The existence of bad actors doesn’t make donor-advised funds suspicious “dark money” vehicles.
Congressional scrutiny of donor-advised funds (DAFs) surfaced during a recent House Ways and Means Committee hearing on foreign influence in nonprofits, reflecting concerns from some lawmakers about wrongdoing. Those concerns deserve to be taken seriously. If individuals or entities are exploiting charitable vehicles to evade the law or mask illicit activity, they must be held accountable. There are existing laws governing foreign agents, tax-exempt organizations and money laundering that should be vigorously enforced.
But we must be equally clear about something else: painting donor-advised funds as “dark money” vehicles is a misguided and dangerous distraction.
DAFs are not shadowy loopholes. They are one of the most accessible and effective charitable tools available to everyday Americans. They allow donors to set aside resources for charitable purposes and recommend grants to qualified public charities over time. As Philanthropy Roundtable has long emphasized, DAFs fuel American generosity and democratize giving by lowering the barrier to entry and enabling strategic, sustained giving across income levels, not only among high-net-worth individuals. They are flexible tools that allow donors to respond quickly in a crisis or save to address a larger need in the future, allowing those charitable dollars to grow in the meantime.
If a donor violates the law, whether through improper coordination, undisclosed foreign-agent activity, or other illegal conduct, that donor should face consequences under the applicable statutes. Relevant federal laws already address these concerns, including:
- The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), which requires agents of foreign principals engaged in political activities to register, report granular information about their activity and funding, and disclose relationships with foreign entities.
- Federal campaign finance laws that strictly prohibit foreign nationals from directly or indirectly contributing to or making expenditures in connection with U.S. elections.
- A myriad of IRS rules governing the permissible political activities of and required disclosures from tax-exempt organizations.
These laws are not symbolic—they carry serious penalties. Rather than rewriting the rules governing millions of law-abiding Americans, the appropriate response to abuse is to use the enforcement mechanisms we have on the books.
During the Feb. 10 hearing, committee members noted concerns about the privacy provided to donors. Questions were raised about whether bad actors involving foreign interests could exploit DAFs as intermediaries. Those are serious assertions. But they are assertions about potential misconduct by individuals and not about the legitimacy of DAFs, their structure, or why the vast majority of Americans use them as a giving tool.
Any legal tool can be abused. We should not conflate the possibility of criminal misuse with proof of systemic failure. Take cars for example. They are used to commit a wide variety of crimes every year. But we don’t see calls to ban cars because the vehicle isn’t the culprit—it’s the person behind the wheel. The existence of bad actors does not invalidate the tool itself, and it certainly doesn’t negate a tool’s benefits.
Many Americans choose to give through DAFs for privacy and safety reasons—a protection sought by charitable donors across the ideological spectrum from small-town business owners to church leaders. During this time of deep polarization in our country, donors are facing increased harassment and threats of violence, and donor privacy allows Americans to give freely and generously without fear.
Privacy in charitable giving is also a longstanding American tradition rooted our constitutional rights. It has been tested repeatedly in the courts and affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. In cases such as NAACP v. Alabama (1958) and Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta (2021), the Court held that compelled donor disclosure violates First Amendment protections.
Labeling all anonymous charitable giving as “dark money” erodes Americans’ fundamental rights and freedoms and rejects all of the good and valid reasons for private giving from humility and religious reasons to a fear of retaliation. It suggests that privacy itself is suspect. That is a dangerous path.
We cannot allow this sort of indictment of American philanthropy.
There is a meaningful difference between investigating and prosecuting unlawful foreign activity and redefining mainstream charitable vehicles as inherently suspect. The former strengthens the rule of law. The latter risks burdening compliant charities and restricting Americans’ abilities to support their communities.
Congress should remain focused on accountability while protecting the integrity of American philanthropy. Lawmakers can continue to encourage robust enforcement of existing laws, where violations occur, and demand meaningful accountability from wrongdoers. At the same time, they have to avoid conflating foreign misconduct with legitimate domestic charitable activity. Policymakers must safeguard the constitutional right of Americans to give privately to lawful causes and preserve donor-advised funds as a flexible, accessible, and highly effective tool that strengthens civil society.
America’s charitable sector is a pillar of civil society, sustained by the freedom to give strategically, generously, and privately. Wrongdoers should be punished, but any abuses must not become a pretext for weakening the very tools that empower millions to serve their communities. Donor-advised funds are not “dark money.” They are a cornerstone of modern philanthropy, deserving principled protection for future generations to continue the strong American tradition of generosity.
This article was first published on the Philanthropy Roundtable website on February 26, 2026, at https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/dont-conflate-foreign-influence-with-philanthropy/.