Here's how I'd approach finding the right voices for this story, on both sides of the funding table. On the museum side, I'd prioritize social-issue museums and community-rooted institutions, and reach out to directors, COOs, chiefs of staff, heads of education, and especially development/advancement leaders (chief development officers, major gifts directors, grant writers). They're the people directly seeing whether donors are hesitating, asking for language changes, or redirecting support, and they can speak to program, staffing, and exhibit impacts with real specificity. On the corporate philanthropy side, I'd target people whose titles sit closest to giving decisions: heads of corporate philanthropy, CSR or ESG directors, corporate foundation executives, public affairs leaders, and brand risk owners who weigh reputational tradeoffs. These are the folks who can explain what has changed internally since anti-DEI pressure intensified, how they're assessing risk around social-issue museums, and whether dollars are being paused, reframed, or quietly shifted to less visible equity work. Given the sensitivity, I'd offer anonymity upfront and frame it as "background or off-the-record acceptable." The cleanest way to unlock candid answers is to ask about concrete shifts: what funders are saying, what programs got renamed or softened, what's being delayed, and how staff morale or community trust is affected. If you want, share your target geography and the kinds of museums you're focusing on (race, gender, immigration, labor, civic history, etc.), and I'll suggest a tight list of specific outreach targets in each group with the best odds of speaking.