 6).13 In the 2024 VOTER Survey, 43 percent of respondents said racial equality was a very important issue, down from 48 percent in 2020. This decrease occurred mostly among Democrats (9-point drop) and independents (3-point drop). The importance of police reform dropped as well.14 In both cases, these declines among Democrats were evident in every major racial and ethnic group.

Three line graphs show changes in the percent of survey respondents who say racial equity, police reform, and immigration, respectively, are important issues. Separate lines represent the responses of all Americans and those who identify as Democrats, Republicans, and independents.

The change brought about by Biden’s victory also shaped the messages voters encountered. With Trump out of office, the backlash against his presidency became less of a factor in public opinion about racial inequality and discrimination than it was back in 2020. This helps to explain why Democratic views have become a little bit less liberal.15

Biden himself has also been a less polarizing figure on these issues. He did not embrace the most progressive positions in his party after Floyd’s murder, rejecting calls to “defund the police.” And although his administration’s policymaking represents a clear departure from Trump’s, Americans do not perceive Biden as favoring one racial group over another to the extent that they did Trump when he was president.

For example, nearly half (49 percent) of respondents in the September 2020 VOTER Survey said that the Trump administration favored white people over Black people. At that point, almost no one said his presidency favored Black people over white people. In the November 2022 VOTER survey, conducted almost two years into Biden’s presidency, just 27 percent of Americans thought Biden favored Black people over white people while 10 percent thought the opposite. Overall, Americans perceived less racial favoritism from Biden than they did from Trump.

More recent polling shows the same difference in perceptions. An October 30–November 3, 2023, CBS News poll asked “If Donald Trump wins in 2024, do you think his policies in a second term would try to put the interests of white people over racial minorities, racial minorities over white people, or treat their interests the same way?” Almost half (48 percent) said “white people over minorities,” and only 3 percent said “racial minorities over white people.” When asked the same question about Biden, 39 percent said “racial minorities over white people” and 18 percent said “white people over racial minorities.”16

Perceptions of racial favoritism are also less polarized by party when Americans think about Biden compared to Trump. When this 2023 CBS News poll asked about Trump, 80 percent of Democrats said he would favor white people, while only 14 percent of Republicans thought that. Almost all Republicans (82 percent) said Trump would treat white people and racial minorities the same way.

When asked about Biden, Democrats and Republicans were divided, but not as starkly. Among Democrats, 67 percent said Biden would treat white people and racial minorities the same way, while 20 percent said he would favor white people and 13% said he would favor racial minorities. Most Republicans (63 percent) said Biden would favor racial minorities but over a third said white people (17 percent) or both groups equally (20 percent).

Thus, Biden’s policymaking and rhetoric on issues related to race have not inspired the same polarized perceptions as Trump’s. This may have helped create the modest partisan convergence in racial attitudes between 2020–24.

Views of Immigration

Trends in attitudes about immigration are similar to trends in attitudes about racial inequality and discrimination in some respects, but there are also important differences. There were increasingly liberal immigration attitudes during the Trump presidency — driven in large part by shifts among Democrats. These attitudes have also shifted in the conservative direction since 2020.

But unlike with attitudes about racial inequality and discrimination, this conservative shift is visible in both parties and especially among Republicans. Thus, the modest partisan convergence in racial attitudes does not necessarily emerge in immigration attitudes: Both parties are moving in the same direction, and the larger shift among Republicans on certain survey questions has created even more polarization.

The VOTER Survey has asked three questions consistently since late 2011: whether to create a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, whether undocumented immigrants contribute to society or are a drain on society, and whether it should be easier or harder to immigrate to the U.S. The first two of those questions show trends similar to the trends in attitudes about racial inequality and discrimination: a sharp increase in pro-immigrant views through 2020, particularly among Democrats, and then a smaller decrease in those views between 2020 and 2024 (Figure 7). The question about making it easier or harder to immigrate shows the same increase among Democrats during the Trump administration, but a smaller decrease afterward. Interestingly, the percentage of Republicans who wanted to make it easier to immigrate actually increased by 8 points between 2020 and 2024.

Three line graphs show changes in whether voters favor a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, see undocumented immigrants as contributors to American society, and want to make it easier to immigrate to the United States, respectively. Separate lines represent the responses of all Americans and those who identify as Democrats, Republicans, independents.

But other survey questions show a somewhat different pattern, with sharper conservative shifts among Republicans than Democrats. This may reflect the fact that Republican attitudes are already quite conservative on the three immigration questions in the VOTER Survey; simply put, there is not much room for them to shift further to the right. On other questions, by contrast, there is more variation within the GOP.

One example has to do with preferred levels of immigration to the U.S. Since 1965, the Gallup polling organization has asked whether people want to increase or decrease immigration to the country or keep it at its present level. Partisan differences on this question emerged gradually beginning in the early 2000s and then accelerated during the Trump administration. Again, this was largely due to a liberal shift among Democrats (Figure 8).17

However, since Biden was inaugurated, there has been a dramatic change in Republican attitudes. The percentage of Republicans who want to decrease immigration rose by 25 percentage points in two years — from 48 percent to 73 percent, as of June 2023 (Figure 8). In the most recent survey, more Republicans wanted to decrease immigration than at any point in Gallup’s polling for the past 60 years. Democrats have shifted in the same direction, but by less.18

A different way of asking about a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants also shows a partisan asymmetry. In surveys by the firm Civiqs since Biden’s election, there has been a 17-point increase in the percentage of Republicans who prefer to “deport immigrants living here illegally” instead of giving them a “path to citizenship.” As of December 2023, 81 percent prefer deportation. Meanwhile, 82 percent of Democrats prefer a path to citizenship when the question is framed that way, which represents a 7-point drop since Election Day 2020.19

Consistent with this increasingly restrictive sentiment toward undocumented immigrants, public support for the U.S.-Mexico border wall has also increased.20

Two area charts show changes in preferences for increasing, maintaining, or decreasing levels of immigration to the United States. Top chart reflects Democrat respondents and bottom chart reflects Republican respondents.

The Evolution of Immigration Politics

We have shown some de-polarization on attitudes about racial inequality and discrimination since 2020 — with Democrats moving a little to the right and Republicans a little to the left — but more polarization on immigration attitudes, with both parties shifting to the right but Republicans shifting further. The differences in these two sets of trends means that underlying factors behind the immigration trends are not exactly the same as those behind trends in attitudes about race.

One common factor is the reaction to Trump’s rhetoric and policymaking. Trump staked out quite conservative positions on these issues during his 2016 campaign and then sought to implement them. His immigration policymaking included efforts to restrict immigration and punish undocumented immigrants, including the infamous program of family separation at the U.S.-Mexico border. Thus, Democratic voters who were initially less liberal on immigration policy shifted to the left for the same reason they did on racial issues: Their aversion to Trump led them to move their attitudes in the opposite direction.

Two things have changed under Biden. First, there has been an increase in media attention to immigration since Biden took office. For example, the number of mentions of the word “border” on major cable news networks has been consistently higher under Biden’s presidency than during Obama’s and Trump’s (Figure 9). This reflects both the increase in border crossings during Biden’s presidency and the agenda of more conservative outlets. Most of the monthly mentions of the border on these cable networks are on Fox News.

Stacked vertical bar chart illustrates coverage about the U.S.-Mexico border by Fox, CNN, and MSNBC each month over a period from 2010 into 2024, with Fox representing the majority of the increase.

These factors have combined to increase the salience of immigration to American voters — particularly Republicans.21 In the 2020 VOTER Survey, 47 percent of Americans said that immigration was “very important.” This increased to 54 percent in 2024 (see Figure 6). Thus, over these four years, fewer Americans saw racial equality as an important issue but more saw immigration as important.

The second change under Biden concerned his policymaking and rhetoric. In some ways, Biden broke with Trump. For example, he canceled Trump’s executive actions that restricted immigration from certain Muslim-majority countries and reversed a Trump policy that cracked down on cities who would not cooperate with federal immigration agents.

At the same time, Democratic and Republican leaders have offered broadly similar messages about the need for more border enforcement. Of course, Republicans have harshly criticized Biden’s handling of immigration and called for a raft of new security measures. Republican politicians, especially Texas Governor Greg Abbott, have pursued their own enforcement policies.

But many Democratic leaders have also expressed concerns about the border. One example is local Democratic leaders in New York City and elsewhere who have faced influxes of immigrants and the need to provide services for them. Biden himself endorsed a bipartisan bill that would have provided for stricter enforcement, although it was ultimately killed by Republicans who seemed unwilling to give the Biden administration a legislative victory in an election year. Biden then pursued action on his own in June 2024, announcing restrictions on immigrants seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border.

This combination of events, news coverage, and relative partisan consensus on border security helps explain why Democrats and Republicans have moved toward more conservative positions. With some degree of agreement between prominent Democrats and Republicans, Democratic and Republican voters should trend in the same direction, as they generally have.

However, Republican leaders and the conservative news media have focused more on immigration than Democratic leaders, which may have led to a stronger reaction among Republican voters. In addition to the disproportionate amount of coverage coming from conservative outlets, data on how members of Congress communicate with constituents also show that Republican members mention immigration at a far higher rate than Democratic members do.22

Thus, as Figure 6 shows, the change in the percent of Americans who think that immigration is a “very important” issue is much larger among Republicans — from 58 percent in 2020 to 74 percent in 2024 — than among Democrats (41 percent in 2020 vs. 39 percent in 2024). It is no surprise, then, that Republicans shifted more than Democrats in favor of reducing immigration.

Conclusion

The trends in public opinion about racial inequality, discrimination, and immigration under Trump and Biden are a noteworthy departure. White Americans’ views about racial inequality and discrimination were virtually unchanged under Democratic and Republican presidents alike from 1988 to 2012 — what Christopher DeSante and Candis Watts Smith have described as a time of “racial stasis.”23 Under Trump, however, there were large shifts in attitudes about both race and immigration, mostly among Democrats who moved toward a more liberal stance. Under Biden, Democrats are a bit less liberal and Republicans a bit more liberal on racial issues in particular, creating a very modest decrease in partisan differences. On immigration, both parties have shifted to the right — but such shifts are at times larger among Republicans than Democrats.

We trace these trends to changes in the information environment — including the rhetoric and positions of Trump and Biden as well as the work of activists, social movements, and the news media. Trump eschewed a dog-whistle politics of code words that had long characterized Republicans’ messaging on race and instead made explicit racial appeals to white Americans.24 Democratic politicians, meanwhile, have become increasingly vocal in their support for racial equality. Especially after the murder of George Floyd, the Black Lives Matter movement focused attention on racial injustice and the conduct of police. All of this helped push Democratic voters toward more liberal views on race.

However, Trump’s and others’ attacks on this movement helped create a backlash, ensuring that there would be no broader shift among Republicans toward acknowledging or seeking to overcome racial injustice.25 And after the racial justice protests in the summer of 2020, the news media devoted less attention to topics related to racism. As a result, fewer Americans cited racial equality or police reform as major issues. And as president, Biden has pursued more moderate rhetoric and policies. Fewer Americans perceive Biden as favoring some racial groups over others, relative to Trump. All of these factors have helped produce modestly smaller partisan differences on racial issues.

On immigration issues, however, the story is different. There was the same liberal shift among Democrats during Trump’s presidency. But since then, the combination of record crossings at the U.S.-Mexico border, Biden’s own embrace of border enforcement, and criticism of his policies by Republican politicians has produced more restrictive public attitudes overall and sharp conservative shifts among Republican voters on issues like deportation.

The upshot of these trends is that attitudes about racial inequality, discrimination, and immigration appear to fit a popular model of public opinion: the thermostatic model of policy attitudes. In the thermostatic model, the public’s policy attitudes shift against the current president’s policies in response to real or perceived changes in the status quo — just like a thermostat will cool down a house when it gets too hot, or heat it up when it gets too cold.26

Thermostatic patterns have been frequently documented in attitudes toward government spending and programs. For example, Americans’ support for universal government health insurance dropped during Obama’s presidency and then increased as the Trump administration tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act in 2017.27 But for a long time, issues related to race and immigration did not display these thermostatic patterns.28

That no longer appears to be the case. The key reason is how the parties themselves have changed. With the two parties pushing in opposite directions on race and immigration even more than in the past, the public appears to be pushing back, with their opinions on these issues shifting to the left under Trump and back to the right under Biden. The emergence of these thermostatic patterns reflects the centrality of race and immigration to current partisan politics.
Moreover, this thermostatic pattern suggests a different story about what has happened, and may yet happen in U.S. politics. One theme in commentary about American opinion and policymaking on racial issues and immigration is that the country experienced a temporary “Great Awokening” that ultimately did not last. “Wokeness has peaked,” is now commonly invoked to describe American attitudes since 2020.29

But this interpretation does not fit some empirical patterns. For one, a number of survey questions show that much of the change experienced during this period has persisted. For another, on some questions about racial inequality Democrats and Republicans have moved in opposite directions. “Wokeness has peaked” does not help us understand why Democrats seem a bit less likely to express liberal attitudes about racial inequality but Republicans a bit more. Changes in elite opinion leadership — and particularly the contrast between Trump and Biden — provides a better explanation. Moreover, the trends in opinion differ, both overall and within parties, when the issue at hand is immigration rather than racial inequality. This too appears to derive from a combination of events, like the increase in border crossings, and how political leaders have responded to and communicated about those events.

Finally, if thermostatic patterns continue to characterize public opinion on these issues, then we should not anticipate a single peak in these attitudes followed by an inexorable decline. We should instead anticipate an ebb and flow in public opinion that depends on the party of the president, the direction of policymaking, and the messages citizens receive from political leaders. These predictable patterns may become the new “racial stasis” in American politics.

 

  1. Tankersley, Jim, and Michael D. Shear. 2021. “Biden Seeks to Define His Presidency by an Early Emphasis on Equity.” New York Times, January 23. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/23/business/biden-equity-racial-gender.html []
  2. Statement from President Joe Biden On the Bipartisan Senate Border Security Negotiations, January 26, 2024. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/01/26/statement-from-president-joe-biden-on-the-bipartisan-senate-border-security-negotiations/ []
  3. On the development of this measure, see Donald R. Kinder and Lynn M. Sanders, “Divided by Color,” Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996. On its meaning, see Cindy D. Kam and Camille D. Burge, “Uncovering Reactions to the Racial Resentment Scale across the Racial Divide,” The Journal of Politics, 2019, 80(1): pp. 314–320. []
  4. Griffin, Robert, Mayesha Quasem, John Sides, and Michael Tesler. 2021. Racing Apart. Democracy Fund Voter Study Group. See: https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publication/racing-apart []
  5. Engelhardt, Andrew M. 2023. “Observational Equivalence in Explaining Attitude Change: Have White Racial Attitudes Genuinely Changed?” American Journal of Political Science, 67: 411–425. []
  6. Although the sample sizes for Asian-American Democrats in these VOTER Survey waves are not large, the same patterns emerge in the Cooperative Election Study, a different survey project, which has much larger samples. Further analysis shows similar trends across education groups among white Americans. []
  7. The decline in the number of Democrats who said that Black people face a lot or a great deal of discrimination was evident in Democrats of all major racial and ethnic groups. Even among Black Democrats, there was a modest decline (from 89 percent to 82 percent). The declining number of Democrats saying that Latino people face high levels of discrimination was also evident across racial and ethnic groups, including Latino Democrats. []
  8. John Sides, Chris Tausanovitch, and Lynn Vavreck. 2022. The Bitter End: The 2020 Presidential Campaign and the Challenge to American Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Chapter 9. []
  9. Robert Griffin, Mayesha Quasem, John Sides, and Michael Tesler. 2021. Racing Apart. Democracy Fund Voter Study Group. https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publication/racing-apart []
  10. Two large-scale studies of elite leadership are: John Zaller. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press; and Gabriel S. Lenz. 2012. Follow the Leader?: How Voters’ Respond to Politicians’ Policies and Performance. Chicago University Press. On how partisans may react against the opposite party’s cues, see Stephen P. Nicholson. 2011.“Polarizing Cues.” American Journal of Political Science 56 (1): 52–66. []
  11. John Sides, Chris Tausanovitch, and Lynn Vavreck. 2022. The Bitter End: The 2020 Presidential Campaign and the Challenge to American Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press; Robert Griffin, Mayesha Quasem, John Sides, and Michael Tesler. 2021. Racing Apart. Democracy Fund Voter Study Group. https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publication/racing-apart []
  12. For the underlying data, see: https://api.gdeltproject.org/api/v2/summary/summary?d=iatv&t=summary&k=%28racism+OR+%22black+lives+matter%22+OR+%22george+floyd%22%29&ts=full&fs=station%3ACNN&fs=station%3AFOXNEWS&fs=station%3AMSNBC&svt=zoom&svts=zoom&swvt=zoom&ssc=yes&sshc=yes&swc=yes&stcl=yes&c=1 []
  13. This relationship between media attention to an issue and its perceived importance within the public is a conventional finding in political science research. See Iyengar, Shanto, and Donald R. Kinder. 1987. News That Matters: Television and American Opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. []
  14. Perhaps relatedly, public support for Black Lives Matter has also fallen from its high point after George Floyd’s murder. See: https://civiqs.com/results/black_lives_matter?uncertainty=true&annotations=true&zoomIn=true. []
  15. In fact, we found that the less favorably white Americans felt toward Trump in 2020, the more their views of racial inequality shifted in a conservative direction between 2020 and 2024. []
  16. Anthony Salvanto, Jennifer De Pinto, and Fred Backus. 2023. “If Trump wins, more voters foresee better finances, staying out of war.” CBS News, November 5. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-vs-biden-poll-2024-presidential-election-year-out/ []
  17. See also Trent Ollerenshaw and Ashley Jardina. 2023. “The Asymmetric Polarization of Immigration Opinion in the United States.” Public Opinion Quarterly 87 (4): 1038–1053. []
  18. There is a similar pattern in the General Social Survey’s question about levels of immigration. For example, from 2016 to 2020, the percent of Democrats who supported increasing immigration grew from 25 percent to 39 percent. Republican support for decreasing immigration grew from 53 percent to 60 percent between 2018 and 2022. Changes in survey mode in the General Social Survey during 2021–22 complicate the ability to make comparisons over time, but these changes resemble what Gallup polls found. []
  19. See: https://civiqs.com/results/immigrants_citizenship?uncertainty=true&annotations=true&zoomIn=true. []
  20. Michael Tesler. 2023. “Why the border wall is getting more and more popular.” Good Authority, November 3. https://goodauthority.org/news/why-the-us-border-wall-is-getting-more-popular/ []
  21. A long line of research has shown that the volume of news coverage about an issue affects how important people think that issue is. See, for example, Shanto Iyengar and Donald Kinder. 1989. News that Matters. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. []
  22. This is based on a search for the word “immigration” in the database of Congressional email newsletters maintained by political scientist Lindsey Cormack at dcinbox.com. Republican mentions of immigration have outpaced Democratic mentions since Biden’s election. For example, in the period between September 14, 2023, and April 9, 2024, 1,425 GOP emails mentioned immigration, compared to 497 Democratic emails. []
  23. Christopher D. DeSante and Candis Watts Smith. 2020. Racial Stasis: The Millennial Generation and the Stagnation of Racial Attitudes in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. []
  24. Rogers M. Smith and Desmond King. 2021. “White Protectionism in America.” Perspectives on Politics 19 (2): 460–478. []
  25. Jefferson, Hakeem, and Victor Ray. 2022. “White Backlash is a Type of Racial Reckoning, Too.” FiveThirtyEight, January https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/white-backlash-is-a-type-of-racial-reckoning-too/ []
  26. The canonical study is Christopher Wlezien. 1995. “The Public as Thermostat: Dynamics of Preferences for Spending.” American Journal of Political Science 39 (4): 981–1000. []
  27. See polling by the Pew Research Center and Gallup: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/10/03/most-continue-to-say-ensuring-health-care-coverage-is-governments-responsibility/. []
  28. Mary Layton Atkinson, K. Elizabeth Coggins, James A. Stimson, and Frank R. Baumgartner. 2021. The Dynamics of Public Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press. However, some prior work has identified the possibility of thermostatic dynamics in attitudes toward government policies that affect Black Americans. See: Paul M. Kellstedt. 2000. “Media Framing and the Dynamics of Racial Policy Preference.” American Journal of Political Science 44 (2): 245–260. There is also evidence of thermostatic dynamics in Western European attitudes about immigration. See: Van Hauwaert, Steven M. 2023. “Immigration as a thermostat? Public opinion and immigration policy across Western Europe (1980–2017).” Journal of European Public Policy 30 (12): 2665–2691. []
  29. Yglesias, Matthew. 2019. “The Great Awokening.” Vox, April 1, https://www.vox.com/2019/3/22/18259865/great-awokening-white-liberals-race-polling-trump-2020. There are many pieces about “peak wokeness.” See, for example: Cowen, Tyler. 2022. “Wokeism has peaked.” Bloomberg, February 18, https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-02-18/wokeism-has-peaked-in-america-but-is-still-globally-influential; or Traldi, Oliver. 2022. “Peak Woke?” City Journal, July 6, https://www.city-journal.org/article/peak-woke. []
Blog
Featured

A Call for the Pro-Democracy Field to Prepare for Gray Rhinos

Joe Goldman and Crystal Hayling
/
June 6, 2024

Admitting that you’re planning for the worst-case scenario when it comes to democracy can be tough. It takes courage not to brush aside threats of violence. It is hard to acknowledge that our political systems might fail or that forces are actively working to undermine our election system.

As Democracy Fund’s new paper, On Black Swans, Gray Rhinos, and the 2024 Election outlines, understanding the menagerie of “chaos factors” in front of us may hold the secret to readying the pro-democracy field to meet this moment.

Too often, “Black Swans,” or unpredictable disasters, distract our attention in these conversations. At Democracy Fund, we are more focused on “Gray Rhinos” — the foreseeable dangers that we fail to prepare for, even though they are charging straight at us in plain sight.

What makes a Gray Rhino foreseeable and a Black Swan nearly impossible to predict? The difference is often in what holds our attention. And navigating the chaos factors ahead will come down to listening, readiness, and resilience.

Listen to Marginalized Communities Sounding the Alarm

By the time the rumbling earth caused by a charging rhino is close enough to feel, most responses are ineffectual: fear, hope that the carnage will happen to someone else but not us, doubt that we can do anything to stop it, and of course, the desire to just run and hide. There’s no escaping disaster when a Gray Rhino is on our heels.

However, there are ways to prepare for Gray Rhino threats. One of the best ways to prepare is to listen to marginalized communities, who are often the first lines of both defense and impact. Their perspectives are invaluable because they are often the first to be targeted and tend to have the greatest perspective on the real scope of the dangers we face.

Too often, however, the people closest to the harms aren’t at decision-making tables — their valid concerns and forewarnings are cast aside by people in positions of safety and power.

Take for example, the conservative court’s intention to overturn Roe v. Wade as a Gray Rhino. Despite the clear and stated threat, along with the warnings of reproductive justice advocates and BIPOC organizers, many people were not able to imagine or prepare for the court taking this action. The Rhino was charging straight ahead, but too many hoped that it would ultimately divert its path. People who had already directly experienced their rights being taken away were in a better position to realize the threat and know how to organize against it. But with so many ignoring their warnings, we were largely unprepared when the Dobbs v. Jackson ruling finally came down in the summer of 2022.

Political violence may be the next Gray Rhino that will cross our path. Communities that have been under the threat of state-sanctioned violence are keenly tuned into the warning signs of authoritarianism and anti-democratic actors. All the warning signs in our election environment are there, including an alarming rise in threats against front-line leaders, election administrators, and public officials. Movement leaders are raising the alarm and lives are at stake should we continue to ignore their warnings. We need to not only prepare for this very real threat but protect the organizers and communities that are most directly in the path of this Gray Rhino.

Invest in Readiness by Taking Cues from Communities

Listening to marginalized communities doesn’t just help us identify threats. It also provides insights into effective solutions.

The signs and effects of most threats are felt first at a local level, which is also where the groundwork for solutions is often laid. As funders, we must look to local organizers and community-based solutions to understand what is most needed and likely to be the most effective. These efforts often embody the resilience we need — flexible, adaptive, and community-centered, rather than brittle and dependent on external forces.

For example, during COVID-19, mutual aid networks emerged to provide essential support where top-down responses fell short. Similarly, research shows that social connection and cohesion directly aid a community’s ability to recover from natural disasters and public health crises. Communities with a deep sense of connection that adopt a sustained, shared response to threats are more resilient than those relying on temporary, external interventions.

As grantmakers, we can fuel what works. For example, the Trusted Elections Fund has invested in state-based networks to prepare for the dual threats of election sabotage and political violence. And organizations like the Center for Tech and Civic Life are ensuring that under-funded local election offices have the resources they need to carry out a well-run election.

Just as the fields of natural disaster and public health response have developed coordinated strategies, pro-democracy philanthropy can apply this same resilience-planning mindset to prepare for future threats.

Resilience in the Face of Charging Rhinos

Planning for resilience requires us to look clear-eyed at Gray Rhinos and listen intentionally to people who know the signs before they begin to charge. We must listen to those who can see chaos factors on the horizon. With senses heightened to these threats, we may begin to realize that what looks like chaos is complexity. And where chaos can cause us to lose hope, complexity is something we can tackle together.

This preparation involves asking crucial questions: Who are we bringing to the scenario planning table? Whose voices are we listening to and prioritizing? What strengths and solutions already exist at the local level that we can further support?

The more that the grantmaking community can invest in planning and the more we shift resources to community-led efforts, the stronger the pro-democracy field will be. Together, we can weather what is ahead by investing in resilience, engaging in shared preparedness, and building trusted relationships with people who can identify these threats.

Blog
Featured

Democracy Fund Invests $23 Million to Ensure Our Elections Are Free, Fair, and Representative

May 29, 2024

Philanthropy’s typical “wait and see” approach has proven to be too little, too late for fast-moving election cycles. With primary elections underway, the pro-democracy organizations working to protect free, fair and representative elections need support now to prepare and execute planned strategies.

In February, Democracy Fund worked with dozens of other philanthropies to launch the nonpartisan 501(c)3 All by April pledge. Nearly 200 foundations, individual donors, philanthropic advisors, and pooled funds signed on, agreeing to commit funds earlier and move them sooner than we have in the past.

Democracy Fund has fulfilled our All by April commitment by:

  • Expediting the distribution of $23 million by the end of April in election-focused grants for this election cycle. This includes new grants awarded in 2023 and 2024 and early distribution of committed 2024 funding for multi-year grantees.
  • Streamlining grant processes as much as possible, particularly for renewal grants.
  • Providing as many general support grants as possible so grantees can be responsive to evolving opportunities and threats to free and fair elections.

“Year after year, pro-democracy field organizations tell us that money from philanthropy arrived too late to be used effectively and efficiently. We took action on that learning this year by rallying the field through All by April. Getting unrestricted dollars to grantees faster means they are better able to plan, hire, and train staff and build the networks needed for this election cycle and beyond. All by April is proof of the positive impact philanthropy can have when we join together and listen to what our grantees tell us they need.” – Joe Goldman, president, Democracy Fund

Philanthropy Should Move at the Speed of Grantees

The grantees we support work year-round to ensure our elections are free, fair, and representative.

“For organizations like New Georgia Project whose work is critical every year, not just in election years — early and ongoing investment is not only needed, but essential. We already have to contend with the boom-and-bust cycle of funding that follows major election years, and having resources to start the year allows us to have an impact immediately and plan for the future. Because of early investment in 2024, we have already helped more than 13,000 Georgians register to vote, knocked on more than 84,000 doors, and talked to thousands of Georgians about voting this year. We build power year over year and knowing early that we have resources to support our work gives us the stability we need to have the greatest impact we can have.” – Kendra Cotton, CEO, New Georgia Project

The organizations receiving expedited and additional support as a result of the All by April campaign are the cornerstone of our democracy. Whether they are fighting to reduce barriers to voting, combating misinformation, recruiting poll workers, or protecting voters and election administrators — these nonpartisan groups help connect voters to the ballot and promote a more equitable democracy. They need fast, consistent, and flexible dollars to do their best work.

“Philanthropic funding is critical to the success of election protection, GOTV, and other strategies to advance free and fair elections and protect our democracy. Unfortunately, this funding often comes too late to meet local needs. That’s why we were thrilled to learn about the All by April campaign led by Democracy Fund. This effort has raised awareness of the need for speed in democracy funding for the sector and helped us to achieve our fundraising goals for Public Rights Project’s Election Protection Hub.” — Jill Habig, founder and CEO, Public Rights Project

The need for free, fair, and representative elections won’t stop after this year. Pro-democracy field organizations will continue to work tirelessly to protect free, fair, and representative elections, and philanthropy has a responsibility to modernize our grantmaking approach for the long-term. Early funding provides strong benefits to grantees and the positive impact on our democracy is clear.

“Getting ahead of the election cycle with time to plan is critical to our success in the big presidential election years. We’ve had an early renewal that provided both early and extra funding to help make sure voters have useful, well-designed information and tools that invite them to participate in our democracy.” — Whitney Quesenbery, director, Center for Civic Design

How Democracy Fund Drives Support for Elections & Voting

To guide our grantmaking, we will continue to deepen our conversations with grant recipients and their communities. In addition to this year’s All by April grants, we are committed to investing in:

  • Grassroots organizations that are working to build power in their communities.
  • Support for our election systems and administrators.
  • Structural changes to equalize voters’ power and address the fairness and legitimacy of the election system.

We will continue to invite peer funders to help us create a stronger pro-democracy field that values and protects everyone’s right to an election system that consistently produces trusted results, fairly represents the will of the majority of voters, and reflects equitable participation — especially among communities of color. Together, we can improve our philanthropic practices to better support the building of an inclusive, multiracial democracy.

*Please Note: Democracy Fund does not accept unsolicited business plans, proposals, or personal requests. For general inquiries, contact info@democracyfund.org. Check out our website to learn more about our work and our grantees.

Featured
Report

On Black Swans, Gray Rhinos, and the 2024 Election

/
May 15, 2024
  • Table of Contents

Introduction

The 2020 presidential election happened amid a pandemic and racial justice protests, and it was followed by an insurrection. What can we expect in 2024?

Political observers, journalists, and others have begun raising questions about how different events could unleash uncertainty into the election year. Here are some of the things they’re thinking about:

  • What if a candidate, party, or segment of the public rejects the legitimacy of an election related court ruling? How likely is it that the losing side will accept the outcome, that voters will acknowledge the winner as legitimate, and that results will be accepted peacefully?
  • How will our democratic system respond to multiple criminal indictments against one of the party nominees for president? What are the implications of legal proceedings coinciding with the campaign? What would a guilty verdict mean?
  • What happens if a campaign of either major party candidate is suspended? How would the timing of this affect the election?
  • What if a third-party candidate garnered a significant share of the vote? Could this undercut acceptance of the result?
  • What if acts of domestic terrorism and violent threats disrupt campaigning and public events? If disillusionment and frustration with our democracy turn into widespread political violence or domestic terrorism, how will we address it?
  • What could happen if a new pandemic or regional climate disaster occurred on or near election day? How would the public respond to a state of emergency coinciding with voting or counting the vote?
  • How disruptive could AI-enabled misinformation campaigns get? How might a campaign use AI audio or video? How might they target particular communities? Could they change the makeup of particular coalitions?
  • How will our election system weather the unprecedented turnover of seasoned election administrators across the country? What could happen with a wave of new administrators?
  • Could interventions or geopolitical events driven by foreign powers reshape political coalitions? How might the pro-democracy community fracture as a result of external events? How will the actions of foreign actors using social media platforms and artificial intelligence tools shape the spread of misinformation?

At Democracy Fund, we refer to these unpredictable, uncertainty-causing events as “chaos factors.”

Feeling overwhelmed? These and other chaos factors could make even the most seasoned observer throw their hands up in frustration. We are facing serious threats that — individually or in combination — could push our democracy to the brink. If those of us in the pro-democracy field are going to engage efficiently and effectively, we need a way to think about the range of variables we face.

Chaos factor: an event that, if it occurs, would create huge uncertainty in the system.

Making Sense of Chaos Factors

Conventional wisdom tells us to rank threats by how likely they are to happen and how big the impact could be. A highly likely, high-impact threat is something to pay close attention to, while an unlikely or low-impact threat is not. But the world is not that simple.

The challenge we’re dealing with in 2024 is just how much uncertainty there is. While we are already aware of a long list of chaos factors, there are likely more that we haven’t imagined. Many of the chaos factors are unprecedented, and we just don’t know what impact they might have. We can try to determine which are more likely, but we risk getting it wrong. In other words, there is a significant risk of focusing our attention and resources on threats that could be inconsequential — while ignoring those that end up mattering.

At Democracy Fund, we believe that the best way to address chaos factors isn’t to proactively anticipate and respond to specific threats, but to remain resilient in the face of any threats that might emerge. Rather than jump to “how likely is it?” about a possible threat, we can step back and also ask “is it possible to see such a thing coming?” And instead of focusing on only “how big would the impact be?” we also ask “is this something we could be prepared to respond to?”

“There is a significant risk of focusing our attention and resources on threats that could be inconsequential — while ignoring those that end up mattering.”

In 2007, Nassim Nicholas Taleb introduced the idea of the “Black Swan” into the world of foresight and strategic planning. A Black Swan is something that happens that is both unforeseeable and highly impactful. By definition, you don’t anticipate a Black Swan and you’re not prepared for it. While it may be tempting to spend our time trying to think of the one crucial event that no one else saw coming, many of the chaos factors facing our democracy in 2024 are not Black Swans. They are foreseeable, and we can prepare for them.

Since the introduction of the Black Swan, the foresight field has created a number of different terms1 for events that could or could not destabilize a system, and we’ve developed a framework using those terms to help us make sense of chaos factors. We argue that while Black Swan thinking can help us explore uncertainty, we can build overall resilience by focusing on factors we can already foresee, and which of those require additional preparation: White Swans and Gray Rhinos. Meanwhile, we can deprioritize those events we might categorize as Paper Tigers.2

Creatures of Chaos

The framework we have developed at Democracy Fund considers chaos factors as White Swans, Gray Rhinos, Paper Tigers, or Black Swans based on whether we can foresee them and/or prepare for them. Even internally, this categorization has provoked debate. For example, what may be a Gray Rhino for some can be a Black Swan for others. As Taleb has put it, “a black swan for the turkey is not a black swan for the butcher.” This debate can be useful, as it surfaces assumptions about what risks we are aware of and preparing for — and about our cognitive biases more generally. We offer the following definitions and examples for your consideration.

A 2x2 grid shows rows labeled "Foreseeable" and "Unforeseeable" and columns labeled "Prepared" and "Unprepared." Icons and names of different animals are placed within the grid. White Swans: Prepared and Foreseeable. Gray Rhinos: Unprepared and Foreseeable. Paper Tigers: Prepared and Unforeseeable. Black Swans: Unprepared and Unforeseeable. Below the grid is another row labeled "Additional Considerations" and includes the animals "Dragon Kings" and "Peacocks."

Foreseeable

White outline of a swan against a dark blue background.

White Swans are the opposite of Black Swans. They are events we know will happen and for which we routinely prepare. For example, flu season happens every year, and public health departments should have a clear plan of action. In the democracy field, White Swans include:

  • Errors in the tabulation of votes. It is highly likely that this will happen somewhere, and election administrators generally have approaches to identify and to address it.
  • Low voter turnout. This is a perennial concern, often compounded by deliberate voter suppression including intimidation and misinformation campaigns
White outline of a rhino against a dark blue background.

Gray Rhinos are widely anticipated but ignored by the mainstream and largely not planned for. For example, public health experts warned about a global pandemic, but governments were largely caught off guard by rampant Covid breakouts. Likewise, the overturn of Roe v. Wade was a clear and stated goal of the conservative movement once it held a majority on the Supreme Court, yet the act still came as a shock to the public. A Gray Rhino for the U.S. election system was:

  • The false claim that the 2020 election was stolen. It was not a surprise that the 2020 election results would be disputed. However, the pro-democracy field was largely unprepared for the scale and persistence of the attacks on the integrity of our election system.

Unforeseeable

Dark blue outline of a tiger, stylized in a geometric way reminiscent of origami, against a light blue background.

Paper Tigers are vaguely defined threats that stoke fear and anxiety, but largely amount to nothing because of existing safeguards in the system. For example, relatively few of the new tech products marketed as “game changers” actually “disrupt” the system and take over meaningful market share. For U.S. elections, notable Paper Tigers are:

  • Voting machine hacking. This has been advanced as a threat to our democracy, yet 2020 was “the most secure election in U.S. history.” Despite claims that some form of coordinated electoral fraud could affect the outcome of an election, instances of fraud are extremely rare, and there are numerous checks in place to maintain the integrity of the vote count.
Dark blue outline of a swan against a light blue background.

Black Swans cannot be anticipated and cannot be prepared for. Their impact is significant. Taleb described the 9/11 terrorist attack as a Black Swan. Even though the possibility of an attack was understood, the nature and scale of the actual event was not. A Black Swan that continues to threaten our election system includes:

  • The storming of the Capitol and the insurrection on Jan 6th. Protests and rallies were anticipated, but the scope and scale of the violence were not.

Two categories of events we often discuss don’t fit neatly into this framework, but they are worth keeping in the back of our minds because they can help us understand the full sweep of the impacts we might face: the Dragon King and the Peacock.

White outline of the head of a dragon (as typically depicted in Western art) against a light blue background.

Dragon Kings are somewhat predictable but can unexpectedly bring about the collapse of the system.3 That collapse is unanticipated and catastrophic, often because we under-appreciate the scale of the event or how interdependent aspects of the system are. For example, a massive earthquake could trigger a collapse in the transport system, which then causes a failure of food distribution. In the democracy field, there may be just such a combination of events that cause governance as we know it to break down, such as:

  • Election certification refusal. A critical mass of counties and/or states refuse to certify the
    election results, and attempts to resolve the dispute through legal means fail.
  • President defies judiciary. A president refuses to abide by a court order even after an appeals process has played out.
White outline of a peacock against a light blue background.

Peacocks are totally inconsequential events that serve as a ploy for attention, often using a familiar formula or tactic. Peacocks are often distractions or cynical attempts at self-promotion.4 For example, the U.S. trucker convoy protesting federal vaccine and mask mandates was largely a manufactured controversy, because by the time it happened, the only federal requirements of this type applied to healthcare and military personnel. In terms of elections, Peacocks can include:

  • Election-inflected noise. Media personalities and media channels (who may not actually have much influence over voters) spin up election-related stories or stage photo ops.

Planning for Resilience

So how does this framework help us to set priorities and develop strategies for the year ahead? At Democracy Fund, we’ve spent significant time doing strategic foresight work to help us prepare for 2024. Here are some of our recommendations.

1. Keep doing the core work

As in every election, in 2024 there is a need for poll worker training, get-out-the-vote efforts, informing the public about an election, election protection, and other “bread and butter” election work. These efforts all respond to White Swans: very real challenges that we know are real and for which we know how to prepare.

Handling White Swans may not grab the headlines the same way Black Swan efforts do. But if, for example, we lose sight of the core work of election protection, we risk letting a key part of our resilience atrophy.

We launched a multifunder campaign, All by April, because we’ve learned over many election cycles that the best way to support free, fair, and representative elections is to get money out the door early.

TRUSTED ELECTION FUND

Many organizations are working to address Gray Rhinos. The Trusted Election Fund (TEF) is a nonpartisan pooled fund that supports efforts to prepare for and respond to high-risk threats to U.S. elections. TEF plays a critical role in helping the sector identify, communicate, plan, and support efforts to counter the range of threats we face.

This ensures that front-line election defenders have the funding they need to do the work that needs to be done.

2. Listen to the communities who can see chaos factors on the horizon

Most of the chaos factors on our list are Gray Rhinos. They are real, known risks. Are we doing enough to think through and plan for them — and identify others? We need to listen to people on the frontlines of defending our democracy and ask them what’s keeping them up at night. In particular, marginalized communities have often experienced the earliest and worst effects of our democratic system’s failures, and they are often aware of signals that indicate threats on the horizon before anyone else. As a sector, we need to build trusted relationships with people who can identify the Gray Rhinos — and take their warnings seriously.

We need to listen to the people on the frontlines of defending our democracy and ask them what’s keeping them up at night.

3. Provide early, strong support to communities most likely to be impacted.

We may not be able to foresee a Black Swan or contain its impact, but we know who is most likely to be affected — and to respond effectively in its aftermath. It’s easy to get fixated on conceiving of every imaginable threat to our democracy and think that a novel or untested approach is the best way to protect against it. But an important part of resilience is investing in the people and the ideas that we know can get the job done, and investing in them early.

Community activists, organizers, and leaders have been responsible for most of our democracy’s transformative moments, and they are a key line of defense against authoritarianism. Their movement- and power-building work has been part of our democratic system since its inception, ensuring that communities most likely to be affected by anti-democratic actors and practices are able to respond and engage. Investing in this work can help prepare our democracy for whatever comes next. The time to support movement- and power-builders is not after a crisis has occurred, but now, when they can build the critical democratic infrastructure needed to respond.

An important part of resilience is investing in the people and the ideas that we know can get the job done, and investing in them early.

4. Watch out for distractions

There will be a lot of noise in this election year: fear-mongering around Paper Tigers that our system is already built to withstand, and Peacocks designed to distract everyone from important priorities. It’s easy to get sucked into the latest headline, clickbait, or petty provocation.

We need to be disciplined about not letting our focus wander into issues and events that ultimately aren’t consequential. We also need to push back against narratives that sow distrust in our electoral system, and that seek to undermine the processes and safeguards in place to ensure that our elections are free and fair.

5. Don’t ignore the Dragon King

Catastrophic events are a possibility that’s hard to face, but we have to acknowledge the dangerous moment in which we find ourselves. We don’t want to dwell on the worst-case scenario, but ignoring it or pretending that the collapse of our democracy is simply not possible would be a grave mistake. The leadup to the 2024 election will demand our full attention, because the risks are real — and the stakes for democracy couldn’t be higher.

Leaning into Uncertainty Together

Many of us in the pro-democracy field are individually preparing for what might happen this year by doing scenario and contingency planning. This can help each of us anticipate possibilities and reduce uncertainty about how we might respond to specific events.

But what if we focused on creating resilience across our field? This would mean leaning into uncertainty together as we share insights. At first, our expanded ability to see chaos factors across the system might feel even more overwhelming. But by working together we’ll be able to have richer conversations on which chaos factors we’re seeing and how they might interact. We’ll be able to discuss how to prepare, and explore different interpretations of the longer-term impacts on our democracy.

This shared practice could create more powerful and holistic insights into how our democratic system works, and what it might take to defend and transform it into the inclusive, multiracial democracy that many of us seek. Uncertainty, after all, can be a powerful place for listening to each other, learning, and building solidarity. We can let go of the need to be right, and consider new ideas and new perspectives with curiosity and openness. We can ensure that whatever happens — whether White Swan, Gray Rhino, Paper Tiger, Black Swan, Peacock, or Dragon King — the pro-democracy sector will be prepared.

  1. This typology continues to be refined, reinterpreted, and adapted by many different foresight thinkers and practitioners. The definitions, examples, and framework provided here are from Democracy Fund’s internal futures and foresight practice, but we have provided citations to credit individuals who first coined the terms. []
  2. Paper Tiger is a term that comes from the Chinese “zhǐlǎohǔ” and is not specific to the foresight field, but we have found the concept helpful to describe a certain type of event. []
  3. Didier Sornette coined the term “Dragon King as described in the paper, Dragon-Kings, Black Swans and the Prediction of Crises.” Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1596032. []
  4. The term Peacock was popularized in the horizon scanning field by the consulting firm Global Business Network. []
Blog
Featured

A Multiracial Democracy Includes BAMEMSA Communities

/
April 16, 2024

Democracy Fund invests in the power and leadership of communities of color. We have long included BAMEMSA communities (Black, African, Arab, Middle Eastern, Muslim, and South Asian) in our approach to strengthen and expand the pro-democracy movement and undermine those who threaten the ideals of an inclusive multiracial democracy in the United States. Our work is grounded in the belief that we must recognize BAMEMSA communities’ full humanity and inclusion in the democracy of our dreams with no tolerance for dehumanization, hate-based discourse, or violence.

Our early funding of these communities began in 2016 in response to fear mongering and hate crimes that were on the rise in the United States. We stood up a special project in 2017 as policies like the Muslim Ban and the separation of families seeking asylum at the border were initiated by the federal government. We more recently expanded this work into our Just & Inclusive Society program, which seeks to support the safety, self-determination, and dignity of marginalized groups in the United States through a shift from providing direct services, to building capacity, power, and momentum across communities. In 2018, we also began focusing on reparations and rights for BAMEMSA communities in online spaces. Our Digital Democracy portfolio works to bring about an equitable digital public square, free of algorithmic discrimination, harm, and bias. We envision a world where communities can create, access, and enjoy media and technology that represents their needs, concerns, and dreams.

As the violence in Israel and Palestine continues to reverberate globally, dehumanizing and racist narratives are fueling Islamophobia, anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian racism, and anti-Semitism here in the United States. Many Americans are fearful for the safety of their communities. In particular, we have witnessed horrific violence especially against Palestinian Americans alongside dramatic increases in reported threats against both Muslim and Jewish Americans.

Democracy Fund has been proud to support efforts to end political violence, whose flames are often fanned by mis- and disinformation. The intersection of these forces — threats of political violence amplified by mis- and disinformation and rising Islamophobia — present particular risks to BAMEMSA communities, which must be fully included in the multiracial democracy we seek.

The commitment and investment BAMEMSA communities have shown to America has been historically unrecognized. BAMEMSA communities are an integral part of the inclusive multiracial democracy we strive for, and their efforts should be recognized and respected by government and philanthropy. We have been particularly concerned over the past several months as we have heard reports from grantees about feeling isolated and under attack. In this moment, we believe it is particularly important to affirm our continued support for the critical work that these organizations undertake.

We are proud to continue to support the following organizations who stand for human dignity, civil and human rights in person and online, and the rights of BAMEMSA communities to thrive in this country. As public discourse evolves this year and beyond, we can’t lose sight of the core idea that a truly just multiracial democracy — and society — must include BAMEMSA communities, including grantee partners like those listed here that animate this vision:

  • Rise Together Fund is the only national donor collaborative dedicated to supporting BAMEMSA communities and advancing their civil rights and promoting their contributions to democracy, culture, and American civil society.
  • Pillars Fund amplifies the leadership, narratives, and talents of Muslims in the United States to advance opportunity and justice for all.
  • The ACRE Institute is a Muslim-led organization working on rights at the intersection of economics and race through housing, labor, healthcare, and other issues.
  • The Disinformation Defense League is a coalition of research and policy organizations that work at the intersection of race and disinformation, including impacts on BAMEMSA communities.
  • El Hibri Foundation empowers and equips American Muslim leaders and their allies to build thriving, inclusive communities.
  • The Independence Public Media Foundation is a Philadelphia-based private foundation focused on public media, narrative and cultural change, and community-serving internet. It supports local BAMEMSA-led and centered organizations working towards multiracial organizing.
  • Inner City Muslim Action Network is a community organization that fosters health, wellness, and healing by organizing for social change, cultivating the arts, and operating a holistic health center.
  • The Institute for Social Policy and Understanding is the leading research institute on American Muslims, and their research equips those working toward full and equitable inclusion of American Muslims with solution-seeking research.
  • The National Network for Arab American Communities is a growing network of independent Arab American community-based organizations around the country.

Democracy Fund continues to support and fund these organizations along with their leaders and staff. They are relying on us to meet this moment with them and to not back away from threats to our vision of an inclusive multiracial democracy. We are proud of our longstanding support for organizations working in BAMEMSA communities, who have experienced inequality, marginalization, targeting, and other forms of identity-based discrimination. Our grantees’ work is essential to our democracy. Unfortunately, this work as a whole was significantly underfunded back in 2016, and it remains underfunded in 2024.

Today, we reaffirm our support for BAMEMSA communities and urge other funders, civil society organizations, and leaders to do so as well. The future of our democracy depends on it.

Announcement
Featured

Mobilizing DAF Funds to Strengthen Democracy – Amalgamated Charitable Foundation and Democracy Fund Join Forces for #HalfMyDAF Campaign

April 11, 2024

The momentum from All by April has been nothing short of inspiring. In a year filled with uncertainties and challenges, the commitment to accelerate funding to support free, fair, and representative elections has resonated with many of us.

Now, as we look to build upon that momentum, we are excited to announce a new partnership that takes our collective efforts further: Amalgamated Charitable Foundation and Democracy Fund are collaborating on the #HalfMyDAF campaign, creating a new matching pool that matches donations up to $10,000 to pro-democracy organizations.

#HalfMyDAF helps individuals increase the impact of their Donor Advised Fund (DAF) contributions to nonprofits that matter deeply to them. By encouraging donors to distribute at least half of their DAF accounts, #HalfMyDAF has the potential to unlock significant new investments for critical causes across the United States.

Created by Jen and David Risher in 2020 to help unlock the $234 billion that sits in donor advised funds in the United States, #HalfMyDAF has mobilized more than $33 million to date.

Together, Amalgamated and Democracy Fund are seeding the new Strengthening Democracy Matching Pool with initial contributions of $50,000 each and a goal to raise $500,000 by the end of April. Supporters have already committed more than $350,000 towards the matching fund. This fund will incentivize donors to contribute to nonpartisan 501(c)(3) election-related work by the end of June — ensuring that vital resources reach the organizations on the front lines of our democracy.

This partnership represents another opportunity to move money early and continue the momentum of All by April. By harnessing the energy and enthusiasm generated by the campaign, we are doubling down on our commitment to expedite funding and support the organizations that safeguard our democratic process.

We invite the philanthropic community to join us in supporting this campaign. Whether through direct contributions or by spreading the word to your networks, every action counts. Together, we can continue moving critical funding to nonpartisan pro-democracy organizations when they need it most.

We are grateful to #HalfMyDAF, Amalgamated Charitable Foundation, and our philanthropic peers who have joined us in supporting this new matching pool. Let’s keep the momentum going – together, we can continue to drive positive change and strengthen the foundation of our democracy.

If you have any questions or want to join the matching pool, please contact us at partnerships@democracyfund.org.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Featured
Op-Ed

The Time to Invest in Democracy Is Now, Not November

Joe Goldman, Laleh Ispahani and Deepak Bhargava
/
March 6, 2024

This op-ed was written by Democracy Fund president Joe Goldman, Open Society-U.S. executive director Laleh Ispahani, and JPB Foundation president Deepak Bhargava, about the All by April campaign, a movement of funders and donors who have pledged to move funds faster this year and support nonpartisan efforts to ensure the election process is free, fair, and representative. Learn more about the campaign at AllByApril.org and read the full op-ed at Inside Philanthropy.

Free, fair and representative elections are difficult to achieve under the best circumstances. As 2024 progresses, the good news is that one of the cornerstones of American democracy — the hundreds of nonpartisan, nonprofit organizations devoted to an inclusive, multiracial democracy — are already hard at work.

They need resources — now.

Nonprofit organizations perform essential election work in our democracy. In communities around the country, organizations help recruit poll workers, organize nonpartisan voter registration drives, combat misinformation, support local election officials and work to ensure that the diversity of our electorate is represented in our election process.

…Many donors do not realize that supporting democracy in an election year requires donations by the spring, not the summer or fall.

Read the full op-ed on InsidePhilanthropy.com.

 

Blog
Featured

Accelerating Local News Ecosystems Through Press Forward

/
February 21, 2024

Today Press Forward, the national movement investing more than $500 million to strengthen communities and local news, announced a new cohort of 11 Press Forward Locals. The new chapters are in Colorado, Lancaster, Pa., Lexington, Ky., Mississippi, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pittsburgh, San Antonio, South Florida, and Wyoming. Combined with existing chapters in Alaska, Chicago, Minnesota, Philadelphia, Springfield, Ill. and Wichita, the total number of Press Forward Locals is now 17.

These local chapters are helping build a vital new infrastructure for independent media across America. They’re uniquely positioned to listen to the field, identify approaches that meet the needs of their communities, and rally support for a shared local vision.

Democracy Fund is proud to partner with dozens of Press Forward funders to support this growing local leadership, which builds upon years of learnings from Democracy Fund’s Equitable Journalism strategy. Six of the Press Forward Locals are existing Democracy Fund local news ecosystem grantees and partners, and we’re thrilled to see them joining the Press Forward movement.

Democracy Fund has long believed that transforming local news must begin with local communities. Since 2016, Democracy Fund has invested more than $15 million in 10 geographic areas across the U.S. to support vibrant ecosystems that reimagine news and information as civic infrastructure. Now through Press Forward more funders are able to join the effort to acknowledge, celebrate, and resource incredible leaders and innovators on the ground who are building a brighter future for local news.

The local funders who lead Press Forward Local chapters are committed to deep listening, bringing more funders to the table, and sharing what they learn. Local news ecosystems are not one-size-fits-all — what works in New Mexico is different from what works in Wyoming. But all ecosystems are rooted in coalitions of diverse stakeholders across a region, working together to support authentically local solutions.

Why Democracy Fund is committed to an ecosystem funding approach

An ecosystem approach to local news funding aims to create equitable local journalism for all, rather than replicate old systems of journalism that did not serve all communities. An evaluation of Democracy Funds’s ecosystem investments has shown that this local news ecosystem approach can drive significant impact by:

  • Increasing access to local news and civic information for local people,
  • Addressing shared challenges across local media,
  • Sparking reporting collaborations that serve community needs,
  • Bringing millions of new dollars from local funders to support local news, and
  • Resulting in more equitable grantmaking to publishers of color.

We have seen notable success in the funding efforts we have undertaken with our partners. In North Carolina, funders have moved nearly $8 million in direct and aligned funding to over 50 organizations across the state, with 75 percent of direct grantees being led by Black, Indigenous, Latino or other people of color. In New Jersey a public/private partnership is leveraging state funding alongside philanthropic funding to award more than $5 million in grants to 52 organizations, half of which are led by people of color. In Colorado, funders have utilized national resources and models for local use, like creating a statewide NewsMatch campaign called #newsCONeeds that has raised over $2.3M for Coloradan nonprofit and for profit newsrooms.

Through this work, we have learned the importance of patience, humility, and a deep commitment to building lasting relationships in places. We know that the change we want to see in the world will take time. We remain committed to our vision of a future where local news ecosystems move resources to news organizations led by and serving people of color, equip residents for civic action, and build communities of belonging that strengthen an inclusive, multi-racial democracy.

Today’s announcement of new Press Forward local chapters, and the chance for those chapters to apply for funding, is a significant step in Press Forward’s work to be a good partner to local communities. Democracy Fund will continue to support and expand our work in local news ecosystems both through our own investments and through Press Forward, and look forward to learning in partnership with those leading this work.

For more information about Local News Ecosystem Funding, check out these resources:

Blog
Featured

Early Funds Protect Our Democracy

/
February 7, 2024

The nonprofit organizations working tirelessly to ensure our elections remain free, fair, and representative are the unsung heroes of our democracy. Whether they are fighting to reduce barriers to voting, combating misinformation, recruiting poll workers, or organizing registration drives, these nonpartisan groups help connect voters to the ballot and protect the integrity of our elections.

Unfortunately, too many of these organizations must head into a challenging environment without the resources they need. Year after year, we hear from the field that donors are moving too slow and that money has arrived too late to be used effectively and efficiently.

Early and consistent resources are key to grantee operations. Supporters need to give them the runway they need — the confidence to plan, the ability to hire and train staff, and the time to lock in lower cost rates. In an era where early and mail-in voting are becoming more prevalent, the need for early resources that support our elections infrastructure is more critical than ever.

No doubt, many of the challenges that nonprofits face are a result of grantmaking timelines and practices. That’s why Democracy Fund, along with dozens of other pro-democracy funders, is making the All by April pledge. We’re committing our dollars earlier and moving funds sooner than we might have otherwise. Already, more than 70 foundations, individual donors, philanthropic advisors, and pooled funds have signed the nonpartisan, 501(c)3 All by April pledge.

Our commitment is straightforward. We are working to be good partners to our grantees and doing all that we can to have their backs as we head into another election cycle.

As part of Democracy Fund’s pledge, our teams are expediting the disbursement of funds to our election-related grantees by the end of April. This means making grant commitments, payments, and disbursements of multiyear grants earlier in the year than we sometimes have in the past. We’ve also been doing what we can to streamline processes, especially for renewal grants, and providing general support grants as much as possible. These actions, we hope, will equip nonprofits with the financial support they need well ahead of the election that they are seeking to protect.

Sign on to the campaign at AllByApril.org.

Many donors are joining us in committing to make all or most of their grants by the end of April. Others are focusing on streamlining renewal processes or finding alternative ways to support their grantees. I hope that even more of my peers will join us in adopting these practices and fostering a collaborative approach to strengthen our democracy. This campaign won’t solve all the funding challenges our civic groups are facing, but I hope it’s a good start.

At a time when our republic is in such a precarious position, philanthropy can no longer conduct business as usual. Creating a culture of early and expedited funding for organizations seeking to ensure free, fair, and representative elections is a tool in our arsenal that directly addresses systemic challenges to our democracy. I invite you to join me in this commitment, ensuring that pro-democracy organizations have the resources they need to fortify the foundation of our democratic system.

Announcement
Featured

All by April: Moving Money Early for Free, Fair, & Representative Elections

February 1, 2024
Democracy Fund
1200 17th Street NW Suite 300,
Washington, DC 20036