How did George Soros’s transfer of $18 billion to OSF in 2017 change the foundation’s operations and grantmaking?
Executive summary
George Soros’s transfer of roughly $18 billion into the Open Society Foundations (OSF) in 2017 transformed the organization from a well‑funded activist grantmaker into one of the world’s largest private foundations by assets, while initially not promising an immediate surge in new grant commitments; OSF’s leaders framed the transfer as securing the foundation’s long‑term capacity to fund its work [1] [2] [3]. The infusion changed governance and investment arrangements and—over the subsequent years—enabled both a temporary expansion in spending and later operational restructuring that reshaped how and where OSF dispensed grants [1] [4] [5].
1. Scale and institutional security: an asset shock that guaranteed OSF’s future
The $18 billion move made OSF one of the largest foundations globally and the second‑largest in the United States by asset size, a shift noted in contemporaneous reporting that framed the transfer as part of Soros’s estate planning to fund the foundation’s future work [1] [6] [3]. Foundation officials told the New York Times and Wall Street Journal that Soros had been steadily increasing gifts and that OSF already spent around $800–$900 million annually—so the transfer was presented publicly as a way to lock in OSF’s mission over time rather than to underwrite an immediate spending surge [2] [1] [6].
2. Investment and governance changes: integrating philanthropy with professional asset management
The transfer did not leave OSF’s money idle: assets remained under the influence of Soros’s investment apparatus, and Soros moved to share investment decision‑making with OSF’s investment committee; OSF’s new chief investment officer was positioned to report to the foundation’s investment committee, signaling a firmer institutional hand in managing endowment returns [1] [2]. That alignment promised to preserve purchasing power and fund programs over decades, at the cost of tighter central control of financial strategy inside the sprawling OSF network [1] [2].
3. Grantmaking: no immediate “big bump,” then a measurable spending surge and volatility
Both OSF and analysts warned that the gift would not translate into an immediate dramatic expansion in grants, but the foundation’s capacity did grow and annual global grant spending rose substantially in the years after 2017—Alliance magazine reports an increase from roughly $777 million in 2016 to $1.7 billion in 2019—showing that the endowment enabled accelerated disbursement when leadership chose to mobilize resources [7] [4]. That uptick was not a straight line: reported spending fell to $1.3 billion by 2022 amid later restructuring and then stabilised, indicating that asset size afforded flexibility but did not dictate a fixed grant trajectory [4].
4. Operational reconfiguration: consolidation, office closures and staff reductions
A multi‑year consequence of reorganising around a larger endowment was a later “new operating model” under different leadership that entailed significant layoffs, country‑office closures and a contraction of OSF’s decentralised footprint—moves critics say left longtime grantees exposed and supporters say were necessary to adapt to changing contexts and preserve core capabilities [5] [4]. Reporting indicates that after leadership transition in 2023, at least 40 percent of international staff were cut and a dozen country offices closed, demonstrating that huge endowments do not prevent hard choices about structure and priorities [5] [4].
5. Politics, perception and competing narratives
The transfer intensified scrutiny and politicised perceptions: allies hailed the move as cementing pro‑democracy philanthropy’s reach (a Ford Foundation leader praised OSF’s global impact), while critics and watchdogs framed the enlarged foundation as an engine of ideological influence and questioned its political advocacy and grant networks—arguments highlighted by InfluenceWatch and the Capital Research Center as counterpoints to OSF’s self‑description [2] [8] [9]. OSF’s own statements emphasised funding “the future work of the Foundations,” but external actors continue to read the scale of the gift as both power and a target [3] [10].
Conclusion: a larger foundation, but not a single predictable outcome
The $18 billion transfer guaranteed OSF unprecedented financial heft and reshaped governance and investment relations while enabling episodic increases in grantmaking; yet it also precipitated later operational consolidation and intensified political contestation, showing that scaling assets changes strategic options more than it prescribes a single path for grants or programs [1] [4] [5]. Reporting limits make clear that some effects—internal deliberations over priorities, the precise timeline of grant shifts, and the long‑term impact of restructuring—remain matters for further documentation rather than definitive public record [9] [4].