Who still funds core costs?

It’s an understandable question. Across the sector, unrestricted funding feels harder to find than ever. Many organisations are juggling project grants, restricted contracts, and short-term opportunities while trying to cover the basic costs that keep operations running: staff salaries, rent, administration, technology, legal compliance, fundraising, and organisational development.

The past year has been particularly difficult. The withdrawal of significant U.S. foreign assistance funding hit media support organisations and independent outlets hard, prompting renewed discussion about organisational sustainability and resilience. (See the Carnegie Endowment’s analysis on the impact of the USAID withdrawal)

Yet the perception that core support has disappeared entirely is not quite accurate. The reality is more complicated. Core support still exists, but it increasingly flows through different channels, different intermediaries, and different types of funders than many organisations expect.

The changing nature of core support

Historically, a relatively small number of donors openly provided institutional support to media organisations and media development groups. These grants were often framed explicitly as organisational strengthening, sustainability, or unrestricted support.

Some of those opportunities still exist. However, many traditional media funders are under pressure themselves. Budgets have become more constrained, funding cycles shorter, and reporting requirements more demanding. At the same time, crises in Ukraine, Afghanistan, Myanmar, Sudan, Gaza, and elsewhere have increased demand for emergency and resilience funding.

As a result, many donors now prefer funding specific programmes, thematic initiatives, or strategic priorities rather than providing unrestricted institutional grants. This has led some organisations to conclude that core support is no longer available. That conclusion may be premature.

Looking beyond “media funders”

One of the biggest shifts in recent years is that organisations providing meaningful institutional support often do not identify themselves primarily as media funders.

Democracy, governance, climate, human rights, technology, and civic participation funders increasingly recognise that strong independent media are essential to achieving their broader goals. From their perspective, journalism is not necessarily the end goal. It is part of the infrastructure that supports accountability, transparency, public participation, or informed decision-making.

This changes how funding is framed. A climate foundation may support newsroom capacity because it wants stronger public understanding of climate policy. A governance funder may support investigative reporting because it contributes to accountability and anti-corruption efforts. A digital rights organisation may invest in media resilience because it strengthens information integrity and democratic participation. In each case, organisational support may be available, even if it is not labelled as “core funding for journalism.”

The same pattern is visible in climate philanthropy, where support for journalism is often embedded within wider climate, governance, and communications strategies rather than presented as dedicated media funding. (See Bottom Line, Sept. 2025)

Where core support is still found

Today, institutional support tends to emerge through several pathways:

• Philanthropic foundations: Some private foundations continue to provide organisational support, particularly when they view media as part of a broader ecosystem. Rather than funding individual stories or projects, these funders may invest in leadership, organisational resilience, audience development, strategic planning, technology upgrades, or long-term sustainability. Such opportunities are often relationship-based and may not appear as open calls.
• Intermediaries and pooled funds: Increasingly, funding reaches media organisations through specialised intermediaries. These organisations receive support from multiple donors and then redistribute funding through grants, accelerator programmes, capacity-strengthening initiatives, or tailored organisational support. For smaller organisations, these intermediaries may provide more accessible entry points than approaching large foundations directly.

As we explored in our recent article on funding ecosystems in Latin America and the Caribbean, understanding how funding flows through intermediaries and regional networks is often just as important as identifying individual donors. (See Bottom Line, Feb. 2026)

• Regional philanthropy: In many parts of the world, funding ecosystems are becoming more diverse and locally rooted. Latin America, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East all contain growing networks of regional foundations, local philanthropies, intermediary organisations, and ecosystem actors that operate differently from traditional European and North American donors. While these actors vary significantly by region, they often place greater emphasis on long-term partnerships, local legitimacy, ecosystem development, and regional knowledge than on short-term project delivery.
• Crisis and resilience mechanisms: The expansion of support for media operating in crisis, conflict, or exile has also created new forms of institutional funding. While originally designed as emergency assistance, some of these mechanisms increasingly recognise that sustainability challenges extend far beyond the initial crisis. Organisational resilience, staffing, security, and operational continuity are becoming legitimate funding priorities.

What funders want to see

Even when funding is flexible, donors rarely support organisations simply because they need money.The organisations that succeed are usually able to demonstrate three things:

1. A clear purpose. Funders want to understand why the organisation exists and what unique role it plays within its ecosystem.
2. Evidence of value. This does not necessarily mean sophisticated impact measurement. It means demonstrating relevance, contribution, and credibility.
3. A realistic sustainability strategy. Donors increasingly look for organisations that are actively building multiple revenue streams rather than relying entirely on grant funding.

Importantly, sustainability does not mean becoming grant-free. It means reducing vulnerability and improving resilience over time.

Examples in practice

A few organisations show how institutional support increasingly reaches the media through indirect or non-traditional routes.

The JX Fund has become an important source of support for exiled and independent media operating in difficult environments. While much of its funding is tied to specific objectives, its approach reflects a growing recognition that organisations cannot deliver public-interest journalism without investing in staff, management, security, and resilience. For smaller organisations, intermediaries like this can offer more accessible entry points than approaching large foundations directly.

Africa No Filter shows how a funder need not present itself as a media donor at all. Rather than positioning itself primarily as a journalism funder, it focuses on narrative change and representation across the African continent – yet many of its grants and partnerships contribute directly to strengthening media organisations, journalists, and content creators working to reshape public discourse.

A practical shift in thinking

The search for core support often starts with the wrong question. Instead of asking “Who funds core costs?”, it may be more useful to ask: “Which funders need organisations like ours to succeed?” 

The answer often leads beyond the relatively small circle of traditional media donors and into wider ecosystems focused on democracy, accountability, climate, technology, human rights, or civic participation.

Core support has not disappeared. But it is becoming less visible, more relationship-driven, and increasingly embedded within larger funding ecosystems. Finding it increasingly requires understanding how those ecosystems operate, where media fits within broader social goals, and which actors are investing in the long-term health of those ecosystems.

Understanding funding ecosystems may therefore be just as important as identifying individual grant opportunities. For organisations willing to look beyond the obvious, opportunities still exist.