Should You Change How You Talk About Equity and Inclusion?

In recent months, I’ve heard a recurring question from nonprofit communicators in the health space: “Has your organization had to change the way it talks about its work because of the latest executive orders?”

It’s a question that speaks to the uncertainty and anxiety many leaders are feeling. Executive orders have always carried ripple effects for nonprofits, but the most recent wave (particularly around DEI) is forcing organizations to make difficult choices about how they communicate their values, their programs, and their funding relationships.

Why Policy Shifts Are Forcing Hard Choices

The latest executive orders have already reshaped how nonprofits communicate and operate. At one level, they:

1. Restrict the use of DEI-related language in federal grants and contracts.
2. Roll back long-standing equity provisions in government programs.
3. Give agencies broad discretion to end funding or partnerships that don’t align with administration priorities.

At the same time, the 2025 federal budget law delivers historic cuts to Medicaid (over $900 billion in reductions over the next decade) along with new work and verification requirements that could leave millions without coverage. For health nonprofits, the implications are staggering: more people in need, fewer resources to meet that need, and greater political scrutiny on the language they use to describe their work.

The combination of these forces means nonprofits are navigating not just uncertainty, but competing pressures that go to the heart of their identity: what to say, what to fund, and who to serve.

Four Distinct Approaches Emerging

Through affinity group discussions and one-on-one conversations, I’ve seen nonprofits respond in a variety of ways. Broadly, these responses fall into four patterns:

1. Compliance-First Organizations

Some nonprofits have moved quickly to adjust their external communications, prioritizing legal safety over visibility of values. Examples include:

• Removing equity statements from their website.
• Scaling back DEI language in grant applications and fundraising profiles (as seen in programs like Give!Guide here in the Portland, OR area).
• Keeping internal DEI commitments intact, but rewriting external paperwork to minimize their risk.

These organizations are often motivated by fear of losing their 501(c)(3) status or jeopardizing federal funding.

2. Quiet Continuers

Other groups choose to fly under the radar while quietly continuing their DEI efforts. They:

• Reinforce organizational values internally, often through staff messaging and training.
• Hire DEI consultants or maintain internal initiatives, but soften the language used in documents.
• Make changes to staff committees or affinity groups based on input from those most affected, sometimes leading to pauses or restructuring for safety.

This path reflects a balance between protecting staff and honoring their mission. Their response is shaped by listening to those most affected while keeping a lower public profile.

3. Resistors

For some organizations, compliance feels like a departure from their mission. They decide to take a public stance, even if that means legal or funding risk. Examples include:

• Continuing to use explicit DEI language in communications.
• Publicly taking a stand against the executive orders.
• Joining or supporting lawsuits that challenge federal restrictions (such as AVAC vs. Department of State).

For these nonprofits, maintaining integrity with their core values outweighs pragmatic concerns.

4. Strategic Shifters

Finally, a number of organizations are treating the orders as an opportunity to rethink their strategy. They are:

• Diversifying funding sources to reduce their dependence on federal grants.
• Reframing their messaging to emphasize other aspects of their mission.
• Using the moment to rethink how they communicate with their audiences, and strengthening their long-term positioning.

While this approach requires significant work, it allows these organizations to proactively adapt to a politically volatile environment.

Leading with Integrity in a Time of Test

When leaders ask how to respond to these executive orders, the most important question is not what you should change, but who you want to be when this moment passes.

Five or ten years from now, how do you want your board, staff, and community to remember the choices you made? Did you drift from your mission to preserve the machine, or did you find a way to preserve your integrity while adapting to the pressures around you?

This is the heart of leadership in a volatile political climate. Executive orders will come and go. Funding rules will change. But what endures is how you navigate the tension between survival and values.

Between executive orders that target your words and Medicaid cuts that undermine your capacity, the temptation is to focus on survival. But moments like this are precisely what test whether your stated commitments are real or merely convenient.

When forced to choose between:

• Protecting the status quo of the organization (funding, structure, reputation), or
• Protecting the mission and values that led to the organization’s founding,

…which will you choose?

There is no easy answer. Every organization must assess its risk tolerance and weigh the consequences. But integrity means refusing to pretend the choice doesn’t exist. It means naming the trade-offs clearly and inviting staff and your community into that decision.

For some, integrity will mean resisting outright. For others, it may mean adapting their language strategically while working to secure new sources of support—or reposition their organization entirely. What matters most is that the choice is grounded in mission, not fear.

The people you lead and serve will not remember the exact wording of your grant applications. But they will remember whether your actions matched your values when it mattered most.