A long exposure of a young Black woman moving her hand to obscure her face, symbolizing the erasure of diverse communities from the language of many nonprofits.
Credit: Photo by Jay Soundo on Unsplash

Nonprofits are reeling, with many reporting fear of government reprisal and/or public or private backlash for “addressing politically sensitive issues.” Some have even started “scrubbing” their public presences of “controversial” language, like references to diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA).

This fear is having a chilling effect on organizations when it comes to public pushback against the Trump administration’s recent onslaught of attacks on nonprofits and NGOs.

Those are among the bleak findings of a recent “pulse” survey by The Communications Network, a professional association for communications leaders in the “social good sector,” including nonprofits and foundations.

This latest pulse survey, the fifth since just before the 2024 election, was conducted in early February amid a series of maneuvers by the Trump administration that have thrown the nonprofit sector into chaos: an attempted freezing of all federal grants and loans and memoranda calling for the “review” and de-funding of any organization that doesn’t support “the national interest,” a phrase as ambiguously-defined as it sounds.

Nonprofits are reeling, with many reporting fear of government reprisal and/or public or private backlash for “addressing politically sensitive issues.”

The survey’s findings paint a portrait of progressive organizations—nonprofits, in particular—operating within a climate of fear, uncertainty, and caution, as organizations show little appetite to speak out against the White House measures on the one hand and, on the other, are in some cases frantically modifying their own public presence to avoid lash-back.

The findings backup recent reporting by NPQ that found nonprofits “self-censoring” in response to perceived or anticipated pressure over controversial stances.

“If you take [those] findings together, I think it’s suggestive there’s fear of retribution,” Sean Gibbons, CEO of The Communications Network, told NPQ. “There’s been what I call this chilling effect.”

A Chilling Effect 

This “chilling effect” appears to be evident in a reluctance on the part of progressive organizations, and nonprofits in particular, to speak out against recent White House measures—and foundations doubly so—even as those measures threaten to severely disrupt, curtail or even decimate some of those very organizations.

The reluctance to speak out stands in stark contrast, Gibbons notes, to President Trump’s first inauguration in 2017, when progressive organizations quickly mobilized to voice opposition to his administration’s agenda. Throughout his first presidency, they continued to speak out publicly through such momentous events as the 2020 murder of George Floyd and the January 6 attack on the US Capitol.

“There’s fear of retribution.”

“I think there’s a component of the politics of the moment [that] are different,” Gibbons told NPQ. “Some of these organizations probably feel these [national] election results were a rebuke.”

According to the pulse survey:

  • “Most social sector orgs have not issued any public statements in response to recent activities and actions by the new Presidential administration.”
  • “Fear of government retaliation a widespread concern.”
  • “Public statements in response to government actions have been relatively rare, especially among private foundations.”
  • “Commitments to mission, tone shifts, and political sensitivity are anchoring communications now.”

When asked to cite their “biggest communication challenges” in responding to the recent policy shifts, responding organizations cited the following:

  • “Fear of government retaliation or loss of funding for advocacy (55%)”
  • “Fear of backlash or criticism for addressing politically sensitive issues (48%)”
  • “Need for more frequent crisis communication in response to policy (39%)”

The findings, notes Gibbons, show the extent to which a White House strategy of “flooding the zone,” a phrase associated with conservative advisor Steve Bannon, has already succeeded in seeding doubt, second-guessing, and, in some cases, seeming preemptive capitulation among nonprofits.

“A lot of folks are actually suddenly turning inwards and saying, ‘Do I need to rework that web page, scrub that land, whatever it might be?’” says Gibbons. “Do we need to shift the way we’re talking about things? Do we need to maybe make some…functional adjustments to actual practical adjustments, like our website says we’re doing DIY, or do we need to take that down?”

Some Caught Unprepared

This latest survey—and the pulse surveys that preceded it—also indicate that many nonprofits were unprepared for the events unfolding since Trump’s inauguration, even though polls had indicated the strong possibility of a Trump victory long before the November election.

“We did a survey back last October and asked people, ‘How many of you are doing scenario planning for whatever might occur after the election?’ What we heard…was most folks across the sector, foundations, and nonprofits simply weren’t doing that,” says Gibbons.

Many nonprofits were unprepared for the events unfolding since Trump’s inauguration.

Gibbons’ own observation is that nonprofits preparing for political lash-back against progressive organizations and values ahead of the 2024 election have fared better since Trump took office.

“It does speak to this idea that if you’re prepared for this, you probably are a little bit better equipped to manage this moment,” says Gibbons.

But the fight is far from over.

Gibbons points out that there are positive, proactive steps organizations can take to begin to protect themselves, their missions, and their values.

“What you’re seeing is a classic flood-the-zone communication strategy….It’s happening at a historic scale,” Gibbons says, “and there are counters to flood-the-zone strategy.”

Many organizations are already fighting back, notes Gibbons. Earlier this February, a coalition of nonprofit groups sued the Trump administration over the proposed federal funding freeze, winning one of several injunctions issued against the order.

More recently, another group of nonprofits sued the Trump administration, arguing that White House attacks on nonprofits who embrace DEI and other progressive values amount to an infringement of those organizations’ First Amendment rights.

“I do think it’s probably going to shift,” adds Gibbons about the reluctance so far by many nonprofits to speak out. “People are starting to talk to their lawyers and starting to figure out where are the lines.”