On 14 November 2025 Kate Kroeger and Kellea Miller wrote for the Alliance blog how philanthropy can show up in solidarity with movements defending democracy
There is a nearly six-fold increase in the chance of protecting societies from democratic backsliding when strong civil resistance campaigns are involved.
This striking finding from the University of Texas at Dallas and Johns Hopkins University—that social movements and resistance campaigns can increase the likelihood of protecting democracy to 51.7 percent from 7.5 percent—should compel funders to action, especially in this moment of rising authoritarianism around the world.
The philanthropic sector faces both an unprecedented opportunity and a moral imperative: to invest in the proven strategies that can safeguard democracy and our future, including the future of our planet. Yet, progressive movements leading civil resistance to authoritarianism, particularly grassroots organisations, remain chronically underfunded and the organisers, activists, and movements at the forefronts of this work during an era of overlapping crises are working with minimal resources while confronting burnout, reprisals, and trauma.
In order to be part of the solution, we must first clarify who and what we’re investing in. New research from Human Rights Funders Network projects that human rights-focused ODA will decline by up to $1.9 billion or 31 percent annually by 2026. By investing in grassroots organisations—including unregistered efforts—that focus on structurally excluded populations, philanthropy can stave off the worst outcomes of the funding crisis. The frontline movements and communities bearing the brunt of and addressing authoritarianism and climate change are not merely beneficiaries or recipients of aid. They are the leaders and strategists philanthropy can support and learn from. We cannot forget that it’s Indigenous communities who protect the majority of our planet’s biodiversity and lead the resistance to fossil fuel expansion thereby being one of the largest forces to combat climate chaos. Grassroots communities also grow the majority of the world’s food grown with agroecological methods. It’s relationship-building by movements that is key to shifting pillar loyalty to defend democracy. These are rooted, place-based, local innovations and solutions that have deep breadth and experience and can drive the systemic change our world desperately needs.
To address the breadth of crises we’re facing, philanthropy must act as an ecosystem and fund ecosystems. Now is the time to fund movements within communities, in networks and ecosystems with one another. It’s not about one issue or one community, but about ensuring that democratic resistance is funded at every level. In order to do so, philanthropy must demonstrate collective action instead of operating in siloed strategies. There are powerful examples of philanthropy coming together to address crises in recent memory, including during the peak of the Covid pandemic and in response to the invasion of Ukraine, that can be replicated. For example, in response to the pandemic, philanthropy was not only able to invest more than $20 billion dollars in communities around the world, but also effectively act as a convener for information sharing and to foster collaboration across governmental and private sector stakeholders. Funding social movement ecosystems is also a risk mitigation strategy, ensuring that risk is spread across groups both for funders and movements.
Realistic risk assessment and mitigation strategies allow philanthropy to act with courage. Philanthropic institutions must clearly identify the real risks facing them and prepare to address them in order to step up in this moment. While there are risks facing private foundations, including but not limited to being questioned by governmental entities about their grantmaking, many of these risks are short term and administrative and can be mitigated through, among other strategies, working in tandem with other funders. For movements, however, the risks are existential. Movements for climate and environmental justice are among the most targeted in the world, because they take on corporate interests, agribusiness, extractive industries, and organised crime. In 2024 alone, more than 320 human rights defenders were killed. Fully 85 percent of targeted killings of activists in Latin America are those of environmental and climate justice defenders. It is true that funders need to move cautiously to preserve their ability to fund these very movements and activists on the frontlines, but they must not confuse caution with abandoning those risking their lives to protect our planet and fight for human rights for all.
How philanthropy supports those defending democracy at the ground level is as important as the dollar amounts. If funders were waiting for an emergency moment to throw away their playbook and fund with trust and abundance, we have arrived at that moment. Long, arduous, and bureaucratic systems and processes for grantmaking are not designed to meet the moment of poly crisis we’re in. Funders can use this moment to redesign their processes to meet not only the needs of movements but the complexity and pace of current crises. It’s essential that donors normalise long-term, unrestricted funding, resource movement infrastructure, and support collective care for activists on the frontlines. Legal defense, digital security, crisis communications, media trainings, and spaces for defenders to build intersectional and shared strategies require resources in order for movements to survive and succeed. Defenders are operating under extremely risky conditions with bare bones support, while fighting burnout and reprisals. Investing in collective care, such as wellbeing spaces, health insurance, retirement, and transition funds, is as important for the survival of movements as infrastructure support.
Over the past few months, there have been numerous convenings and conversations on what philanthropy should do in the current political and funding landscape. The answer is clear. Philanthropy should invest in strategies that succeed in protecting democracy and our planet and time and time again, we’ve seen that those are led by grassroots and frontline activists and movements. These movements will continue to exist whether funders step up or not. The question, in the words of activist and former Co-Executive Director of Highlander Center Ash-Lee Woodard Henderson, is whether they’ll be resourced to win.
Kate Kroeger is the executive director of Urgent Action Fund for Feminist Activism. Kellea Miller is the executive director of Human Rights Funders Network. Samir Doshi is director of Just Transitions at CS Fund.
A woman holds up a blank sheet of paper during a demonstration against China’s strict COVID-19 lockdown measures following the deadly apartment fire in Urumqi, Xinjiang. (Photo by Frederic J. BROWN / AFP via Getty Images)
Democracy activists often face arrest, exile, harassment, or retaliation against their families. This essay explains why NED protects sensitive information about grantees, how that duty of care supports the people advancing freedom, and how NED balances discretion with accountability.
Imagine living in a place where a knock at the door in the middle of the night could mean imprisonment, or worse. This is the daily reality for countless democracy and human rights activists around the world. Their bravery makes their work not only meaningful, but also deeply consequential.
The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) supports those working to strengthen fundamental freedoms in transitional and fragile democracies, as well as those bravely advancing freedom in closed societies. Our grantmaking focuses on the building blocks of democratic life—free elections, independent media, and the freedoms of association, speech, and belief. Just as important, however, is our responsibility to protect the individuals who make that work possible.
This primer offers an overview of why NED carefully manages information about its grantees, including what is shared publicly, what is provided to Congressional oversight bodies, and how discretion underpins the safety and viability of those we support. Activists face vastly different risks depending on their location, visibility, and the tactics of the regimes they confront. Supporting democracy means protecting those who fight for it, including respecting their choices about public visibility to ensure their safety.
Why Public Exposure Can Be Dangerous
Speaking out in many parts of the world can mean risking arrest, exile, or death. According to Freedom House, only about one in five countries around the world is rated “free,” while The Economist’s Intelligence Unit has found that only 25 countries today qualify as full democracies. For the vast majority living under authoritarian or hybrid regimes, even symbolic acts of dissent, like holding up a blank piece of paper, can lead to life-disrupting consequences.
Authoritarian regimes understand the power of dissent and the threat posed by those who dare to speak. That’s why they’ve developed increasingly sophisticated methods to target activists, journalists, human rights lawyers, and civil society leaders, both inside their borders and abroad. Their reach extends across continents, threatening those in exile through transnational repression and those at home through direct prosecution.
The following stories from grantees illustrate why NED’s approach to protection must adapt to the risks posed by both transnational repression and direct prosecution.
Rushan Abbas at the 2025 Democracy Awards. (Photo: M.K. Mindful Media)
Case Study: Rushan Abbas and the CCP’s Hostage Diplomacy
Rushan Abbas, founder of Campaign for Uyghurs and a NED grantee, gave her first public speech about China’s abuses in Xinjiang in 2018. Her husband’s entire family had already vanished in the 2017 crackdown. Just six days after her speech, her sister, Dr. Gulshan Abbas, a retired medical doctor with no political ties, also disappeared.
“She was being targeted because of my advocacy,” Abbas said. “Every day I wake up with her eyes in my mind. Of course, I feel guilty. Speaking out in the United States as an American citizen cost my sister her freedom.”
To this day, Dr. Gulshan Abbas remains missing in China’s vast detention system—her only ”crime” being related to someone who exposed the CCP’s abuses. This brutal form of hostage diplomacy forces exiled activists into an impossible choice: stay silent or risk their loved ones’ safety.
Case Study: Natalia Arno and the Kremlin’s Transnational Reach
Natalia Arno (Photo by THOMAS SAMSON/AFP via Getty Images)
Natalia Arno, president of the Free Russia Foundation and a longtime NED partner, was forced into exile from Russia in 2012. Since then, she’s been a leading voice in exile activism, advocating for political prisoners, supporting democratic leaders, and coordinating programs to hold the Putin regime accountable.
But in May 2023, after a private event in Prague, she returned to her hotel to find the door ajar and a strange scent inside the room. Hours later, she experienced numbness, pain, and blurred vision. Doctors in Washington, D.C. confirmed exposure to nerve toxins.
“I never could have believed the scale and brazenness and how long the Kremlin tentacles are into the West,” she said. Despite years of surveillance and intimidation, Arno continues her work. “You could lose your life,” she said, listing examples of poisoned, tortured, and murdered activists. “I have been in this game for 20 years, and I can write a book about all the kinds of attacks against me in Russia.”
Activism in Exile and Under Authoritarian Rule
Authoritarian regimes target democracy advocates in two primary ways. Activists working inside authoritarian states face direct repression: denial of employment, education or housing to surveillance, interrogation, imprisonment, or death. Activists living in exile, such as members of the diaspora, confront transnational repression: intimidation, harassment, cyberattacks, and retaliation against relatives still living under dictatorship.
While both forms of courage are vital to the cause of freedom, they require different kinds of protection. For activists in exile like Abbas and Arno, visibility can be both a tool and a vulnerability—they use their public platforms to build international support while enduring harassment and threats from afar. For those working quietly inside repressive states, even the faintest association with democracy support can result in severe consequences. NED’s Duty of Care and Do-Not-Disclose policies reflect this spectrum of risk, providing flexible protections appropriate to different contexts, roles, and levels of exposure.
Visibility and Risk in Democracy Activism
Activists face difficult decisions about how visible they can afford to be. For some who live in exile, like Abbas and Arno, activism is essential to raising awareness and building international support. As public figures in free societies, they can testify before lawmakers, engage journalists, and speak on behalf of silenced communities. But even in freedom, visibility comes with the danger of transnational repression.
Abbas has faced smear campaigns, online harassment, and death threats requiring FBI involvement. Her family in China has been targeted. “Those kinds of things actually became so normal because we face this almost weekly or monthly,” she said. “And we just laugh at it and take it as the impact of our work.”
Arno’s risks didn’t end after fleeing Russia. “Being in NATO or EU countries doesn’t save us from this huge Kremlin machine,” she said. “Surveillance is still huge, cyberattacks are huge, but also physical attacks.”
These cases illustrate the first front of transnational repression: authoritarian regimes projecting power beyond their borders to intimidate, threaten, or attack critics abroad.
Iran has become one of the clearest examples of how far authoritarian regimes are willing to go to silence dissent beyond their borders. Iranian democracy activists, journalists, and human rights defenders living in exile have faced kidnapping plots, assassination attempts, surveillance, and harassment across Europe and North America. Multiple Western governments have linked Iranian intelligence services to plots targeting exiled dissidents, leading to disrupted operations, criminal prosecutions, and sanctions. Iran’s efforts to pursue critics abroad underscore the growing reality of transnational repression and the need for democracy organizations to extend duty-of-care protections even to partners living in open societies.
At the same time, this external pressure is inseparable from the repression activists face at home. For those still inside authoritarian states, the threat is direct and unrelenting. These activists continue their work at great personal risk, operating under surveillance, harassment, and the constant threat of arrest or imprisonment while pushing for democratic change.
In response to these dangers, many activists adopt a lower profile. How public they are in their work is an intentional choice to protect themselves, their families, and their networks from retaliation. While the steps they take to remain safe in authoritarian environments may mean their activism lacks the visibility of public campaigns, it is no less vital. Activists in authoritarian environments take great risks to build the infrastructure of democracy movements—documenting abuses, organizing communities, and informing international action.
In China, the Chinese government has systematically stigmatized international democracy funding. Even tenuous connections to external support and collaboration can carry severe consequences. As one activist working with international human rights and democracy organizations explained, “Me, myself, my family members, were interrogated by police officers in China.” Others have been detained and prosecuted for similar work. The Chinese government has also targeted the family members of human rights defenders in an effort to deter continued activism.
As a result, discretion is essential. “We prefer NED to not mention our names publicly,” the activist said, “in order to protect staff members and board members and even former colleagues, former members, and our families.”
Public activism draws global attention and builds coalitions, but it also brings heightened risk. Regimes often target public figures to intimidate or silence them—and to send a warning to others.
Activism that seeks to engage in quieter and less confrontational forms of engagement, by contrast, can provide greater security and sustainability, particularly in repressive settings. “While of course it’s much more dangerous for those activists who are inside Russia to speak out,” one Russian activist explained, “it’s much safer for those working in exile and most continue their work quietly.”
Human rights work in authoritarian environments demands different operational and political strategies. While the work often seeks to expose gross human rights abuses and expose corrupt networks, the ability to gather and verify the information requires close cooperation between groups that are in exile and networks that are in country.
In Tibet, NED-supported partners have documented China’s campaign to erase Tibetan identity through colonial-style boarding schools. In Venezuela and Cuba, investigative journalists have exposed corruption and human rights violations while keeping low profiles to stay safe. While international and exile organizations are often the face of the work, the networks on the ground are equally essential to what they achieve.
As Arno put it, “People are our biggest value, our biggest treasure. When activists are facing such dangerous things like imprisonment, torture, murder, we have to protect them with all possible measures.”
Supporting Activists Safely and Effectively
Since its founding in 1983, NED has supported democracy activists and citizen leaders—whether operating in exile or inside closed societies—to advance human rights and democratic values in some of the world’s most repressive contexts. NED’s Founding Statement of Principles and Objectives notes that in “societies where even [these] independent institutions are prohibited or severely restricted, the immediate objective is to enlarge whatever possibilities exist for independent thought, expression, and cultural activity. … [The Endowment] will not neglect those who keep alive the flame of freedom in closed societies.”
As a congressionally mandated independent nonprofit, NED was designed to provide support to its partners in a way that is impactful, secure, and accountable. Few donors are structured to do this work with the same level of care and discretion, which is why frontline democracy advocates consistently place their trust in NED.
Key to NED’s approach is the principle of protection through discretion. As NED’s Board of Directors approve grantmaking strategy and individual projects, the identifying details of grantees are made available to them. However, we avoid public disclosures that could expose partners to government reprisal. This is not only an ethical commitment—it is a key operating principle rooted in NED’s Duty of Care and Public Disclosure Policies, which obligates the organization to do no harm.
Without this policy of protection, many activists could not safely engage with international support. “It’s very difficult to build reputation and trust” one democracy activist said. “How you treat your grantees, with special care and understanding of the particularities of each region, should be the gold standard that all donors take as an example.”
NED’s Approach to Public Disclosure of Grantees
NED publishes listings of its current grantees twice a year on its website and includes a comprehensive listing of grantees in its annual report, complete with grant descriptions, grant amounts, and grant durations, organized by country and region. However, we do not publicly disclose personally identifiable information in these listings to avoid placing individuals at risk, now or in the future.
Some have asked why NED does not publish the personally identifying details of its grantees on its website. The reason is simple: in many cases, doing so would put a target on the backs of those we support and compromise their ability to do their work.
NED’s Duty of Care and Public Disclosure policies seek to balance the ability of our partners to operate as freely and securely as possible with our transparency requirements. At the same time, our relationship with our grantees is fully transparent. Organizations must take the initiative themselves to seek support from the Endowment. They know who we are, where our funds come from, and the values that guide our support. Activists seek out NED’s assistance precisely because it is open, accountable, and trusted.
NED respects the agency of its grantees to decide whether it is safe to publicly disclose their relationship with NED. Organizations regularly and proudly share their partnership with NED as a mark of credibility and support. Others, particularly those operating in hostile environments, often request confidentiality to safeguard their security and effectiveness. In all cases, NED ensures our partners are aware of our policies and procedures so that they can make informed decisions about their own public posture.
This approach is an ethical obligation as much as it is a matter of organizational policy. We know about the persecution of Uyghurs and underground Christians in China, the protests in Cuba and Iran, the continued repression in Belarus and Nicaragua, and human rights abuses in Burma and North Korea because courageous individuals risk their lives to report them. Supporting democracy means more than funding programs or issuing statements—it means protecting the people behind the work.
With that responsibility comes a duty: to minimize risk, not add to it through careless exposure. In a world where authoritarian regimes are increasingly sophisticated, coordinated, and ruthless in targeting dissent, discretion becomes an essential safeguard.
Transparency and Accountability
Even as NED protects grantee confidentiality in public settings, it maintains rigorous transparency and accountability to the NED Board, Congress, and U.S. oversight bodies. The NED Board reviews and approves both grantmaking strategy and individual grants. As outlined in our Duty of Care, we submit comprehensive annual plans and updates to congressional committees that outline our strategy and grantmaking priorities. We maintain active communication with Members and their staff, respond promptly to official requests for information, and create opportunities for elected officials to engage directly with our grantees—both in Washington and abroad—to better understand the real-world impact of NED-supported efforts. We likewise provide an annual report to the executive branch as a formal accounting of our work, priorities, and impact. NED consults regularly with representatives of the legislative and executive branches on our work, both in Washington and in the field, and responds to Freedom of Information Act information requests.
NED upholds strict due diligence and financial oversight procedures to ensure that resources are used responsibly and for their intended purpose. Our grantmaking is governed by the standards of all federal spending, with clear agreements, financial reporting requirements, and independent audits to ensure funds are used for their intended purpose.
In addition, the Endowment is subject to comprehensive oversight, including Government Accountability Office (GAO) investigations, State Department Inspector General reviews, and annual independent audits.
By combining discretion abroad with transparency at home, NED fulfills its dual responsibility: protecting those who advance freedom in repressive environments while remaining transparent and accountable. As authoritarian threats grow more complex and far-reaching, we will continue strengthening our Duty of Care so those who defend democracy can pursue their work safely, effectively, and with confidence in the support behind them.
The March 2026 Watchlist from the CIVICUS Monitor highlights five countries where civic freedoms are deteriorating at an alarming pace: Ecuador, Georgia, Iran, the Philippines and Benin. Each faces escalating restrictions on fundamental rights, including freedoms of expression, association and peaceful assembly. The Watchlist draws on research findings, partner input and testimony from activists on the ground, and signals where urgent international attention is needed.
CIVICUS MONITOR CIVIC SPACE RATINGS:
OPEN
NARROWED
OBSTRUCTED
REPRESSED
CLOSED
Ecuador Civic space rating:Obstructed Ecuador’s government has increasingly relied on militarised security measures, invoking an “internal armed conflict” to justify exceptional powers. Indigenous-led protests in 2025 were met with lethal force, arbitrary detentions and internet disruptions. Environmental and Indigenous leaders face criminalisation, with more than 200 social leaders investigated or prosecuted. A 2025 law has expanded state control over civil society organisations, enabling account freezes and burdensome reporting. Journalists face killings, attacks and suspensions of media outlets, all unfolding amid a broader erosion of judicial independence.
Georgia Civic space rating:Repressed Georgia has seen a dramatic decline in civic space, marked by mass protests since late 2024 and heavy-handed police responses. Hundreds have been detained, tortured or investigated. New laws restrict protests, impose “foreign agent” requirements on civil society and media, and threaten criminal penalties for receiving foreign funding. Opposition parties and leaders face politically motivated charges, and new rules bar many civil society actors from political participation for years.
Iran Civic space rating: Closed Iran’s civic space, already severely restricted, has worsened following mass protests over economic and political grievances. Security forces killed thousands of protesters in January 2026 during a nationwide internet blackout, and tens of thousands were arrested. After regional airstrikes in February 2026, authorities imposed another shutdown and intensified censorship. Journalists and activists face extreme risk, and some detainees now face the death penalty. Despite repression, demonstrations continue following the death of the Supreme Leader.
The Philippines Civic space rating:Repressed Civic space in the Philippines remains under pressure, with police violence and mass arrests during anti-corruption protests in 2025. Dozens of protesters face sedition charges under cybercrime laws. Human rights defenders are frequently targeted, including through fabricated terrorism-financing cases. Red-tagging—accusing critics of communist links—remains widespread. Journalists also face prosecution, including the conviction of reporter Frenchie Mae Cumpio after years of pre-trial detention.
Benin Civic space rating:Obstructed Benin approaches its April 2026 presidential election with shrinking democratic space. Strict electoral rules have limited the field to two approved candidates, and the January 2026 legislative elections produced a parliament without opposition representation. Authorities increasingly use the Digital Code to prosecute journalists and critics, while media outlets face suspensions and mandatory government messaging. Protests are routinely banned or dispersed, and fear of reprisals has led to widespread self-censorship.
On 26 February 2026 the Human Rights Foundation (HRF) launched its research project, the Tyranny Tracker, a qualitative index that classifies the world’s countries and territories as democratic, hybrid authoritarian, or fully authoritarian. This political regime assessment tool is now available to the public at a moment when tyranny is on the rise worldwide.
According to HRF’s Tyranny Tracker, 75% of the world’s population lives under authoritarianism despite representing only 92 countries, or less than half of all countries in the world — a number that is partly explained by the hybrid authoritarian regimes of India, Indonesia, Pakistan, and the Philippines, and by the fully authoritarian regimes of China, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Russia, and Vietnam, which rule over some of the world’s most populous countries. The Tyranny Tracker classifies countries using a methodology consisting of 45 indicators categorized into three thematic pillars: electoral competition, freedom of dissent, and institutional accountability. The methodology is informed by academic literature and HRF’s 20 years of experience advocating on behalf of dissidents from countries ruled by authoritarian regimes. The research draws on a range of sources, including media, data collected by HRF’s in-house research team, an extensive human rights network, and expert advice. Published today in the Journal of Democracy, a piece from HRF’s lead researchers Javier El-Hage, Malaak Jamal, and Alvaro Piaggio, explores what sets the Tyranny Tracker apart from other indexes, and how readers can use the tool to inform their work.
“The Tyranny Tracker is a culmination of years of HRF’s internal research to identify patterns of authoritarianism worldwide and decide which regimes to prioritize as targets of our advocacy work,” said Malaak Jamal, HRF’s director of policy and research. The Tyranny Tracker uses three classifications for the governments ruling countries around the world: Democratic governments are characterized by largely free and fair elections, freedom to criticize the government, and an independent judiciary capable of being an effective check on government abuse. While many of these governments currently face real challenges in resisting the autocratic tendencies of democratically elected leaders emboldened by increased political polarization globally, they continue to maintain the mechanisms of self-correction that allow democracies to survive and evolve, as opposing political parties regularly and peacefully transfer power. Hybrid authoritarian regimes are typically the result of the severe erosion of institutions by an initially democratically elected government, and represent a step in the process of authoritarian consolidation. While these authoritarian regimes maintain a façade of democracy through regular elections, their autocratic actions heavily skew elections in favor of the incumbent to the point that an opposition victory and peaceful transfer of power are highly unlikely. Fully authoritarian regimes systematically stifle meaningful electoral competition and the basic freedom to dissent, all the while tightly controlling a judicial branch, which lacks any ability to serve as a check on government abuse. These authoritarian regimes regularly rig elections (when they hold them at all), shut down critical media outlets and organizations, and target political opponents and dissenters with arrests and killings, making the chance of a nonviolent transition to democracy as a result of elections little more than a theoretical possibility.
“HRF’s new tool aims to contribute to the healthy competition and complementarity among existing democracy indexes by great institutions, such as Freedom House, V-Dem, International IDEA, or the Economist Intelligence Unit, that already do a great job documenting the situation of authoritarianism worldwide in a quantitative way. The Tyranny Tracker, on its part, is methodologically different as it follows a simple yet structurally cohesive and qualitative analysis process, carried out by HRF’s regional policy and advocacy researchers and experts, resulting in limited yet materially significant differences in country classifications,” said Javier El-Hage, HRF’s chief legal and policy officer.
Philippe Bolopion, Executive Director of HRW, starts the annual report of 2026 with the following words: “The global human rights system is in peril. Under relentless pressure from US President Donald Trump, and persistently undermined by China and Russia, the rules-based international order is being crushed, threatening to take with it the architecture human rights defenders have come to rely on to advance norms and protect freedoms. To defy this trend, governments that still value human rights, alongside social movements, civil society, and international institutions, need to form a strategic alliance to push back.“
…In this context, 2025 may be seen as a tipping point. In just 12 months, the Trump administration has carried out a broad assault on key pillars of US democracy and the global rules-based order, which the US, despite inconsistencies, was, with other states, instrumental in helping to establish.
In short order, Trump’s second-term administration has undermined trust in the sanctity of elections, reduced government accountability, gutted food assistance and healthcare subsidies, attacked judicial independence, defied court orders, rolled back women’s rights, obstructed access to abortion care, undermined remedies for racial harm, terminated programs mandating accessibility for people with disabilities, punished free speech, stripped protections from trans and intersex people, eroded privacy, and used government power to intimidate political opponents, the media, law firms, universities, civil society, and even comedians.
Claiming a risk of “civilizational erasure” in Europe and leaning on racist tropes to cast entire populations as unwelcome in the US, the Trump administration has embraced policies and rhetoric that align with white nationalist ideology. Immigrants and asylum seekers have been subjected to inhumane conditions and degrading treatment; 32 died in US Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody in 2025, and as of mid-January 2026, an additional 4 have died.
The US president of course has the authority to tighten US borders and enforce stricter immigration policies. The administration is not, however, entitled to deny legal process to asylum seekers, mistreat undocumented migrants, or unlawfully discriminate. In a well-functioning democracy, no electoral mandate should supersede domestic legislation, constitutional protections, or international human rights law. Trump’s team has repeatedly bypassed these guardrails.
The violations have not stopped at the border. The Trump administration used a 1798 law to send hundreds of Venezuelan migrants to an infamous prison in El Salvador, where they were tortured and sexually abused. Its blatantly unlawful strikes on boats in the Caribbean and the Pacific extrajudicially killed more than 120 people whom Trump claims were drug traffickers…
A summary can be found in Al-Jazeera of 4 February 2026
Are you a human rights defender working on democratic backsliding and/or racial justice, keen to use the UN to push for change at home? If so, apply for the 2026 edition of ISHR’s flagship training, the Human Rights Defender Advocacy Programme (HRDAP)!
After a successful edition in 2025, ISHR is pleased to launch the new call for applications for the 2026 Human Rights Defender Advocacy Programme (HRDAP26), which will take place both remotely and in Geneva and will be focused on thematic and context area! Below are some important dates to consider before applying:
Mandatory distance learning course: 13 April – 8 June 2026 (part time)
In-person course in Geneva: 10- 20 June 2026 (full time)
Deadline to apply: 15 January 2026, midnight CET (Geneva Time)
Programme description with all related information can be downloaded here.
For the last 10 years, this flagship training has equipped human rights defenders with the knowledge and skills to integrate the UN human rights system into their existing work at the national level in a strategic manner.
Following an external review of the programme in 2024, as well as to maximise impact and enhance follow-up, for 2026 the HRDAP selection criteria are evolving: they are based on 2 themes focused on context area and thematic advocacy, according to ISHR’ strategic priorities and opportunities at the UN: democratic backsliding and racial justice. The HRDAP themes will change annually (see the criteria below and the programme description for more details).[see: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2024/11/27/ishrs-training-for-human-rights-defenders-2025/]
12 participants will be selected for the 2026 edition of HRDAP.
What are HRDAP objectives?
By participating in the programme, defenders will:
gain knowledge and tools, which they can use to ensure their voice is central in international human rights decision-making
explore and compare the benefits of engagement with the Human Rights Council, the Special Procedures, the OHCHR, the Universal Periodic Review and the Treaty Bodies, and examine how they can use them to bolster their work at the national level
develop networks, strategies and advocacy techniques to increase the potential of their national and regional advocacy work.
How is HRDAP organised?
HRDAP topics
Defenders will complete a 10-week hybrid learning programme through a participatory approach, which will include:
accessing the HRDAP Platform, where they can complete e-learning courses on each key UN human rights mechanism and on advocacy strategies, and access interactive learning materials and case studies on the ISHR Academy
taking part in live Q&A sessions with human rights experts
receiving continuous advocacy support and personalised coaching in order to develop concrete advocacy objectives to make strategic use of the international human rights system
building networks around the world, and learning from peers from a range of regions working on a range of human rights issues
applying their knowledge to case-studies scenarios and enhancing their advocacy toolbox according to their specific needs
receiving support and advocacy accompaniment to conduct activities during the 62nd and 63rd Human Rights Council sessions and other relevant opportunities.
Participants will have the unique opportunity to apply their knowledge and skills while being in Geneva as well as to meet and share with their peers and experts. The blended format of the course allows defenders to continue their vital work on the ground, while diving into the inner workings of each key UN human rights mechanism and gaining first-hand experience from advocates and UN staff on how civil society can strategically engage in the international human rights space.
What are the criteria and themes for selection?
This programme is directed at experienced human rights defenders working in non-governmental organisations, with existing advocacy experience at the national level and some prior knowledge of the international human rights system. In 2026, we will select human rights defenders working on democratic backsliding and racial justice.
Defenders working in contexts of democratic backsliding
This theme is for human rights defenders working in democratic countries where authoritarian practices are gaining ground.
We particularly welcome applications from defenders who are:
pushing back against repressive laws, attacks on free expression, or restrictions on the freedom of peaceful assembly and association
documenting abuses linked to police and military violence, arbitrary arrests, surveillance, or harassment
fighting for justice, transparency, and the rule of law, and refusing to let democratic institutions be dismantled without accountability.
Defenders working on racial justice
This thematic is for defenders working to dismantle systemic racism and build societies rooted in equality and dignity. We will select applications from defenders focusing on anti-racism, exclusion and police violence, including anti-Black racism as experienced through legacies of colonialism and the Transatlantic Trade in Enslaved Africans, Indigenous (including Afro-Indigenous) communities working on historical injustice and reparations, as well as defenders of migrants and asylum seekers. We also welcome applications from mothers working for accountability for their children, victims of police violence.
After persistent speculation about the possibility of the prize going to Donald Trump [see e.g.: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2025/07/24/nobel-peace-prize-choice-between-trump-and-albanese/], it was announced today 10 October that the Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado has won the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize, winning more recognition as a woman “who keeps the flame of democracy burning amid a growing darkness.”
The former opposition presidential candidate was lauded for being a “key, unifying figure” in the once deeply divided opposition to President Nicolás Maduro’s government, said Jørgen Watne Frydnes, chair of the Norwegian Nobel committee. “In the past year, Ms. Machado has been forced to live in hiding,” Watne Frydnes said. Despite serious threats against her life, she has remained in the country, a choice that has inspired millions. When authoritarians seize power, it is crucial to recognize courageous defenders of freedom who rise and resist.”
The Nobel Prize Committee clarified that “Maria Corina Machado meets all three criteria stated in Alfred Nobel’s will for the selection of a Peace Prize laureate. She has brought her country’s opposition together. She has never wavered in resisting the militarisation of Venezuelan society. She has been steadfast in her support for a peaceful transition to democracy.
Maria Corina Machado has shown that the tools of democracy are also the tools of peace. She embodies the hope of a different future, one where the fundamental rights of citizens are protected, and their voices are heard. In this future, people will finally be free to live in peace.”
Josef Benedict and Rajavelu Karunanithi published a piece in the Diplomat of 18 July 2025 describing how from Hong Kong to India, governments are passing and weaponizing new laws to pursue and jail whoever speaks up for human rights.
Four years ago, on the 32nd anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, plain clothes police arrested human rights lawyer and pro-democracy activist Chow Hang-tung outside her office in Hong Kong. Her alleged crime? Publishing two social media posts advertising a public vigil to remember the notorious crackdown in Tiananmen Square. At the time, Chow was the vice-chair of the now defunct Hong Kong Alliance in Support of the Patriotic Democratic Movement of China, the main organizer of annual Tiananmen vigils…
Sadly, such repression is not unique to Hong Kong. Across Asia, authoritarian and democratic governments alike are passing and weaponizing new laws – in clear violation of international law and standards – to pursue and jail whoever speaks up for human rights. Today, on Nelson Mandela International Day, we call for the release of Chow Hang-tang, who is part of CIVICUS’ Stand As My Witness campaign, as well as other human rights defenders unjustly locked up in Asia around the world.
The CIVICUS Monitor, which tracks civic space conditions across the world, now rates Hong Kong’s civic space as “closed,” the worst possible ranking. Hundreds remain behind bars as police systematically use the new laws to arrest and prosecute people on trumped-up charges. Often, the process itself becomes the punishment as activists spend years in detention before they are even tried…
Meanwhile, Hong Kong authorities are trying to take their repression international, by offering bounties for activists-in-exile charged under the National Security Law and by arresting the father of a prominent U.S.-based activist, Anna Kwok.
..Hong Kong’s National Security Laws have become something of a model for other Asian governments looking to stifle dissent.
Look no further than India, often called the world’s largest democracy, where Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government resorts to similar laws to consolidate power and silence his critics. Dozens of activists have been jailed under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), a draconian anti-terror law. Under the UAPA’s provisions, activists remain in pre-trial detention for long periods and are denied bail, including human rights defender Khurram Parvez, who was arrested in November 2021. His trial has yet to start, four years on. [see also: https://www.trueheroesfilms.org/thedigest/laureates/81468931-79AA-24FF-58F7-10351638AFE3]
Meanwhile, Cambodia’s Han Manet regime has used “incitement” laws as their weapon of choice to silence activists, journalists, and members of the opposition.
With legal repression spreading across Asia, the international community must do more to push back and stand with these brave activists. Foreign governments must not only speak out when activists are convicted, but step in much earlier when these human rights defenders are arrested. Diplomats should visit wrongly arrested activists in detention, monitor their trials, and engage with their families. Foreign governments must also use international platforms like the United Nations Human Rights Council and bilateral meetings to highlight their cases and call for their release.
Activists-in-exile also need support and assistance, especially when they face transnational repression. The recent G-7 Leaders’ Statement on Transnational Repression was a good start, but strong rhetoric must now turn into serious action. Failure to undertake such actions will see a further regression of democracy and repression of civic freedoms in Asia and elsewhere.
‘In 2024, we have witnessed extraordinary levels of hostility towards democracy, from rampant disinformation and information manipulation by foreign actors, to the silencing of media and human rights defenders, and a strong pushback against gender equality and diversity, undoing years of progress in many countries across the globe. Today, only 29% of the world’s population live in liberal democracies. At the heart of these challenges lies peace. Peace is not simply the absence of war. It is the active cultivation of justice, the protection of the most vulnerable, the realisation of all human rights and the commitment to dialogue and reconciliation.’ – High Representative, Kaja Kallas
The publication of the EU’s Annual Human Rights Report takes place in the context of multiple and cascading crises, including war on the European continent and the resurgence of conflict in many other areas of the world. These developments underscore the strong links between peace, human rights and democracy. Climate change, digital transformation, and rising inequalities add to the growing human rights challenges worldwide.
The report follows the structure of the EU’s Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy, particularly the EU’s work on protecting and empowering individuals, building resilient, inclusive and democratic societies, promoting a global system for human rights and democracy, harnessing opportunities and addressing challenges, and ensuring that the EU delivers by working with our partners.
The EU continues to support the strengthening of inclusive, representative and accountable institutions, and promoted a collaborative approach to democracy through the Team Europe Democracy initiative. The fight against information manipulation and interference also continues to be a priority through initiatives such as EUvsDisinfo. Over the past year, the European Endowment for Democracy has kept up its work on fostering democracy and working with free media and civil society in challenging circumstances in Belarus, and Ukraine among others. The EU has carried on supporting and empowering people on the frontlines of human rights advocacy.
While the global outlook is challenging, the EU is steadfastly pursuing deeper international cooperation and stronger early warning and prevention mechanisms. Efforts to ensure accountability for violations and abuses of human rights continue to be a key priority. Together with its partners, the EU is determined to protect the multilateral human rights system and uphold the central role of human rights and democracy in fostering peace, security and sustainable development.
Human Rights Watch, Civil Rights Defenders and many, many other NGOs are deeply alarmed by a new legislative proposal in Hungary that, if passed, would institutionalise sweeping, opaque, and politically motivated repression of independent civil society, the press, and private organisations that receive foreign support or have any kind of income that the Hungarian government feels would threaten the country’s sovereignty.
The draft law, which is deceptively titled ‘On the Transparency of Public Life’, would give the authorities unchecked powers, allowing it to recommend the registration of organisations deemed to be ‘influencing public life’ with foreign funding in ways that ‘threaten Hungary’s sovereignty’. Because this phrasing is vague and ideologically loaded, it risks including any kind of criticism of government policy, including the promotion of human rights, press freedom, gender equality, and the rule of law.
Potential disastrous consequences
No legal remedy: If the government demands an organisation register itself, the organisation in question would not be able to appeal this decision. Once listed, organisations would have no access to effective legal redress;
Broad definitions: ‘Foreign support’ is defined as any financial input, no matter how small, from practically any international source (including EU institutions and dual citizens) as well as commercial revenue;
Sweeping prohibitions and sanctions: Listed organisations would have to seek permission from the tax authorities to receive foreign support. Financial institutions would be required to report and block transfers, meaning NGOs would effectively be permanently monitored;
Loss of domestic support: Listed organisations would lose access to Hungary’s 1% income tax donation scheme, which would prevent them from receiving support from regular Hungarian citizens;
Political targeting: Leaders of registered organisations would be labelled ‘politically exposed persons’, which would expose their private financial transactions to invasive scrutiny;
Severe penalties: Any violations could lead to fines of up to 25 times the amount received, suspension of the organisation’s advocacy activities, and even forced closure.
EU must speak out against proposed law
Hungary’s draft law is not about transparency: it is a calculated attempt to criminalise dissent, silence watchdogs, and entrench one-party control over the democratic public sphere and civic space. If passed, the law would violate multiple provisions of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights, including freedom of expression and association and the right to an effective remedy.
In an open letter to President Ursula von der Leyen and Commissioner Michael McGrath of 22 May 2025, the NGOs urge to take the following immediate steps:
Immediately request the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to grant interim measures in the ongoing infringement procedure on the Law on the Defence of National Sovereignty (Case C-829/24). The Sovereignty Protection Office is crucial to the new bill and therefore this is an imminent and effective way to halt the progress and impact of the bill. Cognizant of the impending danger, the European Parliament and civil society have been calling for this step since 2024. Interim measures are designed to prevent irreparable harm — in this case, the effective paralysis of civil society organisations, independent media and dissenting voices – and with this new development comprehensive interim measures should be requested immediately.
At the same time, call on the Hungarian government to withdraw the bill and if unsuccessful, open a new infringement procedure on new violations that are not linked to the ongoing case on the Defence of National Sovereignty.
With the forthcoming Article 7 hearing on Hungary on 27 May 2025 and recognising the escalation of a systematic breakdown of the rule of law, support the Council of the EU to move to a vote on Article 7(1).
This new bill represents a severe and existential threat to democratic principles, human rights and the rule of law in Hungary and in the EU as a whole. If the existing tools are not effectively deployed, we risk an unravelling of the rules on which the EU was founded and a clear step towards authoritarian practices. We call on you to stand in solidarity with Hungarian civil society and their counterparts across the region and remain available to provide additional information and support.
Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards 