Nonprofits Self-Censoring in Wake of Trump Actions

As the Trump administration takes steps to freeze federal funding to untold numbers of nonprofits and NGOs, some organizations that receive federal grants are scrambling to protect themselves by self-censoring.

In some cases, organizations have been ordered to change language on their websites or other public-facing materials; but in other cases, organizations appear to be preemptively scraping their websites, social media, and other communications of language that might provoke the Trump administration’s wrath.

Some nonprofits have chosen self-censorship.

The administration has signaled its intention to defund diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA); climate change and environmental justice; “gender ideology extremism”; “Marxist equity, transgenderism, and green new deal social engineering policies”; and more.

In response, some nonprofits have chosen self-censorship as at least a hoped-for measure of protection. On their own initiative, and in at least some cases in the absence of explicit directives, they have been rushing to comply with the Trump administration’s harmful and, possibly, unconstitutional orders.

While it’s unclear to what extent such self-censoring measures are widespread, multiple sources from the field tell NPQ the examples are more than isolated incidents.

“We are seeing it for sure,” said Geoff Green, CEO of CalNonprofits, an umbrella advocacy group for California nonprofits, which has been surveying its thousands of members about the impacts of recent Trump administration maneuvers. He added, “I don’t think it’s a majority of organizations.” Green said that most “organizations that are confident in what they do and why they do it, they’re not scrubbing their websites.”

The impulse of nonprofits to rephrase, erase, and otherwise purge their materials is understandable, acknowledges Green. “If an organization is feeling particularly vulnerable and they believe that they can rephrase their own work in a way that’s got integrity, we say, great, do that.”

But the fact that even some nonprofits are preemptively taking down content that might put them in bad standing with the Trump administration should be of concern to the entire sector.

“Cowing to that pressure is problematic,” said Green.

The decision, facing countless nonprofits, of whether and/or how to take preemptive action to protect themselves in the wake of recent developments is not one that an organization should take lightly, says Gene Takagi, principal attorney for the Neo Law Group, and a board member of NPQ.

“What is right for one organization may not be what is right for another.”

“Whether or not an organization should scrub its websites, change its activities, or take other actions in response to the federal government’s hostile takes on matters like DEI and environmental justice is a matter that should be decided upon by the organization’s leadership,” said Takagi. “Ultimately, they will need to decide what is best for the organization based on its particular circumstances. What is right for one organization may not be what is right for another.”

“That said, an organization’s leaders should take care in making decisions that have significant impact on their organization’s mission, values, beneficiaries, and ecosystem,” Takagi added. “This necessitates them obtaining and relying on accurate and reliable information, including about the applicable laws.”

Self-Censorship by Nonprofits

Evidence of widespread self-censorship has been mounting.

As reported by The 19th, in recent weeks organizations that support victims of domestic and intimate partner violence have been editing or deleting websites and other public resources to eliminate language the Trump administration might find objectionable.

Nevertheless, on February 6, the Department of Justice froze all discretionary funding opportunities for the upcoming fiscal year from the Office on Violence against Women. These funds would have been used to prevent the abuse of older adults, support law enforcement to prosecute cybercrimes and domestic abuse, and help victims get out of abusive relationships—among myriad other services related to gender-based violence.

This week, NPR reported that, under the advice of legal counsel, PBS has closed its DEI office “to best ensure we are in compliance” with Trump’s executive orders. The noncommercial public broadcaster also let go of two female executives who led its diversity efforts.

NPQ found that the PBS webpage on diversity, equity, and inclusion has been removed and now redirects to a generic “About PBS” webpage. The DEI webpage was available as recently as January 15, 2025, when it was last captured by the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine. The broadcaster’s most recent DEI report was also no longer available on the PBS website.

And there are other signs of organizations changing course suddenly. On February 10, the National Endowment of the Arts changed its federal grants requirements, so that recipients must comply with “all applicable Executive Orders,” current and future. The NEA specifically called out recent presidential orders on “restoring merit-based opportunity” and prohibiting programs that promote “gender ideology” and diversity, equity, and inclusion. The NEA also updated its Grants for Arts Projects (GAP) application guidelines, canceling its Challenge America grant program that funds arts in underserved communities and adding a new emphasis on projects “honoring the semiquincentennial of the United States of America (America250).”

Not all organizations intend to comply with the NEA’s new requirements. In a statement posted to Facebook, Tupelo Press, a nonprofit literary publisher, said it would not change its mission because of the NEA’s “appalling” demands, adding: “If our adherence to our principles means that we will be ineligible for NEA grants going forward, so be it. Compliance with the new regulations would be immoral.”

In some cases, organizations are being explicitly ordered to remove “banned” language, including mentions of vulnerable and marginalized people and groups, from their websites and public documents.

Last week, the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) was ordered by the Department of Justice to remove transgender children and other LGBTQ+ youth from its public-facing materials or lose its significant federal funding. As first reported by independent journalist Marisa Kabas, and later confirmed by NBC News, leadership at NCMEC complied, directing staff to erase LGBTQ+ children from its website and publications.

The Trump administration put NCMEC into a difficult position with this fiscal ultimatum. But NCMEC’s compliance and silence (the latter until a whistleblower leaked the news) have raised concerns, including accusations of previously being unwilling to speak up for trans children. An anonymous staffer told Kabas:

Rather than fight back, we chose to sacrifice trans children on the altar named “funding.” If we are willing to capitulate to this, then the logical question must be asked: Who’s next?

Anticipatory Obedience

Scholars of history and politics have long worried about the potential for civil society to yield authority to powerful or dictatorial leaders.

Such behaviors have been called “anticipatory obedience” by history professor Timothy Snyder in his book, On Tyranny, who writes:

Do not obey in advance. Most of the power of authoritarianism is freely given. In times like these, individuals think ahead about what a more repressive government will want, and then offer themselves without being asked. A citizen who adapts in this way is teaching power what it can do.

Obeying in advance is a “political tragedy,” Snyder contends, in which the “first heedless acts of conformity” show those in power they can “move quickly toward a full regime change.”

Indeed, it remains unclear whether the Trump administration’s various orders are legally enforceable. Executive orders are not law. Essentially, they are instructions to federal agencies on how the president wants policies to be interpreted and implemented. Executive orders must comply with the Constitution and laws passed by Congress, and cannot on their own overturn other laws.

As CalNonprofit’s Geoff Green told NPQ, editing materials may seem like the answer to preserve funding, but in the long run, it’s a “losing battle.”

“We need to fight it at a principle level, not a jargon level,” he said.

Nonprofit Sector Targeted

The nonprofit sector is already facing unprecedented strikes on multiple fronts from the Trump administration.

“The administration will continue to target nonprofits, civil society, and community-based work in this way. And so, we need to be ready.”

In January, the White House Office of Management and Budget ordered the freezing of all federal grants, loans, and other financial assistance, amounting to an estimated $3 trillion, including funds already appropriated by Congress and contractually obligated to US nonprofits.

A pair of lawsuits were filed, including one by the National Council of Nonprofits, Democracy Forward, and other groups. While the OMB rescinded the memo, concurrent statements by the White House press secretary indicated the freeze was still “in full force and effect.” The plaintiffs succeeded in securing temporary restraining orders against the freeze, yet many organizations remain unable to access federal funds, sector leaders confirm.

Last week, the White House issued yet another memo ordering the defunding of any nonprofits or NGOs that “undermine the national interest.” This week, a federal judge found that the government was indeed still illegally freezing federal funds in violation of the restraining orders.

These efforts are part of an intentional attack on the foundations of civil society and the nonprofit sector, according to CalNonprofit’s Geoff Green.

“This wasn’t an accident…that the nonprofit sector got drawn into a bigger fight. This was an absolute, clear target,” said Green. “The administration will continue to target nonprofits, civil society, and community-based work in this way. And so, we need to be ready.”

Follow Lauren Girardin @girardinl.bsky.social.

NPQ Leadership Editor Isaiah Thompson contributed reporting to this article. Follow Isaiah @isaiahthompson.bsky.social.