House panel presses nonprofits on 'Freedom 250' donor transparency and use of federal funds

The House Natural Resources Subcommittee on [public lands] examined how private philanthropy is being used to stage parts of the national semiquincentennial, pressing nonprofit witnesses on whether a private entity called Freedom 250 is selling access, concealing donors and using taxpayer-funded awards to bankroll partisan events.

Ranking Member Jill Dexter opened the session with a charge that she said summed up the panel’s concerns: "Freedom 250 was built to do three things: sell access, hide the donors, and use proceeds to pay for propaganda that whitewashes history," she said. Dexter said the group’s published sponsor tiers list VIP packages beginning at $500,000 and up to $2.5 million for private photo opportunities with the president.

The committee’s questions centered on three areas: who pays for events and how the money is routed; whether private or foreign donors can obtain access or influence; and what role the National Park Foundation (NPF) and other congressionally chartered nonprofits are playing in holding and disbursing federal task-order funds.

"The National Park Service asked us to assist in executing events," Jeff Reinbold, president and CEO of the National Park Foundation, told the subcommittee. Reinbold said NPF is raising a separate $250 million campaign for America 250 and that, at the service’s request, NPF had set up an operating arrangement to hold federal task-order funds and disburse them under park direction. "We hold the money when the money comes to us and disperse it as they request," he said.

But members pressed on whether that flow of funds leaves room for unreported private influence. Several lawmakers cited press reports that Freedom 250 had solicited donors at Davos and that promotional materials show sponsor tiers and VIP benefits. "We need a full accounting," Tim Whitehouse of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility told the panel, adding that press reports raised questions about whether taxpayer dollars were being commingled with partisan private fundraising.

Reinbold said NPF follows its normal reporting procedures for donations and that the foundation is prepared to work with the committee on transparency for the 250th activity. He also told lawmakers that NPF does not raise money for Freedom 250 operations but has, at times, acted as a fiscal agent for federal task orders when asked by the Park Service. When asked whether donor contracts and agreements would be provided to the committee, Reinbold said such corporate agreements are not released as a matter of policy but that donations the foundation receives are reflected in its annual reporting unless a donor requests anonymity.

Several members said that policy is insufficient given the potential for foreign or corporate donors to seek access. "If foreign governments or actors can make anonymous donations that purchase VIP access, that creates a national-security and ethics risk," a member said, citing the transcript's references to solicitations and to reported sponsor packages.

NPF and other witnesses defended public-private partnerships overall, describing decades of grants for infrastructure, employee housing and trail restoration. They argued those partnerships have delivered measurable on-the-ground work and that the foundation follows federal gift rules when acting as a fiduciary. But they also acknowledged the need for clearer public accounting when federal funds and private fundraising intersect.

The subcommittee requested additional written materials and documents; members said they would expect task orders, contracts and donor agreements (where permitted by law) to be made available as part of oversight. Reinbold agreed to work with the committee on providing greater detail about contributions routed through NPF that relate to America 250 activity.

The hearing is expected to generate follow-up requests for documents and written answers to clarify what private money has been solicited, what donor benefits have been offered, and how federal task-order funds are being managed.