Nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of nonprofit communications staff say they fear government retaliation or loss of funding for their advocacy under the new Trump administration.
That’s according to a survey of 340 nonprofit and foundation communications professionals conducted by the Communications Network from February 4 through February 10. The majority of respondents to the short online survey work at nonprofits (56 percent) and foundations (27 percent). The remaining 17 percent work in adjacent fields such as academia or nonprofit consulting.
Foundation communications staff are less worried about government retaliation, though 29 percent still expressed this concern.
Other top challenges include:
- Backlash or criticism for addressing politically sensitive issues (48 percent)
- Need for more frequent crisis communications in response to policy changes (39 percent)
- Difficulty navigating changing policy climate or legal constraints on advocacy (31 percent)
- Reduced visibility of key issues due to shifting policy priorities (29 percent)
The “flood-the-zone” strategy coming from the White House has had a chilling effect on nonprofits, said Sean Gibbons, CEO of the Communications Network, a nonprofit founded in 1979. “Many folks in the sector have had their ears blown back by the scale and velocity at which these sort of edicts are coming from the White House.”
Most organizations (65 percent) have yet to issue any public statements in response to the new administration or its actions, the survey found.
Foundations have been especially quiet on this front. Just 20 percent of foundations have issued statements related to the administration compared with four in 10 nonprofits.
Some may be waiting for strategy reasons, Gibbons said. “The minute that you chase whatever ball has gone rolling down the hallway, they’ll release another ball and you will have wasted a lot of time and effort,” he said.
Just because you don’t see a public statement doesn’t mean groups aren’t considering action, he said. “There’s a lot of conversations happening within the sector, but I don’t think that anybody is necessarily going to grab a megaphone and start a tickle fight with the White House.”
Nearly a quarter of respondents said they’re focusing on reaffirming or strengthening communications about their core mission. But it can be hard to cut through the tumultuous news cycle.
“There is very little air left in the room for messages not relating to the current crisis,” one respondent said.
More Cautious Messages
Some communicators said they are altering their external communications in the new political climate.
Sixteen percent said they have shifted the tone of public statements to be more cautious or reserved. Another 16 percent said they have decreased communication on politically sensitive issues. Still others said they are scrubbing past communications of any references to DEI and plan to apply that sensitivity going forward.
One respondent said they are “avoiding words and language related to DEI, culturally specific services, gender affirming care, and identity/ideology.”
To understand why some organizations have been caught flat-footed, Gibbons points to a similar poll conducted last October. The vast majority of respondents said their communications teams had not done any formal scenario planning related to the outcome of the election.
“A lot of folks didn’t take five minutes in the middle of last year to pause and reflect and play out the different scenarios that could potentially occur so they were prepared,” Gibbons said.
