“Michael” grossed another $26.1 million at North American theaters over the weekend, coming out ahead of “The Devil Wears Prada 2” after the sequel dominated the box office two weeks in a row.

The Michael Jackson biopic previously broke records for biggest opening for a music biopic after it grossed about $97.2 million in April.

“Michael” has now grossed over $280 million at North American theaters and $703 million worldwide.

It remains to be seen if “Michael” can keep getting viewers to theaters to challenge the record for best box office performance by any music biopic—held by the Freddie Mercury-inspired biopic “Bohemian Rhapsody” which grossed $911 million worldwide in 2018.

“Michael” has yet to open in at least one major market—Japan, where the movie is scheduled to debut in June.

Surprising Fact

“The Devil Wears Prada 2” had another big weekend, grossing about $18 million at the domestic box office. The sequel to the 2006 film starring Meryl Streep, Anne Hathaway, Emily Blunt and Stanley Tucci opened with about $77 million and grossed another $41.6 million over its second weekend in theaters, topping $175 million in North America and approaching a global gross of $550 million.

What Else Performed Well At The Box Office This Weekend?

“The Devil Wears Prada 2” took second place after leading for two weeks in a row. Third place went to “Obsession,” the Focus Features-distributed horror film that debuted on the festival circuit last year. Directed by former YouTube filmmaker Curry Barker, the film opened at 2,615 North American theaters to gross about $16 million. “Mortal Kombat II” came in fourth place with about $13.4 million for its second weekend, after opening with $38 million last weekend. “The Sheep Detectives,” a Hugh Jackman-helmed comedy distributed by Amazon MGM Studios, rounded out the top five after bringing in $9.3 million in North America.

Nonprofits are rarely included in these discussions, despite their role in how local economies actually function. They’re often framed as service providers or community supports—a characterization that is incomplete and, at times, limiting.

Nonprofits aren’t adjacent to the economy; they’re a core part of it.

Consider what defines an economic driver: job creation, capital flow, vendor relationships, and community presence. By each of these measures, nonprofits qualify.

If you want to understand how nonprofits function as economic engines, the data already exists. Fello’s 2025 Economic Impact Report offers one example—but it reflects a broader reality across the sector.

In a single year, the Maryland-based nonprofit generated $465.6 million in economic output, supported 2,602 jobs, and produced $177.9 million in labor income across the state. These figures represent real economic activity happening every day. Wages spent at local businesses. Contracts with regional vendors. Ongoing community investment.

Economic impact isn’t unique to Fello. Nonprofits across the country are generating jobs, moving capital, and sustaining local economies on a scale that's largely absent from how we define economic growth.

This is what economic impact looks like: measurable, sustained, and rooted in the places people live.

And it doesn’t stop there.

As Maryland’s largest Financial Management and Counseling Services provider, Fello administers payroll and payments for nearly 10,000 workers supporting over 3,500 people with disabilities who self-direct. That means dollars aren’t just distributed—they move. They circulate through neighborhoods, support small businesses, and contribute to local economic stability, often in ways that go unrecognized.

Yet nonprofits are still treated as secondary participants in economic development strategy. That disconnect becomes even more apparent when you look at the role nonprofits play as infrastructure.

Economic growth depends on more than buildings and businesses. It depends on systems that allow people to participate in the economy in the first place. Access to housing, workforce support, healthcare, and community connection aren’t side issues—they’re foundational infrastructure.

Nonprofits build and sustain much of that foundation. If these services disappeared tomorrow, the need wouldn’t go away. Instead, it would shift to government systems, typically at a higher cost and with less flexibility. Nonprofits, by contrast, can operate with specialization, responsiveness, and a level of adaptability that larger systems struggle to match.

They also provide something that is frequently overlooked in policy conversations: choice.

Nonprofits create options. They support people in ways that align with their needs, goals, and circumstances. That level of personalization isn’t just about quality of life—it’s about economic opportunity. When people are supported in meaningful ways, they're more likely to work, engage, and contribute to their communities.

There’s also a long-term fiscal reality to consider. Effective, community-based services reduce reliance on higher-cost interventions over time. In other words, nonprofits are not only driving economic activity—they’re helping control costs across public systems.

At the same time, they serve as powerful community anchors.

Nonprofits hire locally. They partner with neighborhood businesses. They invest in housing, services, and programs that create consistency in communities that need it most. That consistency matters—it stabilizes neighborhoods, supports local commerce, and can influence whether additional investment follows.

Unlike some sectors, nonprofits tend to stay. They build over time. They become part of the identity and function of the communities they serve.

So why are they still treated as an afterthought in economic development conversations?

Part of the answer lies in how we define economic development. For too long, it’s been framed around private-sector growth and physical infrastructure—a model that no longer reflects how modern communities function.

If the goal is to build strong, sustainable economies, then the conversation has to expand.

Nonprofits belong at the planning table—not as recipients of funding, but as strategic partners. Their insights, data, and on-the-ground experience can strengthen economic strategies and make them more responsive to real community needs.

This isn’t about redefining nonprofits. It’s about recognizing what they already do.

They create jobs.

They move dollars.

They support systems that allow economies to function.

They anchor communities in ways that attract and sustain growth.

The question is no longer whether nonprofits belong in economic development conversations. It's why they’ve been left out—and what it will take to change that.