The Obama Foundation is recruiting unpaid “ambassadors” for its new Chicago center while paying top executives substantial salaries, raising questions about priorities and fairness.

The Obama Foundation is seeking roughly 75 to 100 unpaid volunteers to staff the Obama Presidential Center when it opens in June, asking neighbors to donate their time at an $850 million campus. The center will be supported by about 300 full- and part-time employees on top of those volunteers, though the salary range for paid staff is not disclosed. At the center of this push is a CEO who has reportedly received $740,000 annually in each of the last three years on record, creating a striking contrast between unpaid labor and high executive pay.

The foundation frames volunteer recruitment with a familiar line about civic duty and community spirit. The organization even quotes President Obama on the role of volunteerism in civic life, saying exactly, “Volunteerism has been central to President Obama’s vision of civic life since his earliest days as a community organizer on Chicago’s South Side.” That language lands differently when the people asking for free work are connected to a multi-million-dollar enterprise and highly paid insiders.

Public filings referenced in reporting show the foundation’s budget and payroll growth over recent years, with total salaries and benefits rising substantially and staffing expanding into the hundreds. Annual revenue is reported at nearly $210 million, and salaries and benefits climbed from $18.5 million in 2018 to $43.7 million in 2024 while staffing grew to about 337 employees. For many readers, the math is simple to read: a wealthy nonprofit with substantial payroll and revenue is still asking for volunteers to do essential on-site work.

Valerie Jarrett, who became CEO in 2021 and is overseeing development of the 19.3-acre site in Jackson Park, is cited as receiving $740,000 per year for 2022, 2023, and 2024, according to federal filings noted in reporting. That figure invites scrutiny because it approaches levels far above typical nonprofit executive pay and well above the President of the United States’ salary. Critics argue that recruiting unpaid ambassadors while paying high executive compensation signals a mismatch of priorities.

There is nothing illegal about recruiting volunteers; many museums and civic institutions depend on them for daily operations and visitor services. But the context matters: this project is backed by a foundation with substantial revenue and a high-profile leadership team populated by former White House officials and advisors. The optics of asking local residents to work for free at the same time well-paid insiders staff and run the operation is what fuels criticism from some quarters.

The center is promoted as a major economic engine for Chicago’s South Side, with projections that sound significant on paper. The foundation highlights forecasts of $3.1 billion in economic activity over 10 years, and claims 5,000 construction jobs tied to the $850 million campus. Those headline figures come from an assessment done by a consulting firm, but long-term projections are easy to tout and hard to verify in the moment.

• $3.1 billion in economic activity over 10 years
• 5,000 construction jobs tied to the $850 million campus
• More than 50% of construction contracts were awarded to “diverse firms.”
• 33% of the construction workforce is drawn from South and West Side communities
• 798 residents enrolled in construction pre-apprenticeship programs

Behind those numbers is a simple distribution question: who benefits and who is asked to give? The foundation employs many former officials and advisors who moved from public service into high-paying roles, while local residents are being asked to serve as ambassadors, greet visitors, and help run programming without pay. That arrangement looks like a repeat of a familiar pattern where prestige and pay cluster at the top while the community supplies unpaid labor and goodwill.

The language used to sell the program is polished. Jarrett says the center will be, “A place where the world meets the best of the city of Chicago, and our volunteers will help bring that vision to life every day.” Yet critics point out the gap between the message of volunteer-driven civic uplift and the compensation being awarded to senior executives. When a nonprofit pulls in hundreds of millions and still leans on free labor for frontline roles, it raises a question about institutional values.

The Obama Presidential Center may well become a landmark and a tourist draw, and it could deliver real jobs and investment for the neighborhood. Even so, the decision to staff core visitor-facing roles with volunteers while senior leaders collect substantial pay is a choice that deserves scrutiny and debate. Communities and donors alike should understand how resources are allocated and who is being asked to shoulder the daily labor of the project.