Understanding Recent Changes to Federal Grant Requirements and What They Mean for Nonprofits

Recent developments in federal grant policy are raising serious concerns for nonprofit organizations; particularly those that provide inclusive, trauma-informed care to marginalized communities. At the center of the issue are new federal directives that tie funding to ideological compliance, placing nonprofits in the position of either self-censoring their work or risking the loss of essential support.

A legal challenge to these changes is currently underway. In a recent case brought by a coalition of LGBTQ+ health and service providers, a federal judge in California temporarily blocked the enforcement of certain executive orders from the Trump administration that restrict the ability of grantees to affirm diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) principles or acknowledge the existence of transgender people. The court found that these new grant conditions are likely unconstitutional, citing violations of free speech and equal protection. While this ruling is a significant moment for advocacy, it is only a temporary safeguard, and the litigation is ongoing.

In the meantime, the effects of these policies are already being felt; in particular through new requirements imposed by the Department of Justice’s Office on Violence Against Women (OVW). OVW, which distributes vital funding to organizations serving survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and human trafficking, is now asking grantees to sign an updated letter of certification. This letter affirms that recipients do not “inculcate or promote gender ideology,” and do not frame domestic violence or sexual assault as systemic social issues.

These terms. particularly “gender ideology” are not clearly defined in law or regulation. There has been no substantive guidance issued to help nonprofits understand what activities or language might be considered noncompliant. As a result, organizations are left to guess what content could trigger enforcement. Could affirming a trans survivor’s identity violate the rules? Could using gender-inclusive language in a shelter brochure be seen as “promoting gender ideology”? Could trainings on the intersection of race, poverty, and violence be construed as impermissible social justice framing?

Without clear definitions or examples, nonprofits feel immense pressure to overcorrect; to preemptively remove inclusive language, modify program models, and cancel DEI-related initiatives, simply to avoid the appearance of noncompliance. This chilling effect undermines decades of progress in survivor-centered, culturally competent care. Many grantees report that they feel they have no real choice but to sign the certification letter. The funding at stake often supports essential, life-saving services. Declining to sign could mean program closures, staff layoffs, and vulnerable survivors being turned away. The choice is to comply with an ideologically driven directive, or lose the resources your organization, and your community depend on.

The second clause in the certification deepens the dilemma by prohibiting grantees from framing domestic violence or sexual assault as systemic social justice issues. This language flies in the face of long-standing research and field practice, which acknowledge that gender-based violence cannot be fully addressed without examining the social and structural conditions that make some communities more vulnerable than others.

This is more than a regulatory issue, it is a fundamental challenge to the mission integrity of service providers across the country. The executive branch cannot override Congress by weaponizing federal funds to suppress speech or force conformity to a narrow ideological perspective. And yet, the reality for many nonprofits is a stark one: either dilute the work to fit shifting political expectations or risk losing the ability to serve.

While the recent court ruling offers a temporary reprieve, the broader threat remains. These new requirements shift the federal funding landscape away from community-informed, evidence-based approaches, and toward political litmus tests. Nonprofits must stay vigilant. Those who support their work must speak out about what’s happening; not only to defend constitutional rights, but to protect the dignity and safety of those they serve.