Your TL;DR: Recent reporting has many organizations wondering whether they should rewrite proposal language to avoid certain words. That question is understandable, but it overlooks a larger truth. Competitive grant proposals have always required adaptation. The organizations that consistently secure funding are not chasing vocabulary changes. They are paying attention to how agencies think, what priorities have shifted, and how to communicate their work in ways that remain both accurate and strategically aligned.
The more important question is not whether a proposal contains a particular word or phrase. It is whether the application clearly shows that the project advances the objectives of the funding opportunity.
As discussed in Part One of this series, agencies do not review proposals by scanning for isolated terminology alone. They evaluate whether the project is responsive to the program’s purpose, priorities, statutory authority, review criteria, and intended outcomes. Terminology can matter, especially when agency guidance signals that certain language may be scrutinized. But terminology is only one part of a much larger alignment question.
A competitive proposal must make the case that the applicant understands what the funder is trying to accomplish and has designed a credible project to help achieve it. That means the narrative should connect the proposed activities to the specific goals of the opportunity, use the funder’s own framework where appropriate, and show why the project is necessary, feasible, and likely to produce meaningful results.
This is where many applications become vulnerable. They may include language that sounds broadly positive, such as “innovation,” “access,” “equity,” “workforce development,” “community engagement,” or “capacity building,” without explaining what those terms mean in the context of the project or how they relate to the funding opportunity. Reviewers are unlikely to reward broad claims that are not tied to concrete activities, measurable objectives, and documented need.
Organizations reviewing proposal language should therefore use this moment to assess the overall strength and clarity of the application, not simply search for individual terms to replace. A word-level review may reduce superficial risk, but it will not fix a proposal that is weakly aligned, underdeveloped, or unclear about its value to the sponsor.
A stronger review should ask:
- Does the proposal directly address the stated purpose of the funding opportunity?
- Are the project goals and objectives clearly connected to the agency’s priorities?
- Does the narrative explain why the proposed activities are allowable, relevant, and necessary?
- Are key claims supported by evidence, data, partner commitments, or prior results?
- Do the outcomes and performance measures match the activities being proposed?
- Does the proposal use terminology in a precise, defensible way rather than relying on broad or politically sensitive shorthand?
This kind of review is especially important when organizations are adapting existing proposal templates, prior submissions, or boilerplate language. Language that worked in one funding context may not be appropriate in another. A phrase that is central to one program’s priorities may be less relevant, or even distracting, in a different solicitation. The safest and strongest approach is not to strip a proposal of substance, but to make every major claim traceable to the funder’s stated objectives.
For example, if a proposal discusses underserved populations, it should explain who those populations are, why they are relevant to the program, what barriers the project will address, and how success will be measured. If it discusses workforce development, it should identify the target workforce, the skills gap, the training model, employer or industry demand, and expected outcomes. If it discusses innovation, it should clarify what is new, why it matters, how it will be tested or implemented, and what evidence would indicate progress.
In other words, proposal language should be specific enough to withstand reviewer scrutiny. Vague alignment language creates risk because it asks reviewers to infer the connection between the project and the funding opportunity. Strong proposals do that work for them.
This does not mean applicants should ignore terminology concerns. Words matter because they shape how reviewers understand the project. But the solution is not simply to substitute one phrase for another. The better approach is to replace vague, loaded, or unsupported language with precise descriptions of the problem, population, activities, methods, outcomes, and relevance to the sponsor’s goals.
A proposal that is clear, evidence-based, and tightly aligned with the solicitation is more competitive in any review environment. It is also easier to defend if questions arise about responsiveness, allowability, or program fit.
The practical takeaway is this: do not treat language review as a compliance-only exercise. Treat it as an opportunity to strengthen the proposal’s core argument. The goal is not to make the application sound neutral or generic. The goal is to make it unmistakably responsive to the funding opportunity and credible to the reviewers who will decide whether it deserves support.
References
Yahoo News Inside the Federal Keyword Lists Behind Canceled Grants https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/inside-federal-keyword-lists-canceled-050000696.html
What Recent Reporting Suggests About Keyword Screening in Federal Grantmaking https://www.ebhoward.com/what-recent-reporting-suggests-about-keyword-screening-in-federal-grantmaking/
Additional Resource Navigating Language Changes: Ensuring Compliance Without Compromising Impact (EBHC PDF) https://www.ebhoward.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/EO-Words-to-Screen-For.pdf