Northern Refuge

Policy Ideas for Attracting U.S. Philanthropic Capital to Canada in the Trump 2.0 Era

In the past two weeks, conversations about U.S. philanthropic outflows have surfaced repeatedly in my work. Whether about funding for international aid, health research, or incentivizing foundations to move (which could be considered as part of capital investment in Canada), there’s a noticeable pattern: concern about current US policy and serious inquiry into placing significant philanthropic capital in jurisdictions outside the United States.

Is it time to move our philanthropic capital out of the United States?

This isn’t just about tax strategy or succession planning. It’s about values, legal risk, and preserving philanthropic intent in a moment of democratic uncertainty.

Because of these ongoing conversations, I wanted to begin thinking out loud—mapping what I’m hearing, seeing, and considering in terms of policy options for Canada (and others) to prepare for and responsibly engage with this shifting landscape.

---

Context

Canada has long served as a stable, values-aligned alternative for U.S. philanthropists. But unlike countries like Switzerland, Canada hasn’t systematically positioned itself as a destination for foreign philanthropic capital. The current moment, marked by democratic backsliding in the U.S., political polarization, and heightened scrutiny of domestic foundations, presents a unique policy opportunity.

The Opportunity

U.S. wealth holders with cross-border ties (Canadian spouses, dual citizenship, international missions) are looking for vehicles that offer long-term impact, tax efficiency, and values protection. Canada’s charitable sector could benefit, but only if it can offer a welcoming and clear regulatory framework.

Policy Options for Consideration

1. Simplify Cross-Border Giving Vehicles

   • Develop a Canada Revenue Agency (CRA)-endorsed structure for “reciprocal recognition” of U.S. private foundations or donor-advised funds. Many U.S. donors are deterred by the complexity of establishing a separate Canadian foundation and duplicating compliance systems.

2. Incentivize Canadian Foundation Incorporation

   • Offer fast-track registration and reduced compliance burdens for foreign donors creating new Canadian private foundations, particularly those with Canadian missions or governance. Canada could offer a philanthropic residency akin to financial residency, provided certain conditions are met (e.g., a minimum level of Canadian grantmaking).

3. Strengthen Dual-Jurisdiction Grantmaking Pathways

   • Provide legal clarity and resources for dual-jurisdiction grantmaking models, particularly for donors who give to both U.S. and Canadian grantees. Donors are increasingly supporting global, Indigenous, and climate justice movements that transcend national borders.

4. Create a “Canada Gives” Advisory Network

   • Build a cross-sector network of advisors (legal, tax, philanthropic) to assist U.S.-Canada cross-border philanthropists. Few professionals are trained in both regimes; most wealthy families rely on fragmented advice.

5. Establish a Strategic Migration Fund

   • Foundations or the government could seed a fund to help mission-aligned U.S. donors set up in Canada, particularly those working in high-risk sectors (e.g., reproductive justice, human rights, or journalism). Philanthropy needs infrastructure, not just ideology. Strategic onboarding builds long-term value.

---

DAFs as a Strategic Holding Option

For some U.S. wealth holders, donor-advised funds (DAFs), rather than private foundations, are becoming the vehicle of choice. Their appeal lies in administrative simplicity, relatively low compliance burdens, and faster deployment of capital.

Canadian DAF sponsors with international grantmaking capabilities have reported an anecdotal increase in cross-border interest, particularly from families seeking to hedge against legal uncertainty or political interference in the U.S. While DAFs do not offer the same governance control or family legacy building as private foundations, they provide agility and discretion during volatile times.

In this way, DAFs serve as both a philanthropic instrument and a strategic placeholder, allowing donors to move assets into a values-aligned jurisdiction while retaining future flexibility.

Cautionary Note

Any effort to attract foreign capital must come with clear guardrails. Canada must avoid becoming a haven for reputational laundering or unchecked elite influence. Transparency, regulatory alignment, and public interest framing must anchor any new policy.

While fast-tracking the incorporation of new Canadian foundations could position Canada as a philanthropic refuge, these entities would still need to comply with CRA's direction-and-control requirements. Unlike the U.S. model, where donor-advised funds or private foundations can grant to overseas entities with less oversight, Canadian rules demand a clear, documented chain of control. Simplifying this compliance pathway, without weakening accountability, should be central to any cross-border philanthropic strategy.

International Rumblings Beyond Canada

Canada is not alone in experiencing this moment of philanthropic repositioning. There are growing signals in the United Kingdom as well. These conversations are often quiet, discreet, and framed not just in terms of tax or regulation, but also in terms of institutional safety and alignment with democratic values. Inquiries often come from donors with international missions, such as climate, migration, human rights, or journalism, where U.S. political shifts could materially affect operations or funding pipelines.

This broader interest signals a potential rebalancing of philanthropic geography. If the U.S. philanthropic environment becomes more politically constrained, other jurisdictions may not only absorb capital but also become new centers of civil society investment and innovation.

Canada has a window to lead, not just with open arms, but with policy foresight.