Actions at the federal level can have a drastic impact on public health, including on the social determinants of health. As the 2025 federal executive orders (EOs) were issued, much attention was paid to their impacts on matters like federal workers and tariffs, among other consequential topics. One important topic that has received less press is the fallout for nonprofit organizations  in the wake of the EOs.

Organizations that provide critical services are reeling from the impact of many EOs and related actions, especially those whose work is guided by the values of diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA). And though they are not always recognized as such, charitable organizations are the backbone of the American social safety net. As stated by Diane Yentel, the President and CEO of the National Council of Nonprofits (NCN), “Nonprofits are indispensable partners in delivering essential services in communities across the country, and an estimated 30% of U.S. nonprofits rely on governmental grants and contracts to support that work.”

Despite the disruption to significant government funding support, interruptions to these services may not be readily traced back to actions at the federal level. Many nonprofit organizations carry out functions through funds allocated by lawmakers, filling in as a part of governmental infrastructure, though they are not widely understood as an essential component of that infrastructure. However, the services provided by these organizations play a major role in supporting the health and wellbeing of their communities through food banks, shelters, health clinics, environmental conservation, legal support, advocacy, or other services.

Building on our Executive Order Watch project, the Network has partnered with researchers at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and the Southern Economic Advancement Project (SEAP) to support their pioneering research study that aims to investigate the impacts of the 2025 federal executive orders on nonprofit organizations in the Southeast region. EOs that have caused disruptions to organizations include:

• EO 14151, Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing, which directed the termination of DEI programs and activities within the federal government and equity-related actions, initiatives, grants, or contracts;

• EO 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity, which, among other actions, revokes an EO issued in 1965 that prohibited employment discrimination by federal contractors and required that they take affirmative action to provide equal opportunity in employment. It further requires every federal contract or award to include a term for recipients to certify that they are not operating “any programs promoting DEI that violate any applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws” among other directives, including that agency heads take measures to discourage DEI-related programs or principles in the private sector; and

• EO 14168, Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government, which, among other objectives, recognizes only two sexes and directs agencies to update documents to comply with this declaration and further extends compliance to those receiving federal funds.

These and other EOs have prompted a multitude of legal challenges by state and local jurisdictions as well as nonprofit organizations. One nonprofit organization, Chicago Women in Trades (CWIT), filed suit in connection with the above EOs. CWIT works to train women for high-skilled trades. The complaint begins by stating: “Diversity is not illegal. Equity is not illegal. Inclusion is not illegal. Diversity, equity, and inclusion are aspirational ideals that have for centuries been fundamental to our progress as a nation. Efforts to promote them do not violate federal civil rights laws.”

With approximately 70 percent of their participants identifying as Black and Latina, CWIT states they are an organization dedicated to promoting DEI in the skilled trades industry where discrimination and occupational segregation are a reality. Despite an initial freeze in federal funding affecting CWIT operations, an order entered in a different case made the funds available again. On April 14, 2025, CWIT also received an order granting in part and denying in part their motion for preliminary injunction, temporarily blocking government action to deny funds.

The EOs have impacted nonprofits broadly, including those who may not characterize their primary purpose or activities under DEI. The threat to the critical services they provide cannot be overstated. NCN issued the following statement in response to EO 14173, which called for a pause on Office of Management and Budget (OMB) grants and funding:

This order is a potential five-alarm fire for nonprofit organizations and the people and communities they serve. From pausing research on cures for childhood cancer to halting food assistance, safety from domestic violence, and closing suicide hotlines, the impact of even a short pause in funding could be devastating and cost lives. This order could decimate thousands of organizations and leave neighbors without the services they need.

NCN, along with others represented by Democracy Forward, filed a lawsuit to stop the freeze on funding. On February 25, 2025, the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction was granted, barring the administration from continuing with the freeze on disbursement of federal funds as litigation continues.

Though several similar lawsuits remain ongoing, most nonprofit organizations impacted by EOs and related actions do not have the resources needed to initiate expensive litigation against the federal government to protect the services they provide. Without being able to articulate harms in court, this also leaves many organizations without a voice to inform both the public and lawmakers about the consequences of these actions, creating a large gap in understanding the cumulative impacts that will start to be seen as service cuts affect health outcomes and related disparities.

In our ongoing research, we aim to measure the extent to which EOs have affected the work of health-, environment-, and economic-security-related nonprofits in the Southeast, including how organizational impacts may have affected the communities that nonprofits serve. We are collecting information through surveys and through interviewing individuals from organizations impacted by the EOs.

Our preliminary research tells a stark story of how EOs have impacted Southern nonprofits’ people and programs. Among organizations reporting an EO impact, nearly half were forced to reduce staff and almost nine in ten report new administrative burdens eating into capacity, which has been severely diminished due to staff cuts. Nonprofits are also reporting high rates of moderate to extreme burnout, and nearly as many worry about retaining current staff. Unfortunately, this isn’t a shock that organizations can simply absorb and move past. A third of surveyed organizations describe the disruptions as ongoing. We have found these impacts are shared across the nonprofit sector, from environmental and racial justice organizations to direct service providers of housing and health.

Amid the disruption, a wave of collaboration and advocacy has sprung up. Nearly 40 percent of surveyed organizations report undertaking new advocacy work, and a third say they’ve forged new partnerships or coalitions to weather the storm together. When it comes to staying informed, nonprofits are leaning on each other rather than traditional media or other professional services. Newsletters and peer networks outpace federal agency notifications as the go-to source for tracking EO developments. It appears one part of the region’s nonprofit sector response to the EOs has been standing up informal, resilient-minded networks of mutual support.

It is clear that vital social services are at stake, and the loss of these services will widen already large disparities in health outcomes. Outside of individual accounts, the work of this project provides much needed formal insight into the impacts of the EOs and related federal actions on nonprofits’ essential services. This research will help us to better understand new service vulnerabilities, opportunities for organizational and community resilience, and areas for further study in the rapidly changing federal policy landscape related to public health and the social determinants of health. Identifying how organizations and communities have been impacted is a first step to developing policy and programs targeted to communities’ shifting needs.

The Network is grateful for the opportunity to partner with SEAP and researchers at the University of Alabama at Birmingham on this groundbreaking work and looks forward to providing more information and resources as the project progresses.

This post was written by Phyllis Jeden, J.D., Deputy Director, Network for Public Health Law—Mid-States Region, with guest contributors, Hugh Roland, Ph.D. M.A., Assistant Professor, University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), Annie Glover, Ph.D., M.P.H., M.P.A., Assistant Professor, UAB, and Liza Crichton, Public Policy Manager, Southern Economic Advancement Project (SEAP) on behalf of the project team, as detailed below:

• Liza Crichton (Public Policy Manager) and Emily Roberts (Engagement Coordinator) with the Southern Economic Advancement Project (SEAP);

• Hugh Roland, Ph.D., M.A. (Assistant Professor, Health Policy and Organization); Peter Jones, Ph.D., M.P.P. (Associate Professor, Political Science and Public Administration); Annie Glover, Ph.D., M.P.H., M.P.A. (Assistant Professor, Health Policy and Organization); graduate students Jane Carol Murphy, Ph.D., Abigail Franks, Sean McMahon, M.A., C.P.H., and Wajiha Mekki at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB); and

• Phyllis Jeden, J.D. (Deputy Director, Mid-States Region); Quang H. Dang, J.D. (Executive Director); Emma Kaeser, J.D. (Senior Attorney, Mid-States Region); Nina Belforte (Deputy Director, Strategic Communications); and Naisha Mercury, J.D. (Equal Justice Works Fellow) with the Network for Public Health Law.

The Network promotes public health and health equity through non-partisan educational resources and technical assistance. These materials are provided solely for educational purposes and do not constitute legal advice. The Network’s provision of these materials does not create an attorney-client relationship with you or any other person and is subject to the Network’s Disclaimer.

Support for the Network is provided by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF). The views expressed in this post do not represent the views of (and should not be attributed to) RWJF.