“The MacArthur Foundation, which was the largest single foundation funding nuclear security efforts — looking into paths for nuclear disarmament and so on — cut its funding from the area,” he told me. “That resulted in something like a halving of philanthropic funding for nuclear security.”
Thanks for this question. I want to begin by saying how enormously appreciative we are for MacArthur’s support over the years.
The MacArthur Foundation announced at the beginning of 2021 that they were ending their funding for the nuclear field after more than 40 years of support for civil society groups doing important nuclear risk reduction work. By MacArthur’s own estimate, their nuclear funding represented around 45% of philanthropic funding for civil society groups working on nuclear issues (principally in the US). The nuclear field was already small, fragile and declining even before the MacArthur withdrawal, so their departure is expected to have a significant impact on the sustainability and capacity of many civil society groups in this space. It’s causing an already neglected field to shrink further, absorb painful staffing cuts and in some cases will force closures. That’s what I meant by “a big blow.”
Regarding their reasons, I can’t speak for MacArthur, but I can make the following observations: MacArthur’s decision coincides with a change of leadership at the foundation at multiple levels. A new President was recently appointed at MacArthur and he set out to do a review of the foundation’s grantmaking and realign its priorities (as one might expect of a new leader). As public awareness and understanding of, and interest in, nuclear issues has waned since the end of the Cold War, so too had the knowledge and expertise of MacArthur leadership and Board on nuclear issues. Around the same time as the new President taking the helm, quite coincidentally, the foundation’s lead nuclear program officer departed the foundation for a leadership position with a different foundation. So, by mid-2020, there were no champions left at MacArthur to help guide and advocate for the nuclear portfolio, and the foundation decided to invest its resources in other areas deemed more relevant by the new President and the Board (Climate and Social Justice issues).
It’s important to note here that MacArthur hired a consultant to review their nuclear portfolio as part of their strategic review and the consultant’s report concluded that MacArthur funding had enabled important achievements within the nuclear space. But the report also found that MacArthur’s most recent investment in a specific nuclear project, a “Big Bet”, was not likely to payoff within the remaining five-year target they had set. Instead of updating their nuclear “Big Bet” with a different strategy or a bet more likely to succeed, MacArthur decided to scrap nuclear funding entirely. They never did offer an explanation for that decision.
One of my key takeaways: the nuclear community has some really fundamental work to do to make the case to funders and to global publics about our collective global stake in nuclear risk reduction. We’ve not done a good job of making nuclear issues relevant for lay audiences, or of connecting nuclear risks to our day-to-day lives, or the sustainability of humanity’s future. In that sense, the MacArthur departure is a wake-up call that we must pay attention to. We are now working on this!
Thanks for doing this!
Incidentally, I came across a comment of yours while doing research on patient philanthropy,
“The MacArthur Foundation, which was the largest single foundation funding nuclear security efforts — looking into paths for nuclear disarmament and so on — cut its funding from the area,” he told me. “That resulted in something like a halving of philanthropic funding for nuclear security.”
[...]
“It’s a big blow for the field,” said Joan Rohlfing, president and COO of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a non-profit organization dedicated to stemming the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction that has been one of the largest recipients of MacArthur’s grants. “It is moving in the opposite direction of the needs of the community right now.” ‘A big blow’: Washington’s arms controllers brace for loss of their biggest backer
Can you elaborate on the reasons and what this means for the field? Could we somehow petition the MacArthur Foundation to undo this?
Thanks for this question. I want to begin by saying how enormously appreciative we are for MacArthur’s support over the years.
The MacArthur Foundation announced at the beginning of 2021 that they were ending their funding for the nuclear field after more than 40 years of support for civil society groups doing important nuclear risk reduction work. By MacArthur’s own estimate, their nuclear funding represented around 45% of philanthropic funding for civil society groups working on nuclear issues (principally in the US). The nuclear field was already small, fragile and declining even before the MacArthur withdrawal, so their departure is expected to have a significant impact on the sustainability and capacity of many civil society groups in this space. It’s causing an already neglected field to shrink further, absorb painful staffing cuts and in some cases will force closures. That’s what I meant by “a big blow.”
Regarding their reasons, I can’t speak for MacArthur, but I can make the following observations: MacArthur’s decision coincides with a change of leadership at the foundation at multiple levels. A new President was recently appointed at MacArthur and he set out to do a review of the foundation’s grantmaking and realign its priorities (as one might expect of a new leader). As public awareness and understanding of, and interest in, nuclear issues has waned since the end of the Cold War, so too had the knowledge and expertise of MacArthur leadership and Board on nuclear issues. Around the same time as the new President taking the helm, quite coincidentally, the foundation’s lead nuclear program officer departed the foundation for a leadership position with a different foundation. So, by mid-2020, there were no champions left at MacArthur to help guide and advocate for the nuclear portfolio, and the foundation decided to invest its resources in other areas deemed more relevant by the new President and the Board (Climate and Social Justice issues).
It’s important to note here that MacArthur hired a consultant to review their nuclear portfolio as part of their strategic review and the consultant’s report concluded that MacArthur funding had enabled important achievements within the nuclear space. But the report also found that MacArthur’s most recent investment in a specific nuclear project, a “Big Bet”, was not likely to payoff within the remaining five-year target they had set. Instead of updating their nuclear “Big Bet” with a different strategy or a bet more likely to succeed, MacArthur decided to scrap nuclear funding entirely. They never did offer an explanation for that decision.
One of my key takeaways: the nuclear community has some really fundamental work to do to make the case to funders and to global publics about our collective global stake in nuclear risk reduction. We’ve not done a good job of making nuclear issues relevant for lay audiences, or of connecting nuclear risks to our day-to-day lives, or the sustainability of humanity’s future. In that sense, the MacArthur departure is a wake-up call that we must pay attention to. We are now working on this!