admin
MacKenzie Scott’s year-end announcement that she gave away more than seven billion dollars in 2025 is being cheered by the coastal media as pure generosity, and the numbers are staggering: Forbes reports roughly $7.2 billion this year and about $26 billion in lifetime giving, putting her behind only Warren Buffett and Bill Gates in total dollars donated. The headline sounds patriotic until you remember these are concentrated, high-profile transfers from one of America’s richest heirs and former Amazon shareholders, moved through channels that raise real questions for taxpayers and the country.
We should be clear-eyed: Scott’s gifts are not small acts of quiet neighborly charity, they are an active reshaping of institutions across higher education and the policy space. Forbes and other outlets note she’s shifted massive blocks of Amazon stock into donor-advised funds and other vehicles that let her direct enormous influence while avoiding the transparency and oversight of a traditional private foundation. That matters because when a single wealthy person steers billions, those choices — whether for climate initiatives, equity programs, or selected colleges — reflect private priorities, not the accountable deliberation that a democratic society deserves.
Donor-advised funds and similar structures are legal, but they create a gilded shadow system of philanthropy where money can sit, grow, and be spent with minimal public reporting. Forbes itself explains how using DAFs can allow donors to dodge capital gains taxes and keep the timing and recipients of grants obscure. Conservatives should welcome generous giving, but we should not accept a system where tax-advantaged giving functions as a backdoor way to fund ideological projects without public scrutiny.
Look at where the money flows: huge checks to higher-education institutions, big sums to Historically Black Colleges and Universities, and millions steered toward climate organizations and “equity” initiatives. Major outlets list donations to dozens of universities and nonprofits, including large repeat gifts to groups already inside Scott’s giving orbit. There is nothing wrong with supporting education or opportunity, but there is something wrong with a pattern that privileges elite nonprofits and woke priorities while bypassing local churches, mom-and-pop charities, and community institutions that actually strengthen families and civic life.
If Americans value generosity, we should demand generosity that strengthens civil society rather than reshapes it without accountability. Policymakers should consider reforms to ensure donor-advised funds and similar vehicles come with reporting requirements and limits on tax advantages if the funds are not promptly deployed to active charities. Real charity is measured by long-term outcomes for people and communities, not by splashy dollar totals used to burnish reputations and influence national debates from behind a veil.
So yes, MacKenzie Scott gave away a historic sum this year, and her largesse has helped many institutions. But hardworking Americans deserve transparency and competition of ideas — not a billionaire-driven agenda operating in the shadows with disproportionate sway over the next generation’s schools and priorities. Support for charity should uplift local communities, respect free speech and local values, and be accountable to the public whose tax code subsidizes the wealthy donor class.
