Just over a week from Election Day, the 10% of the American workforce who are employed by nearly 2 million nonprofits face political uncertainty that could dramatically alter their job security and reshape their organizations’ operations, advocacy efforts, programs, and funding. For a subset of these organizations focused on civil liberties, human rights, social justice, and environmental protection, this uncertainty comes at an already perilous moment.
Though separate from the government, their civil society and social-services-oriented roles are deeply interconnected and interdependent with it. As such, the outcomes of political shifts will undoubtedly ripple through their ability to serve communities in need.
Innovative social entrepreneurships, on the other hand, are facing challenges of their own. After years of defending everything from environmental sustainability and racial diversity to ethical investments and the freedom to peacefully protest, they find themselves increasingly hamstrung by a climate of even more polarized consumers and a hostile legislative and judicial landscape at both federal and state levels. From threats to ESG and DEI/B to heavily publicized congressional hearings, Pride Month blowbacks, and TikTok boycotts, there has been a shift from the smooth sailing days of the mid-aughts into decidedly choppier waters.
Regardless of the election outcome, whether these organizations are prepared to respond to the new political environment and administration will determine their ability to continue fulfilling their mission and engaging their customers or clients. Sadly, it’s no longer hyperbolic to say that this preparation may ultimately determine whether they continue to exist at all.
What risks, threats, or changes are looming? To start, if Donald Trump were to return to the Oval Office, that would likely trigger major policy changes, forcing many nonprofits and impact-driven startups to pivot their strategies. Results would vary by issue areas and focus of work, but many organizations would immediately feel a heightened sense of urgency and need around their services or programs, especially in the legal, direct services, and program advocacy spaces.
New or midsize nonprofits will struggle to weather the storm, as they may lack the financial reserves or diversified funding streams necessary to adapt quickly. These organizations could also face challenges in scaling up their operations to meet surging demand while simultaneously navigating an unpredictable regulatory environment that may reduce access to government grants or other forms of support. It isn’t just upstarts at risk; in 2024, the National Foundation for Transplants closed after more than 40 years of operations, citing decreased funding and unsustainable demands. As a result, many patients lost access to funds that had been raised for their own transplants in the process.
During the previous Trump administration, organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union had to constantly defend civil liberties and hard-won legal protections. The ACLU famously took legal action against the administration’s travel ban targeting Muslim-majority countries, arguing that it violated constitutional protections against religious discrimination. It also fought back against the separation of families at the U.S.-Mexico border, a policy that sparked national outrage and led to numerous lawsuits aimed at reuniting children with their parents.
If similar policies return, nonprofits will need to reallocate resources to protect immigration programs like DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) and affordable housing initiatives. Healthcare- and social-services-focused nonprofits dealing with everything from reproductive care and housing insecurity to post-incarceration reentry services and mental health support could face renewed attempts to restrict funding and impose stricter regulations. As local, municipal, state, and federal funding drops, it may fall on foundations, corporate philanthropies, social entrepreneurships, and even high-net-worth individual donors to stem the gaps—creating excess demand and competition for an even smaller pool of resources.
In some cases, businesses and social entrepreneurships are already stepping in to help fill the void. Companies including Ben & Jerry’s and Patagonia are combining revenue-generating activities with social impact, as are other benefit corporations. Ben & Jerry’s created a Churn Out the Vote limited-batch flavor. Working in tandem with the Black Voters Matter Capacity Building Institute, the ice cream maker aimed to boost voter turnout. Similarly, Patagonia has been at the forefront of environmental advocacy, channeling profits into bold actions like filing lawsuits against the U.S. government over public land protections, supporting climate change legislation, and purchasing vast swathes of land so they can remain protected wildlife and ecological reserves.
But the risks are still present even if the map of support and donations can shift to help stem the gaps created by a change in administration. While socially minded businesses, solo donors, and social entrepreneurs can leverage their platforms and resources to address pressing social and environmental issues, they’re more limited by market forces, personal preferences, and brand alignment, all of which restrict their ability to address systemic issues in the long term.
By contrast, nonprofits are deeply embedded in the communities they serve, making them more responsive to local needs and better equipped to provide sustained solutions. While businesses play an important role in contributing to social impact, they can’t replace the comprehensive, community-centered work that nonprofits are uniquely positioned to carry out. For lasting change, partnerships between the private sector, nonprofits, and government are essential.
Those partnerships require strategies and preparation, yet the 2016 election exposed just how unprepared many nonprofits (and their funders) were for rapid political changes. Since then, the sector has recognized the need to become more agile. However, significant gaps in readiness remain, particularly in digital strategy, funding stability, and staff well-being, as my organization, KM Strategies Group, found earlier this year when we surveyed many leading nonprofits’ executive staff. Nonprofits cannot afford to be caught off guard again.
To face the political uncertainty, nonprofits and those who support them must act now by developing scenario plans that outline how to adapt to different political outcomes. How does the landscape shift from the standpoints of advocacy, development, partnerships, communications, and organizational wellness and staff well-being? Will the organization have funding stability, or are alternative approaches needed to shore up support? Asking these kinds of questions will ensure nonprofits are ready to implement strategy changes without scrambling or panicking.
No comments