How do Trump's charitable giving patterns compare to other US presidents and wealthy businessmen?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Donald Trump’s recent tax law, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), changes incentives for charitable giving by creating a $1,000/$2,000 deduction for non‑itemizers beginning in 2026 while imposing a 0.5% of AGI floor and a 35% cap on the value of itemized charitable deductions for high earners starting in 2026 — provisions that experts say will likely push wealthy donors to “bunch” gifts into 2025 and could reduce the marginal tax benefit of large gifts after 2025 [1] [2] [3]. Historical performance and reporting on Trump’s personal giving (and his defunct Trump Foundation) and broader philanthropic trends show a complex picture: aggregate U.S. giving rose to $392.45 billion in 2024, but giving behavior responds to tax rules and estate incentives [4] [5] [6].
1. Tax law rewrites the incentives — and timing — for donations
The OBBBA signed by President Trump creates a permanent above‑the‑line charitable deduction for non‑itemizers of up to $1,000 for single filers and $2,000 for joint filers beginning in 2026, while simultaneously instituting a 0.5% of AGI floor and a cap on the value of itemized charitable deductions for high earners after 2025 [1] [2] [3]. Tax analysts and nonprofits say those changes create a “bridge year” in 2025: donors who can itemize have an incentive to front‑load or “bunch” gifts into 2025 to claim the larger, uncapped benefit, while smaller donors who don’t itemize may benefit from the new small universal deduction in future years [4] [7] [8].
2. Wealthy donors face a smaller marginal tax break beginning in 2026
Several outlets and tax think tanks note that for very high earners the deduction value is effectively limited after 2025 — advisers point out an effective 35% cap on deduction value and an itemizer floor that reduces the deductible portion of giving for high AGI taxpayers [7] [3]. Wealth managers recommend donor‑advised funds (DAFs) and bunching strategies to preserve the full pre‑2026 tax benefit, while policy analysts warn the new rules could reduce large gifts because the estate‑and‑gift incentives were also altered by prior TCJA changes that OBBBA largely makes permanent [9] [5].
3. Middle‑class and small donors: a modest new incentive with uncertain impact
The $1,000/$2,000 deduction for non‑itemizers is intended to broaden the tax benefit to the large share of Americans who do not itemize — roughly 90% under current IRS data — but scholars caution its behavioral impact may be limited. Historical precedents (1980s provisions and a temporary $300 write‑off in 2020) produced small or mixed upticks in giving, and several experts quoted in reporting expect modest effects from this permanent, but relatively small, incentive [10] [11] [1].
4. Aggregate giving is growing, but composition is changing
Giving USA and other data cited by news outlets place U.S. individual giving at roughly $392.45 billion in 2024, showing long‑term growth in dollars even as the share of giving by very wealthy donors has become more important and the number of returns claiming charitable deductions fell after the 2017 TCJA [4] [5]. Policy analysts say OBBBA’s mix of incentives — new small universal break but harsher limits for large itemizers — may shift the composition of support toward donor‑advised funds and concentrated gifts timed to exploit pre‑2026 rules [8] [7].
5. How Trump’s personal giving compares to presidents and businessmen — what the sources cover (and don’t)
Reporting and investigative records about the Donald J. Trump Foundation document controversies, questioned practices, and limited personal contributions in some years; the foundation’s history and lists of grants are well reported, including conservation easements and in‑kind donations such as golf rounds — but the provided sources do not offer a systematic, apples‑to‑apples comparison of Trump’s personal lifetime giving versus other U.S. presidents or wealthy businessmen in per‑dollar or percentage terms [6] [12]. Available sources do not mention a direct ranked comparison between Trump and other presidents/CEOs in total dollars given or percentage of wealth donated.
6. Competing explanations and hidden incentives
Experts and nonprofits give competing takes: some say the non‑itemizer deduction could modestly increase small donations and broaden donor pools, while others argue it mainly rewards people who would have given anyway and that the reduction in tax benefits for large donors will lower major philanthropic gifts [10] [11]. Philanthropy advisors and DAF promoters have a clear incentive to recommend front‑loading gifts into DAFs this year — that advice benefits intermediaries and preserves tax advantages for donors [7] [9].
7. Bottom line for readers deciding how to give
If you are a high‑net‑worth donor, advisers quoted in the coverage recommend converting multi‑year giving into 2025 deductible gifts (via DAFs or direct contributions) to capture full pre‑2026 benefits; if you are a typical non‑itemizer, a small permanent deduction will exist after 2025 but historical evidence suggests the boost to aggregate donations may be limited [9] [10] [4]. For comparisons of individuals’ philanthropy across presidents and wealthy businessmen, available sources do not provide comprehensive, comparable figures — you would need targeted investigative or tax‑return data beyond the materials cited here [6].