Getting Triggered by Federal Grant Trigger Words

In the swirling, scary chaos of world and national events, I can’t be the only person who feels overwhelmed and off-balance. That’s probably the point of the chaos-sowers.

Over the past year, grant writers are experiencing a new-fear-unlocked moment: navigating increasingly restrictive language requirements in funding opportunities. The once staid NOFAs (Notice of Funding Opportunities)/RFPs (Request for Proposals) and other grant communication from federal agencies has morphed into significant and often inconsistent shifts in federal guidance documents, with certain terms disappearing from NOFAs and executive orders.

Amanda and I explore these troubling developments in greater detail in the latest episode of the Fundraising HayDay podcast HERE.

Forums and blogs discussions exploded last year about “trigger word lists” and banned terminology, leaving grant professionals scrambling to understand what language was acceptable. From diversity and equity terminology to descriptive language about the populations served, the restrictions have created confusion and concern across the sector. Again, I don’t think this was accidental.

I worked on a federal grant where the client decided to excise all words that appeared connected to race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and other now basically banned terms related to inclusion, even though the agency had served marginalized people for decades. The idea was that services would continue, but outcomes tracked would shift to reflect the new language. It was a choice I supported, but definitely not for everyone.

On a broader scale, programs like Head Start, or mental health service providers to name a few have been particularly affected by these changes.

What can a responsible grant professional do for their agency or client? Here are few ideas.

Key Strategies for Grant Writers:

• Document everything: Keep records of denied grants, feedback, and scores to create a paper trail showing how language restrictions impact funding decisions. An agency can use this to communicate the damaging effects of these arbitrary policies to their elected officials and for litigation.
• Attend technical assistance webinars: Ask questions and download chat logs and recordings to document official guidance.
• Use person-first language creatively: Find alternative ways to describe populations and needs without compromising accuracy.
• Stay connected: Network with other grant professionals to share experiences and solutions.
• Diversify funding sources: Explore partnerships, collaborations, and alternative revenue streams to reduce dependence on restricted federal funding.

At its core, grant writing is storytelling. The power of sharing authentic narratives about the communities we serve cannot be understated—these stories drive impact and funding decisions. While navigating restricted language presents real challenges, grant professionals must find creative solutions to continue telling complete, accurate stories about the people and programs that need support. The work is difficult, but the mission remains critical: securing resources that transform communities and change lives.

What suggestions do you have to help us navigate these troubling times? We’re all ears: hello@haydayservices.com.