No One Ever Made Money by Panicking

A picture of a tin can with a pull tab. The label on the can says "risk," to symbolize that fundraisers and nonprofits must be willing to prioritize fundraising over government grants. This ensures stability, while grant funding remains uncertain and restrictive.
Reading Time: 3 minutes

The Urgency of Philanthropy: Why Nonprofits Must Rely on Giving, Not Grants

The Changing Funding Landscape

With recent executive orders from the current administration, many in the nonprofit sector are asking: What does this mean for us? Will funding for key causes be slashed? How do we prepare?

It’s understandable to be concerned. But let’s take a step back—how many times have we seen nonprofits scramble over potential government cuts, only for the funding landscape to shift again? This isn’t new. The difference this time? President Trump is more vocal than past leaders. Like his policies or not, at least there’s no second-guessing where he stands. Love him or hate him, his approach is transparent—there’s less guesswork involved in understanding his intentions.

So instead of reacting with fear, let’s ask a better question: What if we stopped relying on government funding altogether?

The Problem with Relying on Government Grants

How much time does your organization spend chasing grants? Writing proposals, submitting reports, waiting months for approval—only to do it all over again when the funding runs out?

Yes, grants can provide short-term relief. But at what cost? What happens when the administration changes? What happens when budgets are cut? What happens when your nonprofit is left out of the next round of funding?

It’s time to stop treating government dollars as a safety net. Because the reality is—they aren’t. Nonprofits that depend on grants are at the mercy of shifting political winds. The ones that thrive? They focus on fundraising.

Nonprofits that depend on grants are at the mercy of shifting political winds. The ones that thrive? They focus on fundraising.

The Power of Philanthropy and Planned Giving

If you could choose between a single grant that expires in two years or a loyal donor who gives every year for life, which would you pick?

Philanthropy has always been the backbone of nonprofit sustainability. Unlike government grants, which come with strings attached, donor support provides flexibility, independence, and long-term security.

And yet, many nonprofits overlook one of the most powerful fundraising strategies available: planned giving. Have you ever had a donor say, “I wish I could give more, but I just don’t have the resources right now”? What if they knew they could leave a lasting impact through a bequest? Many donors would gladly include your nonprofit in their estate plans—if only they were asked.

A planned giving program doesn’t just bring in donations; it builds a financial future. And that’s something no government grant can guarantee.

Fundraising is Harder—But the Rewards Are Greater

Let’s be real—fundraising is hard work. Wouldn’t it be easier to just apply for a grant and hope for the best?

Sure, but easy doesn’t mean sustainable. Major gift fundraising requires building relationships. Planned giving takes time to educate donors. Asking for support isn’t always comfortable.

But what’s the alternative? Living in a cycle of uncertainty, hoping that the next administration will prioritize your cause? That’s not a strategy—it’s a gamble. The organizations that focus on fundraising are the ones that take control of their future instead of letting politicians decide it for them.

Every handout comes with strings attached, and eventually, those strings can tighten. Whether it’s welfare or government grants, there’s always a catch. The question is, do you want to control your future—or let someone else dictate it?

And here’s something else to consider: fundraising isn’t just better for your organization—it’s better for your career. Grant writing keeps you in a cycle of busywork, but true fundraising professionals—the ones who build relationships, secure major gifts, and drive philanthropy—are the ones who rise to the top. Few truly succeed in this field, but those who do become invaluable. They don’t just survive in the nonprofit world; they thrive.

Now Is the Time for Bold Philanthropy

So here’s the real question: Are we going to spend the next few years worrying about policy changes, or are we going to take action?

If government cuts happen, nonprofits should not react with fear but with strategy. Now is the time to double down on major gifts, planned giving, and growing a philanthropic base that can weather any political storm.

This means engaging donors in meaningful ways. It means helping them see that their contributions—whether immediate or through a planned gift—can make a lasting difference. And it means encouraging major philanthropists to think beyond individual projects and invest in national organizations that distribute aid at scale.

Stay Informed, Stay Engaged

For those keeping a close eye on policy changes, the National Council of Nonprofits has developed a continuously updated resource to track the impact of recent executive orders. Bookmark it, stay engaged, and be ready to adapt.

But more importantly, let’s stop reacting and start building. Government grants will never be the answer to nonprofit success. Fundraising is.

We don’t need fear to drive action. We need vision. Let’s focus on what truly matters: donor relationships, philanthropy, and securing long-term impact—no matter who is in office. Remember, donors can smell fear.

And just to calm your fears, if you have any—remember that any politician always states the exaggerated case at the beginning, only to compromise over time. That’s how business and politics are done.

We value your insights! What stood out to you in this article? Join or start a conversation below.

Related Posts

Colored open hand illustration

Seeking Visionary Voices

Do you have:

  • A bold idea or unique insight?
  • A story of success—or hard-won lessons from failure?
  • Expert advice your peers need to hear?

Join other forward-thinkers shaping the future of philanthropy. Share your perspective, elevate the conversation, and let your voice be heard.

Contribute your wisdom today.

Related Posts

Wall Street Journal Clipping: Many Colleges Fail in Teaching How to Think

Many Colleges Fail in Teaching How to Think — And Donors Are Catching On

In 2017, the Wall Street Journal warned: “Many Colleges Fail in Teaching How to Think.” Eight years later, was it prophecy? Alumni giving is down. Public confidence has collapsed. Colleges are closing almost weekly. Donors now ask: Am I funding thinkers—or just diplomas? Real education, or expensive amenities? If students leave no better at reasoning than when they arrived, why should anyone keep writing checks? The warning was clear. The collapse was inevitable.

Read More »
Surreal desert landscape shaped like a human eye, symbolizing the illusion behind inflated legacy gift lists and the need for clearer vision

The $117 Million Mirage: Why Most Legacy Gift Lists Are Illusions

A nonprofit celebrated 1,270 bequest commitments worth $117 million. Reality check: filtering for actual prospects yielded 55 names. Calling those 55? They reached five people—none remembered making any commitment. The culprit: organizations spending $8,000-$20,000 annually on digital tools, expecting software to cultivate donor relationships. When results disappoint, staff move on, leaving nonprofits with the cleanup. The lesson: five genuine legacy phone calls will always outperform 1,270 fictional commitments. You can’t build relationships with shiny website objects.

Read More »
Depiction of Harvard University

Would You Donate to Harvard?

Harvard: citadel of brilliance or fortress of privilege? For decades, liberals slammed it as an elitist gatekeeper—legacy admissions, donor perks, and wealth dressed up as meritocracy. Now, conservatives aim to gut its funding, branding it a woke factory. Different flags, same battlefield. Reform or revenge—the motives have shifted, but Harvard remains rich, elite, and untouchable. The question isn’t whether it deserves criticism. It’s whether you’d bankroll an empire of inherited advantage… or gamble on the promise of change.

Read More »
>