Mark Zuckerberg has quietly walked away from one of his longest philanthropic commitments.
According to Fortune, the Meta CEO and his wife, Priscilla Chan, have ended their decade-long funding of FWD, the pro-immigration advocacy group they helped build from the ground up.
The decision leaves MacKenzie Scott as the sole billionaire champion of equity-driven causes at a time when the Trump administration has made its opposition to DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) policies clear.
While Zuckerberg pivots billions toward AI and science, Scott continues writing unrestricted cheques to organisations supporting underrepresented communities. Two very different visions of what billionaire philanthropy should look like.
Zuckerberg Ditches Immigration Causes for AI
In 2013, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (CZI) invested hundreds of millions of dollars into FWD. This helped the organisation drive causes to push immigration and criminal justice reform. This is a move unheard of in Silicon Valley, but it's not without end.
Experts say they anticipated the move for years when CZI slowly pivoted away from social advocacy. In the same year, they provided 'foundational' funding to FWD so that it could make adjustments before the partnership ended. Fast forward to April 2025, and the collaboration between the two quietly ended.
Without support from CZI, by Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan, FWD loses one of its most prominent financial backers. The timing for Zuckerberg was ideal, since he's been recalibrating towards Trump's ideologies since his win. Meta even eased some of its platform content rules after criticisms from conservatives.
Zuckerberg still supports other philanthropic causes, including grants in education policy. But with the Trump admin's crackdown on immigration, their support for FWD would've been a statement.
This time, CZI is focusing on a research lab. AI is booming, and while Meta is already leaps away from other tech companies, it has to keep up every chance it gets. Shortly after the partnership ended, the pair announced that CZI is pouring efforts into science and AI. They will also revisit the Biohub, an AI-powered biology they've been funding since 2016.
Scott Champions DEI Despite Trump Policy
The same story can't be said about Scott, who is moving away from Zuckerberg's current direction.
The current US Trump administration showed disdain for DEI, removing policies that supported it on the day Trump assumed office. Corporations and campuses, in fear of going against the government, have started backing away from it. But not, Scott.
In 2025 alone, the ex-wife of Amazon founder Bezos donated £5.2bn ($7.1bn), bringing her total financial giving to £19bn ($26bn) since 2019. Her commitment heavily focuses on Black and tribal colleges and universities, Native scholarships, and low-income and underrepresented students.
Unlike Zuckerberg, Scott gives out unrestricted checks without government involvement. She's also a fan of repeat funding for organisations that focus on equity, which helps close gaps in opportunities.
Zuckerberg vs Scott's Philanthropy
Zuckerberg's new direction for ditching FWD is still heroic, as it helps push breakthrough discoveries in ways technology can advance in biology, such as detecting and treating diseases. This still benefits society at scale, while he's still in Trump's favour.
But experts believe Scott's grants are far more impactful because they outsize government checks given to support Americans. Serving communities regardless of their colour, where they came from, size, etc., is much more beneficial to society, as it allows them to find where they thrive. Without these people, Zuckerberg and other billionaires' AI funding will go to waste, as actual people will not make these tools smarter.
What This Shift Means for Philanthropy and Politics
Zuckerberg's exit from immigration advocacy removes a significant voice from the conversation. FWD must now find new backers or scale back its ambitions.
Scott's continued giving offers a counterweight, though her approach deliberately avoids the political spotlight. She rarely speaks publicly about her donations, preferring to let the work speak for itself.
For observers watching how billionaires navigate an increasingly polarised landscape, these two paths offer a study in contrasts. One has chosen alignment with prevailing political winds. The other has decided to push against them.
Originally published on IBTimes UK
