Americans Haven’t Stopped Caring – They’ve Stopped Trusting

Most analyses of declining charitable giving focus on household balance sheets. Inflation fatigue, higher interest rates, student loan repayments, childcare costs, and lingering uncertainty all matter. James Pollard and Linley Sanders, with the Associated Press, capture that reality clearly: many Americans feel financially constrained and cautious. That explanation, however, seems incomplete. They miss a deeper, more corrosive factor. Confidence.

Charitable giving is not only an economic decision. It is a trust-based one. Donors give when they believe their money will be used as promised, managed competently, and produce tangible results. Over the past several years, that trust has been steadily eroded by relentless headlines about fraud, waste, and mismanagement tied to government-funded programs and nonprofit groups.

California’s experience is emblematic. The state has spent more than $24 billion on homelessness programs with little measurable progress. The state paid $1 billion to inmates in fraudulent unemployment claims. 

High-profile fraud cases involving child care subsidies, autism services, and in multiple states have reinforced public skepticism. In Minnesota, the U.S. Department of Justice investigations into nonprofit networks siphoning public funds have added to the sense that oversight is weak and accountability optional. 

When taxpayers see billions flow through NGOs with limited transparency and few consequences for failure, they draw a simple conclusion. If the government cannot track its own dollars, why should private donors believe their contributions will fare any better?

This is not a partisan argument. It is a governance issue. Elon Musk’s blunt criticism of government-funded NGOs (“Government-funded NGOs are probably the biggest source of fraud”) resonates because it echoes a sentiment many Americans already hold. The concern is not charity itself. It is the perception that parts of the nonprofit sector have become vulnerable to political favoritism, administrative bloat, and weak controls.

The result is rational donor hesitation. People still care. They still help neighbors, round up at checkout counters, and support causes with personal meaning. But for many, discretionary gifts require confidence. Right now, confidence is in short supply.

Restoring it requires action, not more press conferences and excuses. Governments must demand rigorous accounting, outcome-based reporting, and real consequences for misuse of funds. Transparency cannot be optional or performative. It must be systematic and public.

At the same time, charities cannot wait for regulators to fix the problem. They must communicate more, not less. That means clearly showing where money goes, who it helps, and what changes as a result. It means consistent visibility in local media, credible storytelling on social platforms, and data that connects donations to outcomes. Silence breeds suspicion. Presence builds trust.

If charitable giving is to rebound, credibility must be rebuilt. Without it, even a stronger economy will not be enough.