Rifan Muazin
Washington D.C. (July 29, 2026) – As the scorching summer sun ushers in July’s designation as National Picnic Month, the metaphor of a meticulously planned outdoor gathering gone awry resonates deeply within Washington’s political landscape. Just as a picnic can be derailed by uncooperative weather or forgotten essentials, the U.S. Congress has departed for its August recess, leaving behind a legislative picnic basket conspicuously light on completed tasks. Crucial appropriations remain unfinished, key nonprofit priorities are still awaiting resolution, and the charitable sector, ever resilient, continues its essential work of "making do, showing up, and serving its communities" despite the political gridlock.
This past month has seen a flurry of activity, from contentious budget battles and sweeping regulatory proposals to significant judicial victories and a looming overhaul of nonprofit reporting. For the nation’s 1.8 million charitable organizations, these developments are not mere political footnotes; they represent profound shifts that could redefine their operational landscape, funding streams, and very ability to fulfill their missions. As the sector takes stock before the relative calm of recess gives way to a potentially turbulent fall, the stakes for America’s communities have never been higher.
Main Facts: A Month of Monumental Decisions and Unresolved Tensions
July 2026 closed with a series of legislative, regulatory, and judicial actions that underscore a deepening partisan divide and an assertive regulatory stance from the executive branch, alongside a vital defense of nonprofit independence in the courts.
On Capitol Hill, the House of Representatives narrowly passed H.Con.Res. 113, a budget resolution that paves the way for a contentious "Reconciliation 3.0" process. This $95 billion framework, designed along party lines, allocates significant funds to defense and intelligence while introducing grants tied to controversial voter ID and citizenship verification requirements. Simultaneously, the House advanced a clean continuing resolution (CR) to avert a government shutdown through December 4, but full-year appropriations remain mired in disagreements between the two chambers. The House Ways and Means Committee also moved forward with four bills that, if enacted, would dramatically reshape nonprofit operations, particularly concerning foreign funding, fiscal sponsorship transparency, and the IRS’s treatment of religious organizations. All these legislative efforts highlighted profound partisan rifts.
Concurrently, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) sparked widespread alarm across the nonprofit and philanthropic communities with its "Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance." This proposed rule, a comprehensive overhaul of the Uniform Guidance (2 C.F.R. Part 200), threatened to politicize federal grantmaking by requiring pre-award political approvals, embedding specific executive order priorities, and granting agencies broad discretion to terminate awards based on alignment with the president’s agenda. The proposal generated an unprecedented half-million public comments, overwhelmingly in opposition, and drew significant bipartisan congressional condemnation.
Amidst these challenges, the charitable sector celebrated a critical victory on June 30, when a U.S. District Judge vacated the Department of Education’s controversial new Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) employer eligibility rule. This ruling, deemed a major win for nonprofits, affirmed the original intent of the PSLF program, preserving a vital recruitment and retention tool for organizations serving the public good.
Finally, the U.S. Department of the Treasury announced plans for the most significant revision of Form 990, the annual information return for tax-exempt organizations, in nearly two decades. While framed as a transparency initiative, this overhaul raises concerns within the sector about its potential use as an enforcement tool and the implications of expanded disclosure requirements, especially for organizations involved in areas of heightened federal scrutiny like DEI, immigration advocacy, and public policy.
Chronology: A Timeline of Key Developments in Summer 2026
The past few months have been a whirlwind of legislative and regulatory proposals, culminating in a pivotal July for the nonprofit sector:
- April 23, 2026: The U.S. Department of the Treasury publicly announces its intention, alongside the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), to undertake the most comprehensive revision of Form 990, the annual information return for tax-exempt organizations, since 2008. This signals a new era of transparency and oversight, particularly targeting government grants and fiscal sponsorship arrangements.
- May 29, 2026: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) publishes its expansive proposed rule, "Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance," in the Federal Register. This rule outlines sweeping changes to 2 C.F.R. Part 200, the Uniform Guidance, which dictates how over 40 federal agencies administer federal grants and cooperative agreements. The proposal immediately draws concern from the nonprofit community due to its provisions on political appointees’ pre-award approval, embedding of executive order priorities, and broad termination clauses.
- June 30, 2026: In a landmark decision, U.S. District Judge Myong J. Joun of the District of Massachusetts vacates the Department of Education’s controversial new PSLF employer eligibility rule. This ruling, stemming from consolidated lawsuits including National Council of Nonprofits v. McMahon, prevents the rule from taking effect on its scheduled July 1 date. A separate federal judge in Washington, D.C., issues an identical ruling on the same day, reinforcing the nationwide vacatur.
- July 13, 2026: The public comment period for OMB’s "Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance" officially closes. By this date, the proposed rule has garnered an extraordinary nearly 500,000 responses, with the vast majority expressing opposition or significant concerns. This unprecedented level of engagement highlights the profound apprehension within the nonprofit, philanthropic, and academic communities regarding the rule’s potential impact.
- July 22, 2026: A highly active day in the House of Representatives:
- The House narrowly passes H.Con.Res. 113, the budget resolution unlocking the "Reconciliation 3.0" process, by a vote of 216-214. This crucial vote sets the stage for a $95 billion legislative package driven primarily by Republican priorities.
- The House also passes a "clean" continuing resolution (H.R. 9770), extending government funding at current levels through December 4, 2026. While providing temporary relief from a government shutdown, this signals ongoing difficulties in passing full-year appropriations bills.
- The House Ways and Means Committee, under the chairmanship of Rep. Jason Smith (R-MO), advances four significant bills impacting the nonprofit sector. These bills—H.R. 9772, H.R. 9771, H.R. 9721, and H.R. 9722—address issues ranging from foreign funding transparency to fiscal sponsorship and religious freedom, all passing out of committee on strict party-line votes.
- Late July 2026: Congress officially departs for its August recess, leaving a substantial legislative agenda unfinished and setting the stage for a busy and potentially contentious fall session.
Supporting Data: Deep Diving into the Details and Their Implications
Reconciliation 3.0 and the FY2027 Funding Fight:
The House’s passage of H.Con.Res. 113 by the slimmest of margins (216-214) on July 22 was a testament to the deep partisan divisions currently gripping Congress. The budget resolution, a procedural step, allows for the use of the reconciliation process, which bypasses the Senate filibuster and requires only a simple majority. This powerful tool is typically reserved for legislation related to federal spending, revenues, and the debt limit. The proposed $95 billion framework includes $73 billion for defense and intelligence, addressing a key Republican priority for increased military spending, and $12 billion in farm assistance. However, the $10 billion allocated for grants designed to incentivize states to adopt voter ID and citizenship verification requirements under the "SAVE America Act" proved particularly controversial. Democrats uniformly opposed the entire package, citing concerns over its policy implications and the partisan nature of its advancement.
For the nonprofit sector, the appropriations fight holds immense significance. Federal grants represent a substantial portion of funding for countless organizations delivering critical services, from healthcare and education to environmental protection and poverty alleviation. A continuing resolution, while preventing an immediate shutdown, creates uncertainty and complicates long-term planning for federal grantees, who rely on predictable funding to staff programs and manage operations. The fact that the House has advanced all 12 FY2027 appropriations bills through committee, and three to the floor, offers a glimmer of progress, but "significant differences remain between the House and Senate on spending levels and policy riders." These policy riders, often unrelated to the core function of an agency, can impose new restrictions or mandates on federal programs, further complicating the landscape for nonprofits. A full-year deal before the December 4 CR expiration will necessitate "serious bipartisan negotiation," a commodity in short supply in the current political climate. Without it, the threat of another government shutdown or prolonged CRs looms large, directly impacting the stability of programs vital to communities.
The OMB Proposed Rule’s Far-Reaching Consequences for Nonprofits:
The OMB’s proposed "Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance," published May 29, 2026, is perhaps the most alarming development for the nonprofit sector. This sweeping overhaul of 2 C.F.R. Part 200, known as the Uniform Guidance, governs federal grants and cooperative agreements across more than 40 federal agencies. The Uniform Guidance was initially designed to streamline and standardize grant administration, reducing administrative burden and ensuring accountability. However, the proposed changes, while framed by OMB as improving "transparency, accountability, and oversight," suggest a radical departure from these principles.
The rule’s most contentious provisions include:
- Pre-award approval from senior political appointees: This introduces a political filter into the grantmaking process, potentially sidelining expert peer review and merit-based criteria in favor of political alignment.
- Embedding DEI prohibitions and other administration executive order priorities: This would directly integrate specific political agendas into grant terms and conditions, forcing organizations to adhere to these priorities or risk losing funding. This could be particularly damaging for organizations focused on diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, or those serving marginalized communities in ways that might be deemed contrary to a specific administration’s policy.
- Broad discretionary authority for agencies to terminate awards: This provision allows agencies to cancel grants "at any time if they no longer align with the president’s policy priorities." Such a clause creates immense instability for grantees, making long-term planning impossible and chilling independent action or advocacy.
The potential impact of this rule is staggering, affecting "up to $1 trillion or more in annual federal grant funding." This includes critical research funding for universities, public health initiatives, social service programs, environmental conservation efforts, and arts and culture grants. The unprecedented nearly 500,000 public comments received, with the "vast majority opposed," underscore the widespread alarm across sectors dependent on federal funding. This level of public engagement far exceeds typical rulemaking processes, signaling a profound outcry against what many perceive as a politicization of essential public services.
Ways and Means Advances 4 Bills Impacting the Nonprofit Sector:
The House Ways and Means Committee’s advancement of four bills on July 22, under the guise of "transparency, preventing foreign influence in American elections, and protecting religious freedom," represents a significant legislative assault on the operational autonomy and integrity of the nonprofit sector. All four bills advanced on strict party-line votes, with every Republican in support and every Democrat opposed, highlighting their contentious nature.
- H.R. 9772, the Foreign Funding Transparency Act: This bill aims to increase disclosure around foreign contributions. While transparency is generally supported, the specific provisions could create onerous reporting burdens and potentially deter legitimate foreign philanthropy that supports U.S. charitable causes.
- H.R. 9771, the Stopping Foreign Influence in Elections Act: This bill goes further, proposing to tax nonprofit contributions tied to foreign nationals at escalating rates, ultimately leading to the revocation of tax-exempt status. This could severely impact international aid organizations, advocacy groups with global networks, or any charity receiving even minor support from non-U.S. citizens, regardless of whether the funds are intended for electoral purposes. The Independent Sector’s analysis warned that provisions "could have significant unintended consequences for legitimate charitable activity, including potentially prohibiting a charity that receives a single foreign contribution from participating in lobbying coalitions."
- H.R. 9721, the Fiscal Sponsorship Transparency Act: This bill would mandate that fiscal sponsors publicly disclose detailed information about each sponsored project. While intended to increase accountability, the level of detail required could be burdensome for fiscal sponsors, potentially chilling the vital role they play in incubating new projects and supporting smaller, nascent organizations that lack their own tax-exempt status. It could also raise privacy concerns for individual projects.
- H.R. 9722, the Fair Treatment of Religious Organizations Act: This bill seeks to bar the IRS from considering religious beliefs about marriage, sexuality, or gender identity when determining an organization’s tax-exempt status. Proponents argue it protects religious freedom, while opponents worry it could allow organizations to discriminate against certain groups while still receiving public benefits associated with tax-exempt status, potentially clashing with established anti-discrimination principles.
These bills, if passed by the House, face a much steeper climb in the Senate, where a 60-vote threshold is typically required to overcome a filibuster. Their partisan nature makes bipartisan support unlikely, but their advancement signals a clear intent to reshape the regulatory environment for nonprofits.
A Win for PSLF Is a Win for Nonprofits:
The judicial decision on June 30, 2026, vacating the Department of Education’s new PSLF employer eligibility rule, was a resounding victory for the charitable sector. Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) is a critical program designed to incentivize individuals to pursue careers in public service by forgiving the remaining balance on their federal direct loans after 120 qualifying monthly payments. It is "one of the most powerful recruitment and retention tools available to nonprofit employers," particularly for roles in high-need areas (e.g., rural healthcare, social work) or for positions that historically offer lower salaries than the private sector.
The Department of Education’s controversial rule sought to redefine "public service job," potentially narrowing the scope of eligible employers and making it harder for nonprofit workers to qualify for forgiveness. This move was seen as an attempt to undermine the program’s effectiveness and, by extension, the ability of nonprofits to attract and retain talent.
Judge Joun’s decision in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. U.S. Department of Education and National Council of Nonprofits v. McMahon explicitly stated that the rule was "contrary to law, arbitrary and capricious, and a violation of the First Amendment." He emphasized that "Congress never granted the Department of Education authority to rewrite the definition of ‘public service job’ as a condition of loan forgiveness," and that the rule could not be used "to compel organizations to align their conduct with the current administration’s policy preferences." This legal reasoning strongly affirms the separation of powers and protects nonprofit independence from political interference. The nationwide vacatur means "the rule’s proposed changes to qualifying employer eligibility are entirely off the table – for now," ensuring that the original PSLF standards remain in effect. This provides crucial stability for current and prospective public service workers and the nonprofits that employ them.
Form 990 Is Getting Its Biggest Makeover in Nearly 2 Decades:
The Treasury Department’s announcement on April 23, 2026, regarding the IRS’s intent to revise Form 990, marks the most significant overhaul of nonprofit reporting requirements since 2008. Form 990 is not merely a tax document; it is a primary source of public information about tax-exempt organizations, used by donors, researchers, journalists, and charity watchdogs to assess an organization’s governance, financial health, and programmatic activities.
Treasury’s stated focus on "greater transparency and stronger oversight, particularly around disclosure of government grants and contracts and fiscal sponsorship arrangements," highlights these areas as "higher-risk areas for misuse of funds and reduced public accountability." While the intent to enhance transparency is laudable, the sector is "watching closely" for the specifics of the proposed regulations.
The concern lies in the "broader shift: Form 990 is increasingly viewed not only as an informational return but as a tool for enforcement and public oversight." This shift, combined with the "administration’s broader posture toward organizations engaged in DEI, immigration advocacy, and public policy work," raises "real questions about how expanded disclosure requirements could be used – and against whom." Increased granular data, while seemingly innocuous, could be weaponized to target organizations whose missions or activities fall out of favor with a particular administration, potentially leading to increased audits, public scrutiny, or even challenges to their tax-exempt status. Nonprofits, especially those involved in government grants, fiscal sponsorship, or politically sensitive areas, are advised to "review their governance and documentation practices now, before proposed rules arrive."
Official Responses: Voices of Concern and Vindication
The various actions taken this summer have elicited strong reactions from both sides of the aisle and from affected organizations.
Regarding Reconciliation 3.0 and Appropriations, Senate Majority Leader Thune (R-SD) indicated that the Senate would not simply adopt the House’s budget resolution, citing "political concerns from Senate Republicans and a desire for higher defense spending." This foreshadows difficult negotiations ahead, as the Senate will undoubtedly have its own priorities and spending levels. The bipartisan nature of passing a clean continuing resolution, while a temporary reprieve, underscores the shared anxiety about government shutdowns but also the deep divisions preventing comprehensive budget agreements.
The OMB Proposed Rule drew an extraordinary chorus of opposition. "All 47 members of the Senate Democratic Caucus signed a letter calling on OMB to rescind the proposed rule," arguing it "exceeds OMB’s statutory authority and unlawfully substitutes the president’s policy preferences for Congress’s role in directing federal spending." Similar sentiments were echoed in the House, where Reps. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Suzan DelBene (D-WA), and Lori Trahan (D-MA) led over 120 colleagues in a letter warning that the rule would "undermine scientific peer review and introduce political considerations into federal grantmaking." Notably, bipartisan concerns emerged, with Reps. Laura Gillen (D-NY) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) writing a joint letter expressing worries about the rule’s impact on "critical, lifesaving cancer research funding." Even within the Republican ranks, Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins (R-ME) requested an extension of the comment period and urged OMB to withdraw provisions that she warned would "harm small and rural communities and scientific research." This broad, cross-partisan pushback highlights the perceived overreach and potential damage of the OMB’s proposal.
For the Ways and Means bills, Rep. Jason Smith (R-MO), chairing the markup, framed the legislative package around principles of "transparency, preventing foreign influence in American elections, and protecting religious freedom." However, Democrats countered these claims forcefully. They offered nine amendments, all defeated on party-line votes, arguing that the bills were politically motivated, poorly conceived, and would have "significant unintended consequences for legitimate charitable activity." The Independent Sector, in its analysis, echoed these concerns, particularly about the "Stopping Foreign Influence in Elections Act," which could inadvertently stifle legitimate international philanthropic activities and advocacy.
The PSLF ruling was met with widespread relief and validation. Judge Joun’s robust legal reasoning, stating that "Administrations change with elections; criminal laws do not," underscored the principle that statutory intent should not be unilaterally rewritten by executive agencies. The coalition of 22 states, the District of Columbia, five cities and counties, nonprofit employers, and employee associations that brought the lawsuits demonstrated the broad consensus against the Department of Education’s proposed changes. Their success represents a powerful affirmation of the program’s original purpose and the sector’s ability to defend its interests through legal channels.
Finally, concerning the Form 990 overhaul, the Treasury Department emphasized its commitment to "greater transparency and stronger oversight." However, the nonprofit sector’s response is cautious. While supporting transparency, organizations like Independent Sector are wary of the potential for these changes to become an "enforcement tool" rather than purely an informational one, especially given the "administration’s broader posture toward organizations engaged in DEI, immigration advocacy, and public policy work." This nuanced response reflects a desire for accountability balanced with a fear of political targeting.
Implications: A Challenging Road Ahead for the Charitable Sector
The sum of these developments paints a picture of a charitable sector under increasing pressure, navigating a complex and often hostile political and regulatory environment. The implications are far-reaching:
Increased Regulatory Burden and Uncertainty: The OMB proposed rule and the potential Form 990 revisions signal a future with significantly more stringent and potentially politicized regulatory requirements. Nonprofits could face higher compliance costs, increased administrative overhead, and the constant threat of funding termination or altered tax-exempt status based on shifting political winds. This uncertainty makes long-term strategic planning incredibly difficult.
Chilling Effect on Advocacy and Innovation: Provisions within the OMB rule and the Ways and Means bills, particularly those related to political alignment, foreign funding, and broad agency discretion, could create a "chilling effect" on nonprofit advocacy. Organizations might self-censor or avoid controversial but necessary work for fear of losing critical funding or facing punitive measures. This could stifle innovation and reduce the sector’s ability to address pressing societal challenges effectively.
Challenges to Talent Recruitment and Retention: While the PSLF victory is a significant win, the overall climate of regulatory uncertainty and potential political interference could still make public service careers less attractive. Nonprofits, which often operate on tighter budgets, rely heavily on mission-driven individuals, and any erosion of support for public service workers could exacerbate talent shortages.
Politicization of Public Service: The most significant underlying threat is the ongoing politicization of what should be neutral, merit-based processes. From grantmaking to regulatory oversight, attempts to embed partisan agendas into the operational fabric of the nonprofit sector undermine its independence, credibility, and ability to serve all communities without bias.
Heightened Need for Vigilance and Advocacy: The events of July underscore the critical importance of robust advocacy and collective action for the nonprofit and philanthropic sectors. Organizations like Independent Sector play a vital role in monitoring these developments, educating their members, and mobilizing responses to protect the sector’s interests. The unprecedented public response to the OMB rule demonstrates the power of collective voice.
As Congress retreats for its August recess, the lull will be brief. The fall promises to be "very busy," with appropriations deadlines looming, the OMB targeting an October 1 effective date for its rule, and the Ways and Means bills potentially heading to the House floor. The charitable sector, true to its nature, will continue "making do, showing up, and serving its communities," but it will do so with heightened awareness and renewed determination to defend its essential role in American society. The upcoming Independent Sector National Summit 2026 in Phoenix (October 13-16) will serve as a crucial gathering point for leaders to strategize, build coalitions, and prepare for the challenges and opportunities ahead. The fight for an independent, robust, and effective charitable sector is far from over.
Travis Swanson is the Government Relations Manager at Independent Sector.
Nana
Lina Hope
