Navigating DEI Challenges: Strategic Advice for Nonprofits to Meet the Moment

Across the nonprofit and philanthropic sectors, organizations advancing diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) are facing increasing political and legal scrutiny. A growing movement, which has reached its heights of influence through recent executive orders from the Trump Administration, has sought to limit or redefine how DEI efforts are implemented, often framing them as discriminatory. These shifts have introduced uncertainty for organizations committed to equity, as they put funding, legal standing and public perception in flux.

Nonprofits frequently want to know how to navigate these complex and challenging scenarios while maintaining their core values. Of course, there's no universal solution. But we always start with a crucial truth: Equity work is about centering people's humanity and creating spaces where everyone can thrive. This extends beyond diversifying hiring networks. DEI work fundamentally aims to disrupt systems of oppression like racism, sexism and ableism by increasing power-sharing.

When viewed through this lens, current attacks on DEI should be understood not merely as political debates over terminology but as attempts by entrenched interests to preserve power and maintain the status quo. For purpose-driven organizations, this distinction matters: Scaling back equity work and commitments means choosing to perpetuate systems of oppression that undermine humanity in the workplace. 

Advancing racial equity is not a trend. Understanding how to meet this moment with vision and courage requires understanding your values and how they map onto risks your organization is facing. Here is a practical framework and some key questions to consider when navigating these complexities. These tools will help you lead with clarity and strength.

1. Assess Organizational Risk

The threats are real — particularly for organizations with federal or state funding, or those operating in politically sensitive environments. Understanding your unique risk exposure is a crucial first step. Some helpful questions to consider:

• How vulnerable are your funding streams to changes in public policy or political oversight?
• Could your legal status or compliance requirements be affected by evolving DEI restrictions?

2. Assess Organizational Power

Risk is only half of the equation. Equally important is understanding what power your organization holds — and how you can leverage it. We recommend analyzing two distinct dimensions of power: positional and institutional.

Positional power refers to your relative influence or the control you have in your field: your reputation, resources and public visibility.   

Key questions include:

• Are you seen as a thought leader or influencer in your field?
• Do you have a significant endowment or financial reserves?
• Does your brand command attention from media, policymakers or funders?

Our social identity markers, such as race, gender, class and ability, shapes institutional power. These markers influence the level of access and authority individuals or organizations are granted within systems and structures. Depending on how society perceives our identities, they can either align with dominant norms and grant us greater power, or place us at a disadvantage with limited access to decision-making and influence. Historically, white-led organizations have possessed greater institutional power and privilege in many contexts, and often are not under as much scrutiny as their peer organizations with leaders of color.

 Key questions include:

• Who leads your organization, at the executive and board level? 
• What are their social identity markers? Are they part of the dominant groups in the U.S.? (i.e. white, men, able-bodied, Christian etc.)

This analysis helps reveal how much implicit access or protection your leadership may have — or lack — within the current political climate. Visualizing your organization’s relative power along these axes (e.g., high/low positional versus institutional) can clarify your strategic options.

3. Define Your ‘Zone of Genius’

With a clearer picture of your risk and power, the next step is to identify your “zone of genius” — a term Gay Hendricks coined to describe what you do uniquely well and for which you are best known. Defining your zone of genius can help you determine how you will draw a proverbial line in the sand and what value to highlight when standing up to organizational threats.

It is important not to make this decision in a vacuum. Bring your staff, board and key stakeholders into the conversation. Every organization has a range of partners who may have different opinions about your zone of genius or how vocal you should be about DEI, so this process may involve balancing various stakeholder opinions. But, ultimately, this work is about shared power and collective decision-making. By involving your community and partners, you not only build trust — you embody the DEI principle of collectivism. 

Applying the Framework

Here are three real world case studies of nonprofits applying the framework.

Harvard University

Harvard University has been in the news for its legal battle with the Trump Administration over whether the government could exert political control over its hiring, admissions and academic curriculum. While the university is in a position of moderate risk due to a significant allocation of federal grants, it is also a poster child for a group with significant levels of power — both positionally and institutionally. Ultimately, Harvard rejected the government's attempt at overreach, writing: 

"No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue." 

This response was met with widespread support from a range of civil society. Part of why their response was effective was because it aligned with a value already associated with the university — what could be called one of its “zones of genius”: academic freedom and integrity. The attacks on Harvard from the Trump administration have continued, but, in the process, the university has positively burnished its reputation among their core constituencies.

Columbia University

Columbia also made the news, but for a different reason. Its initial strategy involved openness to collaboration with the Trump Administration. This strategy likely reflected elevating certain perspectives (major donors and some board members) over others (staff and students) when determining its core values or “zone of genius.” 

While this strategy reflected an attempt to manage high levels of perceived risk, it was a surprise to many, given Columbia’s level of relative power in their field of higher education (roughly similar to their Ivy League peer, Harvard, though with a smaller endowment). The university later drew the line on collaboration, but its initial response eroded confidence among students and faculty without truly insulating them from future risks, as is evident in recent threats from the Trump administration that the university fails to meet the standards for accreditation. 

826 Boston

The tutoring nonprofit 826 Boston decided not to apply for Americorps funding, which typically provided an important stream of program revenue, because of new anti-DEI grant restrictions and overall funding uncertainty. While the nonprofit’s relative power is less than some other organizations, it determined that this decision was one that fell into their zone of genius. They wrote: 

“After thoughtful consideration from 826 Boston’s senior management team, program managers and our board of directors, we have determined that this requirement does not align with our values or vision for the organization. This decision, ultimately, allows us to continue the work many of you have come to love about our organization, amplifying youth voices and sharing diverse stories.” 

The organization was able to publicly share this decision as a way to inspire donations and support. Ultimately, Americorps funding was slashed and the program effectively dismantled, meaning that other organizations who went through a process of deciding to remove DEI language from their website suffered the same disruption to funding without the opportunity for positive press or reinforcement of values to their networks. 

What This Means for Nonprofits

In a time of heightened scrutiny, there is no such thing as avoiding making a choice. Our voices carry weight and silence can say more than one may think. The path forward begins with honest reflection — on your organization’s power, risk tolerance and deepest values in order to stand up for the communities you serve.

The most effective response will be one that emerges from an understanding of your organizational purpose and how that purpose interacts with internal and external realities. Whether it means taking a bold public stance or adopting quieter forms of resistance, your response should reflect your unique identity and commitments, leverage your positional and institutional power wisely and demonstrate coherence between what you say and what you do.

Above all, remember: Advancing racial equity is not a trend. It is a commitment to building systems where everyone can thrive. By staying grounded in purpose and strategy, organizations can continue to advance equity in meaningful ways — not just despite today’s challenges, but because of them.

The preceding content was provided by a contributor unaffiliated with NonProfit PRO. The views expressed within may not directly reflect the thoughts or opinions of the staff of NonProfit PRO.