(DENVER, COLORADO) — A dispute over the conditional release of two $40,000 grants held by The Denver Foundation has put a spotlight on how funding conditions tied to mission language, training materials, and even legal communications can pressure immigrant-serving nonprofits that openly serve undocumented immigrants.
Juntos Community, a Denver nonprofit that helps immigrants with legal status and work permit applications, says it was promised the funding for a third year and then saw the grant funds held for months after The Denver Foundation raised concerns about political exposure. The core allegation is not just “delay,” but conditionality: Juntos says the foundation linked payment to changes in public-facing language and internal materials, plus cooperation with requests that touched attorney-client communications.
For immigrant-serving nonprofits, the case is a practical warning. Grant conditions can affect your speech, your service model, and your legal posture at once. A single dispute can become operational fast.
1) Overview: what’s being alleged, what’s confirmed, and why it matters
Juntos Community alleges The Denver Foundation withheld promised grant funds unless Juntos reduced public references to serving undocumented immigrants. Juntos says the requested changes went beyond ordinary reporting and compliance steps and entered into mission and messaging control.
May 2025 is the key early anchor. That is when Juntos says the foundation froze the funds after initially notifying the nonprofit of the awards. January 20, 2026 is the key late anchor. The Denver Foundation initially declined to comment that day, and a board committee later voted to approve the grants at a scheduled meeting.
Two things can be true at once in disputes like this:
- A funder may have real institutional risk concerns and still handle conditions in ways that raise governance and speech questions.
- A grantee may have strong reasons to resist messaging edits and still need to plan for delayed cash flow.
For nonprofits serving undocumented immigrants, the stakes extend beyond one budget line. Public-facing language can shape trust with clients, staff training, and donor confidence.
2) Parties, demands, and communications: what was requested and why it’s sensitive
Luis Antezana, CEO of Juntos Community, says Javier Alberto Soto, President and CEO of The Denver Foundation, relayed concerns about retaliation in the current political climate. Those worries reportedly included fears of jail time for foundation leaders or risk to nonprofit status connected to supporting services for undocumented immigrants.
Juntos says the foundation’s requested steps included removing the word “undocumented” from mission language, editing training materials, submitting public-facing materials to legal review with the foundation’s counsel, and disclosing internal legal decisions and reasoning that Juntos viewed as protected by attorney-client privilege.
From a governance and compliance standpoint, each item triggers a different category of risk. Start with mission language: when a funder presses a nonprofit to stop using “undocumented,” the dispute can move into speech-related territory. Many nonprofits treat mission statements and client-facing wording as part of organizational identity and client access.
Next comes training content. Training materials are often where a nonprofit documents how it stays within program rules and avoids harmful advice. If edits are demanded as a funding condition, leadership should ask whether the request is about accuracy and safety, or about making work “less public.”
Then there is counsel involvement. Funders sometimes ask for legal review when they worry about reputational blowback or accusations of political activity. That can be normal in limited form. Problems can arise when review becomes a gatekeeping tool for a grantee’s public statements, or when counsel is asked to weigh in on messaging rather than compliance.
Finally, attorney-client privilege is a red line for many organizations. A request that a nonprofit disclose internal legal analysis can create lasting risk.
Potential privilege concerns around sharing legally privileged material and the risk of privilege waiver if disclosures occur
In many cases, privilege waiver is not reversible. A nonprofit that shares protected legal reasoning outside the privileged relationship may later be forced to produce related communications in litigation or investigations. That can create board-level liability questions and complicate insurance coverage discussions.
Talk with your own counsel before providing any legal memos, internal emails seeking legal advice, or summaries of legal strategy.
3) The Denver Foundation’s role and immigrant support programs: how institutional funding typically operates
The Denver Foundation is a long-standing community foundation with a large grantmaking footprint. Institutions of that size often manage multiple pools of charitable dollars, including donor-advised funds, and use committees and staff processes to approve awards, monitor risk, and respond to reputational issues.
One specialized vehicle is the Denver Immigrant Legal Services Fund. Programs like this commonly support access to counsel, deportation defense coordination, and other forms of legal services that can keep families together and protect due process. For immigrant-serving nonprofits, that kind of funding helps maintain staffing, interpretation capacity, and rapid-response scheduling for consultations.
Post-2017 shifts in federal immigration policy also changed how many funders think about exposure. Even when services are lawful, funders may treat immigrant-related work as a higher-profile category. That can lead to more careful review of public materials, training scripts, and donor communications.
When that caution turns into pressure to soften language about undocumented immigrants, it can create a conflict between institutional risk management and a grantee’s mission clarity.
| Item | Amount / Date | Source / Context | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Juntos Community grant funds at issue | $80,000 (two $40,000 grants) | Alleged withheld grant funds tied to requested changes | Approved by board committee on January 20, 2026 |
| Initial hold of grant funds | May 2025 | Juntos says funds were frozen after political climate concerns | Funds held for months |
| Comment attempt by The Denver Foundation | January 20, 2026 | Foundation initially declined to comment | Later action the same day |
| Board committee action | January 20, 2026 | Committee vote during scheduled meeting | Grants approved |
| The Denver Foundation scale totals | $2.1 billion in donations; $1.6 billion disbursed | Long-term institutional scale | Ongoing operations |
| Denver Immigrant Legal Services Fund awards | over $1.5 million since 2018 | Immigrant legal services support | Ongoing program |
4) Broader context: Denver funding pressure and federal actions that shape risk
Funding disputes rarely happen in a vacuum. Denver has served 42,911 newcomers since late 2022, and the city has relied on $100-200 million in annual grants, mostly federal, to support newcomer assistance. That dependency can make the entire local ecosystem sensitive to federal signals.
Federal grant volatility can also change donor behavior. If federal agencies publicly frame local aid as support for “illegal immigration,” funders may anticipate scrutiny even when programs are lawful and designed to provide humanitarian support or legal services. That can raise internal questions about how grantees describe their work and how public their messaging should be.
A recent flashpoint was the Trump administration’s rescission of $24 million in federal Shelter and Services Program grants to Denver after $7-8 million was already received. The cited rationale was perceived support for “illegal immigration,” according to an April 1 letter from a FEMA official referencing President Trump’s enforcement priorities.
For nonprofits, a political shift can turn routine wording into a risk signal for a funder. That does not mean a nonprofit did anything wrong. It means you should be prepared for tighter review of language, trainings, and outward-facing communications.
5) Quantitative snapshot: why the figures and dates matter
The withheld $80,000 matters because timing affects service delivery. For many nonprofits, a delayed grant can mean hiring pauses, fewer legal clinic appointments, or reduced contractor hours for interpretation and community outreach. Budget forecasting becomes guesswork. It is stressful.
The Denver Foundation’s large scale—$2.1 billion in donations and $1.6 billion disbursed—matters for a different reason. Big institutions often have conservative approval chains. They may also weigh reputational risk heavily, because donor-advised fund relationships can be sensitive to controversy.
The Denver Immigrant Legal Services Fund’s record—over $1.5 million since 2018—matters because it shows immigrant legal support is a defined part of the region’s philanthropic infrastructure. That makes the Juntos Community dispute more than a private disagreement. It affects how immigrant-serving nonprofits read the room.
May 2025 and January 20, 2026 matter as decision points. The first reflects when funds were held. The second reflects public pressure, the attempt to get comment, and the committee vote to approve.
6) What to watch next: governance, communications, and operational planning
What immigrant-serving nonprofits should monitor: board decisions on grant governance, donor communications, and counsel-led reviews
Watch for the next concrete steps that often follow disputes like this. Expect public statements from Juntos Community and The Denver Foundation clarifying expectations for future grants, and look for any revised public materials, including mission language and training documents, to see whether revisions are voluntary or tied to funding.
Also monitor counsel-led reviews that set boundaries on what a grantee must share and what remains protected, and watch donor-facing messaging, especially when donor-advised funds are part of the relationship.
Operationally, focus on service continuity without assuming any outcome. Many nonprofits take four stabilizing steps when a grant is delayed:
- Triage services so time-sensitive legal needs keep moving.
- Seek short-term bridge support from diversified donors, without reframing mission language in ways that confuse clients.
- Document all grant communications and approvals in a board-ready format.
- Align internal and external messaging so staff can answer client questions consistently.
One more governance point: if a funder asks for internal legal reasoning, treat that as a board-level issue. Bring counsel in early. Decide who can speak for the organization. Keep the client impact front and center.
This article discusses legal and funding disagreements involving nonprofits and a community foundation. It includes qualified language and avoids speculation beyond publicly reported facts. Readers should consult legal counsel or governance professionals for advice on grant agreements, disclosure, and privilege matters.
