Skip to content
Nuclear Threat Initiative Inc at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Nuclear Threat Initiative Inc

Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to reducing nuclear, biological, and emerging technology threats imperiling humanity.

$1.7M
Granted FY2025still arriving
4
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$300k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Education$5.6MInternational$2.2MScience & Tech$1.2MPublic Benefit$309kCommunity Improvement$208kSocial Science$50kCivil Rights$25kHealth$20kOther$0
02FY2025 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 4 grants below total $644,883, the rows itemized in this filing. The $1,683,492 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $1,038,609 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k1 grant · $10k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $335k
  • $250k+1 grant · $300k
$235,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$88M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Brown University$300,000
Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey$235,000
Horizon 2045 Foundation$100,000
Brown University$9,883
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Its human-services grants (FY18–20, $363k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%Center for Global Development (CGD): $268k → 14%Center for Global Development: $65k → 14%Center for Global Development (CGD): $30k → 14%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP.

Which US states its grants reach

WA
NY
IN
NJ
RI
CA
VA
MD
DC
GA

Grants abroad, by region: $1.0M on the FY2025 return

Schedule F, as filed: 3 regions. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

East Asia and the Pacific$514k · 50% · 2 grants

Stated purpose: Support for internationalizing nuclear fail-safe reviews. · Support for the Asia Pacific Leadership Network's work on addressing security challenges in the Asia-Pacific, with a particular focus on nuclear non-proliferation, risk reduction, and disarmament.

Europe (including Iceland and Greenland)$486k · 47% · 3 grants

Stated purpose: Support for The European Leadership Network's work on addressing security challenges in Europe, with a particular focus on nuclear non-proliferation, risk reduction, and disarmament. · Support for internationalizing nuclear fail-safe reviews. · To support International Biosecurity and Biosafety Initiative for Science toward its mission to strengthen biosecurity norms and develop innovative tools to uphold them

South America$33k · 3% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: To support promoting measures to strengthen nuclear-weapon-free zones (NWFZs) and their role in the global disarmament and nonproliferation architecture in Latin America.

How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving. Grants abroad on Schedule F are filed by region, purpose and amount with no recipient name, so they are shown by region and cannot be placed on the country map or matched to a grantee.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 14% of Nuclear Threat Initiative Inc’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 26% of the giving stays in DC; by stated purpose, 22%.

Nuclear Threat Initiative Inclessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 13% directed abroad (not shown)
How this is measured
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

96%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$8.5M · 14 repeat orgs$370k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +47% since the first grant, against +28% for those funded once.

14 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2025, 12 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

14
10

Total granted

$8.5M
$370k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+47%
+28%

Still filing today

100%
70%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
InternationalEducationPublic BenefitScience & TechHuman ServicesSocial ScienceOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as new. Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.

Backed again, and grew

  • PA
    President and Fellows of Middlebury College
    9× · 2017–2025 · $4.0M · revenue +47%
  • JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
    4× · 2017–2021 · $1.0M · revenue +64%
  • TC
    THE CENTER FOR ADVANCED DEFENSE STUDIES
    2× · 2018–2020 · $1.0M · revenue +162%

Funded once

  • CF
    Center for US Global Leadershipgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $200k · revenue +28%
  • THE ASPEN INSTITUTE INCgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $50k · revenue +231%
  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND COLLEGE PARK
    one grant, 2019 · $40k
How this is measured

Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
The George Washington University

The mission of the george washington university (gw) is to educate individuals in liberal arts, languages, sciences, learned professions, and other courses and subjects of study, and to conduct scholarly research and publish the findings…

Education
2
President and Fellows of Harvard College

Undergraduate, graduate, and professional education and research across a broad array of academic domains.

Education
3
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

The mission of mit is to advance knowledge and educate students in science, technology, and other areas of scholarship that will best serve the nation and the world in the 21st century.

Education
4
Center for Strategic and International Studies

The center for strategic and international studies (csis) is a bipartisan, nonprofit policy research organization dedicated to advancing practical ideas to address the world's greatest challenges.

International
5
University of New Haven

The University of New Haven is a student-centered comprehensive university with an emphasis on excellence in liberal arts and professional education. Our mission is to prepare our students to lead purposeful and fulfilling lives in a…

Education
6
The Trustees of Princeton University

Research, education and general - princeton university is a private not-for-profit, non-sectarian institution of higher learning with approximately 5,700 undergraduate and 3,300 graduate students. 2,500 students graduated in the 2024-2025…

Education
7
Lehigh University

The university's goal in the coming decade is to advance learning through the integration of teaching, research and service to others. the core of this goal is to prepare graduates to engage with the world and lead lives of meaning. to do…

Education
8
United States Naval Institute

Provide an independent forum for those who dare to read, think, speak, and write to advance the professional, literary, and scientific understanding of sea power and other issues critical to global security.

—
9
Furman University

The primary mission of furman as a liberal arts institution is to provide a distinctive education in fine arts, humanities, social sciences, mathematics and the sciences, as well as selected professional disciplines.

Education
10
Trustees of Tufts College

Education and Research

Education
11
Golden Gate University

Golden gate university prepares individuals to lead and serve by providing high quality, practice-based educational programs in law, taxation, business and related professions - as a nonprofit institution - in an innovative and challenging…

Education
12
Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments

Conduct independent nonpartisan research on u.s. defense policy, military strategy, defense spending, and defense economic policies, disseminate the results to policymakers, public opinion leaders and other defense professionals.

Public Benefit
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Aspen Institute Inc; the most unlike its peers is University of Notre Dame du Lac. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the grantee network

26 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 26 of the 29 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
26/26
Grantees still filing
21/26
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

President and Fellows of Middlebury College: $3,972,368 · EducationPresident and Fellows of Middlebury CollegeJOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: $1,039,656 · EducationJOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITYGEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: $454,362 · EducationGEORGETOWN UNIVERSITYTHE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY: $445,000 · EducationTHE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITYTHE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK: $338,075 · Education+3 more: $157,500 · EducationTHE CENTER FOR ADVANCED DEFENSE STUDIES: $1,021,243 · InternationalTHE CENTER FOR ADVANCED …PANORAMA GLOBAL: $700,138 · InternationalPANORAMA GLOBALHERBERT SCOVILLE JR PEACE: $303,768 · InternationalHERBERT SCOVILLE JR PEAC…HORIZON 2045 FOUNDATION: $150,000 · InternationalHORIZON 2045 FOUNDATION+3 more: $51,500 · InternationalBROWN UNIVERSITY: $537,665 · Community ImprovementCENTER FOR GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT: $363,390 · Human ServicesCenter for US Global Leadership: $200,000 · Public BenefitFCNL EDUCATION FUND: $43,500 · Public BenefitGAMES FOR CHANGE INC: $12,000 · Public BenefitGEORGIA TECH RESEARCH CORPORATION: $185,000 · HealthFRIENDS COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL LEGISLATION: $70,000 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND COLLEGE PARK: $40,000 · OtherINSTITUTE OF NUCLEAR MATERIALS MANAGEMENT: $40,000 · OtherSYNBIOBETA LLC: $15,000 · OtherUS CIVILIAN RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION: $150,000 · OtherTHE ASPEN INSTITUTE INC: $50,000 · Other+2 more: $18,000 · Other
Education$6,406,961International$2,226,649Community Improvement$537,665Human Services$363,390Public Benefit$255,500Health$185,000Other$383,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetPresident and Fellows of Middlebury College: $3,972,368 over 9y, 0.2% of budgetJOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: $1,039,656 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetTHE CENTER FOR ADVANCED DEFENSE STUDIES: $1,021,243 over 2y, 7.8% of budgetPANORAMA GLOBAL: $700,138 over 3y, 0.7% of budgetBROWN UNIVERSITY: $537,665 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetGEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: $454,362 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetTHE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY: $445,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetCENTER FOR GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT: $363,390 over 3y, 1.8% of budgetTHE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK: $338,075 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetHERBERT SCOVILLE JR PEACE: $303,768 over 7y, 33% of budgetCenter for US Global Leadership: $200,000 over 1y, 1.9% of budgetGEORGIA TECH RESEARCH CORPORATION: $185,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetUS CIVILIAN RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION: $150,000 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetHORIZON 2045 FOUNDATION: $150,000 over 2y, 5.9% of budgetUniversity of Notre Dame du Lac: $90,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetFRIENDS COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL LEGISLATION: $70,000 over 2y, 1.1% of budgetTHE ASPEN INSTITUTE INC: $50,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: $50,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFCNL EDUCATION FUND: $43,500 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetINSTITUTE OF NUCLEAR MATERIALS MANAGEMENT: $40,000 over 3y, 3.6% of budgetCenter for Arms Control and: $34,000 over 3y, 0.9% of budgetGAMES FOR CHANGE INC: $12,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Carnegie Corporation …Ploughshares Fund IncSpectemur Agendo IncFoundation to Promote…New Venture FundNational Philanthropi…Vanguard Charitable E…American Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Carnegie Corporation of New YorkNY19.7× affinity7 shared granteesties to 10 of 10Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Carnegie Corporation of New York · Ploughshares Fund Inc · Spectemur Agendo Inc · Foundation to Promote Open Society · New Venture Fund · National Philanthropic Trust · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Nuclear Threat Initiative Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Nuclear Threat Initiative Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%2%6%14%25%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 12%
  • Johns Hopkins University: 12% of income from government
  • President and Fellows of Middlebury College: 1% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
1get no government money at all
4report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
typical government reliance, FY20–25
How this is measured
Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12 to 24 months.

On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 29 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

How this is measured
Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears.

Generated from the IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Nuclear Threat Initiative’s filings →

More from the funding graph

The unnamed billions
grants reported with no recipient in the public record
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
The endowment market
who holds foundation money, and what just moved
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home