The Election Will End. The Uncertainty Won’t.

What nonprofit leaders should be doing now — before the 2026 midterms

We are seven weeks from the 2026 midterm elections, and it would be easy for nonprofit leaders to treat November 3 as the finish line. It isn’t. For organizations dependent on government grants, philanthropy, corporate partners, or public policy, the more useful question is not simply Who will win? It is: What changes for us under each plausible outcome — and are we ready?

That distinction matters this year. Congress recently delayed a proposed overhaul of the federal rules governing grants and other financial assistance until December 11. The proposal has raised significant concern across the nonprofit sector because it could give federal agencies substantially more discretion over awards, grant conditions, suspensions and terminations. The immediate threat has been postponed. It has not disappeared.

Meanwhile, the fundraising picture is stronger than many headlines suggest—and more complicated than the topline number implies.

Americans gave an estimated $617.2 billion to charity in 2025, a record amount and a 3% increase after inflation. But donor participation continues to decline, giving is increasingly concentrated among larger donors, and nonprofits are simultaneously managing higher costs, workforce pressure, government-funding uncertainty and growing demand.

That combination calls for something more sophisticated than either optimism or alarm.

It calls for preparation.

1. Build the post-election plan before Election Day.

How much revenue is connected directly or indirectly to government funding? Which programs would become vulnerable if reimbursements were delayed, eligibility changed or a grant disappeared? Which relationshiA nonprofit should be able to answer, today, what happens if its operating environment becomes more favorable, less favorable or simply more volatile.

That does not require predicting the election.

It requires identifying exposure.ps on both sides of the aisle matter to the mission? How long could the organization maintain services if a major funding stream stopped for 30, 60 or 90 days?

Scenario planning is not pessimism. It is governance.

The organizations that wait for a policy change before deciding how they will respond to it will already be behind.

2. Do not mistake nonpartisanship for silence.

One of the most persistent misconceptions in the sector is that 501(c)(3) status requires nonprofits to retreat from public life during an election year.

It does not.

A charitable nonprofit cannot support or oppose candidates. But it can continue advocating around issues central to its mission. It can conduct appropriately structured nonpartisan voter education, voter-registration and get-out-the-vote activities. It can educate policymakers and candidates about the communities it serves.

That distinction is enormously important.

Housing organizations should still be talking about housing.

Youth organizations should still be talking about young people.

Health organizations should still be explaining what is happening to patients.

Community organizations should still be bringing decision-makers into contact with the communities affected by their decisions.

An election does not make the mission less relevant. Often, it makes the organization's knowledge more valuable.

3. Treat relationships as infrastructure.

Election cycles expose a weakness in organizations that have approached external relationships transactionally.

If the only time an elected official hears from an organization is when it needs an appropriation, that is not a relationship.

If the only time a corporate partner hears from the development office is when sponsorship season arrives, that is not much of one either.

The same is true of foundations, donors, neighborhood leaders, institutional partners and community stakeholders.

The most resilient nonprofits have a network around the organization before they need the network.

They share information. They invite people into the work. They demonstrate results. They make themselves useful.

That relationship capital becomes extraordinarily valuable during periods of political or financial disruption.

4. Give donors a reason to invest that is bigger than the crisis.

There will be no shortage of urgent fundraising messages this fall.

That makes another “everything is at stake” appeal less distinctive, not more.

The stronger case is specific.

Here is what is changing.

Here is what our community needs.

Here is what we know because we are close to the work.

Here is what we can accomplish.

And here is exactly what your investment makes possible.

At a time when charitable dollars remain substantial but participation is increasingly concentrated, trust and demonstrated impact matter enormously.

Organizations that can translate complexity into a credible plan will have an advantage.

5. Use the board for what boards are actually for.

This is precisely the kind of environment in which nonprofit boards should be most valuable.

Not approving another consent agenda.

Not debating the wording of an event invitation.

Governance.

Risk.

Revenue concentration.

Reputation.

Policy exposure.

Executive support.

Relationships that leadership may need six months from now.

A useful board conversation before November might begin with one question:

“What could be materially different for this organization by March 2027?”

Then work backward.

That conversation will probably reveal more about organizational readiness than another hour reviewing last month's financial statements.

November 3 is a marker, not a strategy.

No nonprofit leader can control an election result, federal rulemaking, the economy or philanthropic markets.

But organizations have considerably more control over their vulnerability to those things than they sometimes recognize.

They can diversify revenue.

They can deepen relationships.

They can strengthen their case for support.

They can understand their policy environment.

They can prepare boards.

They can build cash contingencies.

They can communicate clearly.

And they can decide in advance what they will do when circumstances change instead of making those decisions under pressure.

The organizations that emerge strongest from the next year will not necessarily be those that predicted the political environment correctly.

They will be the ones that prepared intelligently for more than one version of it.

Kristin Peck, MSW Founder & Principal, Peck Advisory Group

Strategy • Partnerships • Resource Development • Organizational Capacity