Federal Grants in 2026: Language Shifts & Strategy Changes
- Shavonn Richardson, MBA, GPC
- 4 days ago
- 5 min read
The federal funding landscape has shifted dramatically in 2026—and the language in your grant applications must shift with it.
I've spent the past two months reviewing federal grant solicitations across multiple agencies, and one thing is crystal clear: the way we talk about who we serve and how we serve them is changing. Not the work itself—the language.
If you're still using 2025 terminology in your 2026 applications, you're already behind.
The Evolution Is Here for Federal Grant 2026
Let me be direct: explicit DEI terminology is disappearing from federal grant guidelines. I'm not here to debate the politics of it. I'm here to help you continue securing funding for the communities you serve.
The organizations that will thrive in this environment are the ones that understand a fundamental truth: the language may be changing, but the need for inclusive, equitable programming has not.
From DEI Language to Community-Centered Outcomes
Here's what I'm seeing in successful 2026 applications:
Instead of talking about diversity, equity, and inclusion as concepts, winning proposals are focusing on measurable community outcomes.
The shift isn't about watering down your mission. It's about sharpening your focus on what funders have always actually cared about: impact.
Think about it this way—when I was a program officer, I never funded an application because it mentioned equity. I funded it because it demonstrated a clear understanding of community barriers and presented evidence-based strategies to eliminate them.
That hasn't changed.
Strategic Language Replacements That Work
Let me give you the translations I'm seeing in funded 2026 applications:
OLD: "Underserved populations"
NEW: "Communities facing barriers to access"
Why it works: It's specific about the problem (barriers) rather than making assumptions about the community (underserved). It centers the systemic issue, not the deficit narrative.
OLD: "Equity initiatives"
NEW: "Evidence-based strategies to eliminate disparities"
Why it works: It emphasizes your methodology (evidence-based) and your measurable outcome (eliminate disparities). Funders want to see both.
OLD: "Diversity programs"
NEW: "Broad-based community engagement"
Why it works: It describes what you're actually doing—engaging the full spectrum of your community—without getting caught in terminology debates.
Here's the thing: these aren't just semantic changes. They're forcing us to be more precise about what we're actually trying to accomplish.
Your Program Design Matters More Than Ever
The language shift is revealing something important: weak program design can't hide behind buzzwords anymore.
In 2025, you could write "we will advance equity through diverse partnerships," and reviewers would nod along.
In 2026? They're going to ask: What specific barriers are you addressing? For which specific populations? Using which evidence-based strategies? With what measurable outcomes?
This is actually good news.
The organizations that have been doing this work with rigor—the ones with logic models that work backward from outcomes, the ones collecting real data on community needs, the ones testing and iterating their approaches—they're going to be fine.
Better than fine, actually.
It's the organizations that were checking boxes who are going to struggle.
Demonstrating Impact Through Data (Not Terminology)
Here's what I want you to understand: federal funders in 2026 are looking for proof, not promises.
Your application needs to answer these questions with data:
What specific barriers exist in your community? (Show me the numbers)
Who specifically faces these barriers? (Demographics matter, even if we're calling them something different)
What does the evidence say about strategies that work? (Cite your sources)
How will you measure whether barriers are actually reduced? (Give me concrete metrics)
When you lead with data, the language becomes secondary. The impact speaks for itself.
I reviewed a workforce development proposal last month that never once used the word "equity," but it presented census data showing employment disparities by neighborhood, cited peer-reviewed research on barrier reduction strategies, and outlined a clear evaluation plan with quarterly benchmarks.
It was funded in the first round.
Navigating Requirements While Staying True to Mission
I know what some of you are thinking: "This feels like we're being asked to hide what we're really doing."
I understand that concern. But here's my counter: Were you ever really doing 'equity'? Or were you reducing barriers to employment? Increasing access to healthcare? Closing achievement gaps?
Those outcomes—the real, measurable improvements in people's lives—are what you're actually doing. They always were.
The mission hasn't changed. We're just getting better at describing it in terms that focus on the impact, not the ideology.
And frankly? That's always been the stronger strategy.
What This Means for Your Next Application
As you're preparing your 2026 applications, here's what I recommend:
1. Audit your language. Go through your last proposal and highlight every place you used DEI-specific terminology. Ask yourself: What is the actual outcome I'm describing here? Rewrite it in those terms.
2. Strengthen your data. If you can't point to specific statistics about the barriers your community faces, stop writing and start researching. Your problem statement needs numbers.
3. Review your logic model. Does it clearly show how your activities lead to measurable outcomes for all populations you serve? If not, that's your real problem—not the terminology.
4. Focus on evaluation. In 2026, your evaluation plan is more important than ever. Funders want to see exactly how you'll measure whether you're actually reducing barriers and improving outcomes.
5. Read current solicitations carefully. Each federal agency is handling this shift slightly differently. Some are providing clear guidance on preferred language. Others are staying silent. Pay attention to what's actually in the RFP.
The Bigger Picture
Look, I get it. This moment feels political. It feels like the rules are changing arbitrarily. It feels frustrating.
But here's what I learned in 10 years of federal grantmaking: The organizations that succeed are those that adapt quickly and strategically, without losing sight of their mission.
Your mission is to improve lives and strengthen communities. That mission doesn't require any specific terminology to be valid or fundable.
What it requires is:
Clear understanding of community needs
Evidence-based strategies
Measurable outcomes
Rigorous evaluation
Transparent reporting
If you have those elements, you can describe your work in whatever language the moment requires.
And if you don't have those elements? Then the language was never your real problem.
The Bottom Line
The strongest 2026 federal grant applications will be those that focus relentlessly on community impact, data-driven approaches, and inclusive program design—regardless of what we call it.
Stop worrying about whether you're using the "right" words. Start worrying about whether you can prove your program actually works.
Because that's what funders have always cared about. They're just finally forcing us to be honest about it.
Adapting your grant strategy for 2026 doesn't mean abandoning your values—it means getting smarter about how you communicate impact.
What language shifts are you seeing in your sector? Drop a comment below—I'm genuinely curious how different fields are navigating this.
And if you're preparing a federal application right now and feeling stuck on how to make this transition, that's exactly what Think.Ink.FUND® helps organizations navigate.
Sometimes you need someone who's been on both sides of the table to help you find the path forward.