In both messaging and missions, bridges instead of bubbles.
As the country grows more politically polarized, nonprofits face a pressing question: if your mission is nonpartisan, does your messaging reflect that—or is it mostly speaking to people who already agree with you?
This isn’t just a communications issue. It’s a question of relevance. Political identity now shapes how many Americans view institutions, and the nonprofit sector can’t afford to ignore how its messages land beyond the bubble of left-leaning cities and progressive funders.
It’s a question every mission-driven nonprofit should be asking—and one I’ve been thinking about a lot.
A recent New York Times analysis lays out the stakes. Since 2012, Republicans have made steady gains in more than 2,600 counties, while Democrats have consistently improved their vote share in just 57, according to the Times. And these aren’t just white, rural counties. Trumpism is expanding its reach in working-class communities of all kinds, including places with large Black and Latino populations.
As the map continues to get redder, the question is: are nonprofits paying attention?
Many organizations—especially those in left-leaning cities or funded by progressive philanthropy—still communicate as if their audience is clearly ideologically aligned.
Their missions and even values may be universal—housing, education, clean air, basic dignity—but their language often isn’t. Too often, messaging leans into the kind of shorthand that flatters insiders and funders, but alienates people outside the bubble. That can really hamstring your reach and water down your real impact.
To be clear, this isn’t an argument to pander, or even to compromise on your ideals. It’s about finding authentic connection where it’s realistic, possible, and relevant to people’s lives.
I’ve worked with nonprofits at the center of political flashpoints—on issues of ideological violence in the wake of Charlottesville in 2017, for example. Yes, moments of outrage can drive fundraising. But when the dust settles, those same donors often seek something else entirely: level-headed, mission-driven perspectives.
They don’t want to hear that one side is always right and the other always wrong. They want to hear about the problem, the solution, and how they’re integral to it. If they don’t, they’ll leave. Donor churn is the biggest issue nonprofits consistently face.
Jason Lewis, writing about philanthropy’s drift from working-class Americans, makes a similar point: elite institutions didn’t just misread Trumpism—they misread the people. They assumed the backlash was ideological, when much of it was cultural and civic: a loss of trust, a loss of voice, and a growing suspicion of anyone claiming moral superiority.
And it’s not just messaging that’s shaped by this new type of polarization—it’s missions too.
In a 2019 study, Jesse D. Lecy and Francisco J. Santamarina examined how nonprofit missions differ based on local political ideology. By comparing demographically similar voting districts, they found that nonprofits in Democratic areas were more likely to focus on economic development and serving vulnerable populations. Those in Republican areas leaned toward specialized services like arts, education, and recreation.
They also found significant differences in funding models. Nonprofits in blue districts relied much more on donations—65% of revenue, compared to 27% in red districts. That hints at deeper divides in how communities see the role of nonprofits. But that doesn’t mean red areas are off-limits for fundraising. It means the case for support has to be made differently. If you lead with shared values and clear impact—not ideology—there’s opportunity everywhere.
All of this reinforces a simple point: nonprofits aren’t neutral by default. The way they frame their work—who it’s for, why it matters—either bridges divides or reinforces them.
The 2025 Nonprofit Communications Trends Report backs this up. While nonprofits are still among the most-trusted institutions in American life, their communications often fail to reflect that trust across ideological lines. The sector struggles with strategy, audience understanding, and platform obsession. As influencers dominate new media spaces, nonprofits risk becoming invisible to millions of Americans.
The report offers a path forward: take control of your message, adapt to the real media landscape, and reflect honestly on what your audience hears—not just what you hope they do.
In other words, if nonprofits want to build bridges instead of bubbles, they need to stop talking like they’re on X—and start listening like they’re in a union hall.