By nfpResearch co-Managing Director, Tim Harrison-Byrne
Last year, Cian and I travelled to the United States for a series of conferences and meetings with colleagues across the nonprofit sector. On that trip, and in the months since, we have spoken with leaders working in communications, marketing, development and executive roles at both funders and delivery organisations across the country. All conversations were off the record.
This blog sets out what we heard. It is not a comprehensive diagnosis of American civil society, nor a judgement on the merits of any administration. Rather, it is a synthesis of recurring themes from people operating at the sharp end of the current climate. A second blog will examine the implications for the UK, Canadian and Irish sectors.
Silence where there should be debate
The most striking feature of public discussion in the US nonprofit sector was what was absent. At conferences, explicit references to the Trump administration’s policies are rare. Interviewees reported that criticism of federal action is almost entirely absent. Several described colleagues withdrawing from panel debates for fear of saying something that might attract negative attention.
One organisation is delaying the publication of a research report because staff are concerned that formal documentation could trigger scrutiny or harm the communities they work with. As one person put it, “It’s a serious consideration, the harm that can happen [from publishing]”, so they are exploring ways to share insights without a formal written record.
Reflecting on several conferences since the presidential inauguration, another interviewee remarked: “It’s all euphemism vis a vis what Trump is doing. It’s code talk”.
Nonprofit organisations account for roughly 5% of US GDP and employ 13 million people. Their work underpins healthcare, education, disaster relief and social services across the country. But scale does not necessarily reflect confidence or willingness to articulate challenges publicly.
Some large advocacy organisations continue to litigate and speak out forcefully. Yet among service delivery nonprofits and funders more directly dependent on federal relationships, caution appears more widespread. The tone of many sector forums has shifted.
What is generating this caution?
Our conversations pointed to three broad sources of concern: financial risk, regulatory uncertainty and reputational exposure.
Financial risk
Several interviewees referenced anxiety about federal policy affecting funding streams. These included temporary halts to federal grants and proposals to increase taxes on large foundation endowments. Even where measures were challenged or softened, the episode signalled that federal support cannot be assumed in an ecosystem where grants form a significant share of revenue.
Regulatory uncertainty
Executive orders and shifting federal priorities on diversity programmes, hiring practices and grant eligibility have introduced ambiguity about compliance and future funding. Organisations report dedicating greater leadership time to legal interpretation and risk management, diverting attention from delivery and strategy.
Reputational exposure
A pervasive theme was fear of reputational escalation. The President of the United States has always had what Theodore Roosevelt termed the “bully pulpit”. In a highly polarised and networked political culture, that amplification power is immediate and unpredictable. One interviewee reflected:
“Nobody wants to be named and shamed. Organisations are made up of humans, and humans are afraid. You just don’t know where this ends. You can look at what happens in authoritarian countries.”
This was not presented as a claim that the United States is authoritarian, but as an expression of uncertainty about boundaries. The absence of clear lines increases caution. The same interviewee described the mechanics more bluntly – even a single social media post can be amplified by partisan actors:
“You try not to write anything that puts a target on a funder’s back. Some person with a social handle can highlight something and tag someone like JD Vance, and then it escalates quickly.”
The point was not that such escalation is inevitable, but that the perceived risk alters behaviour. Research reports are reconsidered. Language is softened. Communications are filtered through a lens of reputational exposure.
In that environment, self-restraint becomes rational. The chilling effect does not require formal censorship; it operates through the anticipation of scrutiny and escalation.
How did the sector reach this point?
The US nonprofit sector is widely perceived, fairly or not, to be aligned with progressive causes. Many organisations combine service delivery with advocacy on social issues. One sector contact referenced a recent conference survey suggesting that a strong majority of nonprofit leaders believe cultural policy should be bipartisan. The same survey showed that the majority believed their organisations should be taking a stand on social justice. Our interviewee questioned the compatibility of the two views.
Some organisations are exploring cross aisle partnerships and reframing their language to appeal to a broader audience. Others question whether this is enough: a sector focused on risk management is less likely to innovate or exert leadership.
A change in electoral control at the mid-terms, some interviewees suggested, could ease public rhetoric. Yet deeper issues about perceptions of civil society and political capital are at play. If parts of the sector moderate their voice in response to informal pressure and reputational risk, what does that say about its standing in public life?
What is the sector trying to conserve?
Nonprofits in the United States remain among the most trusted institutions in public life. Our research shows that 68% of the public trust nonprofit organisations. Public trust, however, has not shielded the sector from political and reputational pressure – or given it the political capital to respond. Civil society depends not only on public trust, but on the perceived legitimacy of its role in political debate.
Through a combination of funding uncertainty, regulatory ambiguity and reputational risk, parts of the sector appear to be moderating their voice. Not through formal restriction, but through the anticipation of political and reputational consequences.
This invites a frank question. What is the sector seeking to conserve? Its funding base, its regulatory stability, its access to policymakers, or its ability to speak and act with clarity? A defensive posture may be rational in the short term, but sustained fight or flight behaviour constrains ambition and impact.
One leader from a sector body argued that the sector must depoliticise the impact of nonprofit work. Not by abandoning values, but by articulating outcomes in ways that emphasise shared goods and cross-party benefit. Whether this reframing will be sufficient remains uncertain. Much will depend on whether the sector can convert public trust into political capital and speak with clarity as well as impact.