When the Justice Department indicted the Southern Poverty Law Center in April on controversial fraud charges, the storied civil rights organization faced a major threat to its lifeblood — the flow of donor dollars.

Not because it was convicted or because the Internal Revenue Service revoked its tax-exempt status. Not even because individual donors stopped writing checks.

Instead, three Wall-Street-affiliated grantmaking giants each made a decision, one they refused to fully explain, to prevent donors from using their platforms to give to the embattled nonprofit.

Vanguard Charitable, Fidelity Charitable and Charles Schwab’s DAFgiving360 sponsor donor-advised funds, offering account holders immediate tax deductions on contributions they can later recommend be granted to charities.

Once niche, donor-advised fund sponsors controlled more than $327 billion in assets as of 2024, over 10 times their footprint two decades ago. They are the conduit for about a quarter of all individual giving in the U.S.

After the three sponsors cut off the SPLC, ProPublica investigated how the new gatekeepers of American philanthropy make these opaque, high-stakes decisions.

In examining the treatment of dozens of nonprofits, we uncovered troubling inconsistencies in how some DAF sponsors applied their policies and found that donors and affected charities are routinely left in the dark about how decisions are made.

The three sponsors are nonprofits spun off from major brokerages. Their accounts, used largely by high-income earners, charge administrative fees while sponsors retain legal control over the charitable assets. (ProPublica has received donations through each of the groups.) Donors “advise” the sponsors on where to send grants, but sponsors can deny requests for any reason.

They say decisions stem from policy triggers. Vanguard Charitable pauses payments when an organization faces formal charges, while Fidelity Charitable and DAFgiving360 say they “may” or “might” stop donations if organizations come under investigation by government or law enforcement agencies.

Deone Powell, a former general counsel for Vanguard Charitable who now advises nonprofits, said that DAF sponsors don’t view these moves as moral policing, but instead as ways of protecting their own brands. “All of these really speak to reputational risks for the sponsoring organizations,” he said.

They weigh these choices carefully, given the possible ripple effects, he said. “A single decision often establishes a precedent that’s going to affect thousands of other future recommendations.”

But ProPublica found that Fidelity and DAFgiving360 appeared to apply their policies unevenly. Even though they froze donations to the SPLC, they allowed numerous other groups to keep receiving money amid government investigations. The cases included hospitals, universities, charter schools and even a white nationalist organization.

The sponsors say their decisions are viewpoint neutral, and ProPublica found no evidence to the contrary. Removed groups spanned the political spectrum. But most of the ones that spoke to ProPublica shared one common experience: silence from the sponsors.

Months after being deemed ineligible for donations, the SPLC still doesn’t know why the action was taken or whether there is a path to reinstatement, according to a source familiar with the matter. The legal pressure, however, continues: A former employee was indicted this week on charges related to the case.

Experts say this is particularly problematic under the Trump administration, which has a track record of making politically charged accusations that don’t hold up in court.

“I don’t think Fidelity, Vanguard and Schwab are acting in bad faith,” said Joe Goldman, the president of Democracy Fund, a foundation supporting democratic principles. “They’re applying old rules to new circumstances without recognizing that the circumstances have changed.”

President Donald Trump has put nonprofits under an intense spotlight, alleging that many of them “undermine the security, prosperity, and safety of the American people” and directing federal agencies to align funding decisions with administration priorities.

Members of Congress, mainly Republicans, have initiated over 135 investigations into nonprofits since 2025, often claiming that charities were operating with foreign influence, engaging in supporting terrorism, or promoting diversity, equity and inclusion.

In letters sent to the IRS, Republican lawmakers accused several organizations that support pro-Palestine efforts of funding terrorism and asked for them to be investigated.

One of the charities has not been charged in court, and another was the subject of a state investigation. Neither has had its IRS status revoked, but they no longer appear on a Fidelity Charitable donation portal that allows users to select charities to donate to, ProPublica found. Fidelity wouldn’t say whether the letters played a role.

“This is potentially a way........

© ProPublica