On 3 May 2026, UNHCR published “I am addicted to the truth”: A Venezuelan journalist finds safety and purpose in Canada“, written by Zeba Tasci in Ottawa.
For more than 15 years, Venezuelan journalist Halim Naim built his career on one principle: telling the truth. “I am addicted to the truth,” he says. However, that commitment came at a cost. Reporting in a country where freedom of expression was steadily eroding, Halim faced threats, censorship, and detention. As his visibility grew, so did the risks. Despite the danger, he continued his work—leading political coverage, interviewing senior public and political figures, reporting national events, and defending the public’s right to be informed. But the pressure intensified. After speaking about contested elections and giving a platform to opposition voices, threats extended beyond him to his family.
“I separated from my family to protect them,” he recalls. Soon after, Halim fled Venezuela. He sought refuge in Colombia, where he continued advocating for human rights and supporting fellow Venezuelan refugees. But life remained uncertain. Without secure legal status and amid ongoing safety concerns, he struggled to rebuild. “I felt like I was working in hiding.”
In 2025, after years living in exile, he was identified by UNHCR as a journalist at risk and was referred to Canada’s Human Rights Defenders resettlement program. The program is designed to protect individuals who face threats because of their work defending human rights—journalists, activists, and community leaders whose voices are often targeted. For many, it offers a rare and urgent lifeline: a safe pathway out of danger and a chance to continue their human rights work in freedom.
For Halim, the process moved quickly. Within months, he and his family arrived in Canada. “Canada saved me,” he says simply. Beyond safety, the program also provided recognition. “I never felt like a number. I felt like a professional who could contribute.”
By offering a pathway to safety and a supportive resettlement process, the program allows human rights defenders not only to escape persecution, but to rebuild their lives with dignity and purpose. It also enables them to continue contributing their expertise, whether through journalism or advocacy, in their new communities.
Canada’s Human Rights Defenders program offers safety to people defending human rights and face serious risk because of their work. These individuals may be journalists, lawyers, activists, environmental defenders, people working in women’s rights, LGBTQI+ activists, and community leaders. In 2025, UNHCR identified over 100 cases to be recommended for the program.
Halim hopes to use his experience to contribute both to Canada, and one day, Venezuela. His goal remains the same: telling the truth to defend human rights. For Halim, the program that brought him to safety represents something larger than his own story: a commitment to protecting those who speak out against injustice, and ensuring voices are not lost.
“Exile did not silence us. Exile ignited voices, made them stronger, made them more solid, more secure.”
On 28 May 2026, an important milestone was reached: ten years since the creation of ProtectDefenders.eu. Over the past decade, the EU Human Rights Defenders Mechanism has supported more than 97,000 defenders worldwide and become one of the most comprehensive international protection initiatives for human rights defenders at risk.
The anniversary comes at a challenging moment. Across all regions, defenders face escalating repression, shrinking civic space, conflict, transnational repression, digital surveillance and increasing restrictions on fundamental freedoms. At the same time, funding ecosystems supporting civil society and human rights work are under unprecedented pressure, while protection needs continue to grow.
Together, they send a strong and timely political signal: human rights defenders are essential to democratic and resilient societies; protecting them is a shared responsibility; and continued political and financial support for the EU Human Rights Defenders mechanism remains critical at a time when demand for protection far exceeds available resources. Their contributions also reaffirm the importance of ensuring the continuity and future strengthening of the Mechanism as part of the EU’s broader commitment to human rights worldwide.
Despite an increasingly difficult environment, ProtectDefenders.eu directly supported more than 10,460 human rights defenders in over 110 countries during the reporting period through emergency assistance, temporary relocation, advocacy, legal and psychosocial support, digital protection and organisational resilience initiatives. Yet the report also highlights a stark reality: current resources allow the Mechanism to respond to only a fraction of the legitimate requests for support received.
As the report makes clear, this is not the time to scale back protection efforts. It is a moment to reinforce collective commitment, strengthen protection systems and invest in the resilience of those who defend rights and freedoms around the world.
Defenders Coalition executive director Kamau Ngugi during the launch of the organisation’s 2026 Strategic Plan at a Nairobi hotel/HANDOUT
An ambitious initiative aimed at strengthening the protection and capacity of human rights defenders in Kenya has been unveiled amid growing concerns over shrinking civic space and rising threats against activists.
Defenders Coalition, a national organisation that works primarily to protect Human Rights Defenders (HRDs) in Kenya, announced plans to establish Haki Village, a resource hub designed to offer safety, training and support to those championing justice and accountability across the country.
Speaking during the launch, Defenders Coalition Executive Director Kamau Ngugi said the initiative would serve as a safe haven for activists and civil society actors operating in increasingly difficult environments. “It will be a safe space for research, wellness, training and protection,” Ngugi said. The launch comes at a time when concerns are growing over the safety of individuals and groups who speak against injustices, corruption and abuse of power, especially as political activities ahead of the 2027 elections begin to intensify.
Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR) chairperson Claris Ogangah, who was the chief guest at the event, welcomed the initiative, saying it comes at a critical moment when many human rights defenders require protection and institutional support. “Anybody who speaks against injustice needs to be protected,” Ogangah said.
She noted that the establishment of Haki Village complements the work already being undertaken by KNCHR and various civil society organisations seeking to safeguard civic space and uphold democratic freedoms in the country. Ogangah warned that the period leading to the 2027 General Election is likely to witness increased political activity, including campaign rallies and demonstrations that may at times turn violent.
Ngugi said the initiative forms part of the organisation’s broader 2026 Strategic Plan, which will guide interventions over the next five years.
According to him, the civic space in Kenya continues to face increasing pressure and could deteriorate further as the country approaches the next General Election.
“The civic space in Kenya is repressed and may narrow towards closed status as we head to the 2027 General Elections and beyond,” he said.
Ngugi observed that threats against human rights defenders are becoming more complex and sophisticated even as both global and local environments for activism grow increasingly uncertain.
He further argued that many countries, including Kenya, often fail to fully recognise and protect the important role played by human rights defenders, exposing them to intimidation,
On 23 April 2026 Anamaría Martinez and Elizabeth Moses for WRI explain how environmental defenders help prevent deforestation and protect ecosystems critical to climate stability. Yet many face severe and sometimes lethal threats while remaining underrecognized in climate policies that often depend on their work but fail to protect them.
Image by VaLife/Shutterstock
Benitha Bompendju grew up in Tshuapa province in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, surrounded by the dense rainforests of the Congo Basin. The world’s second-largest tropical forest, it plays a critical role in regulating the global climate, conserving biodiversity and sustaining local communities like Benitha’s. Yet when she was growing up, industrial logging was constant.
Concessionaires licensed by the government to harvest timber promised to bring benefits like schools and health centers. But these projects often did not materialize, and local authorities rarely got involved. Instead, companies stripped trees from the land and left local communities — who have long stewarded and relied on the rainforest — with little in return.
“As children, we watched the concessionaires leave with the wood and our parents received nothing,” Benitha recalls. “That was injustice.” This experience shaped Benitha’s future work. In 2016, she began monitoring forest-use contracts and documenting violations, working with partner organizations and government agencies to hold violators accountable. Since then, these joint efforts have helped curb illegal logging, enforce environmental regulations and deliver promised investments to communities.
Yet this critical work can be dangerous — lethally so. Benitha and other environmental defenders like her are often caught in the crosshairs of commercial interests and corruption. Many face threats, intimidation, physical assault, kidnapping and deadly violence. Global Witness documented 146 defenders killed or missing in 2024. The total number killed or missing from 2012 to 2024 is over 2,200 — and because many cases go unreported, the true toll is likely higher.
Research consistently shows that forests managed by Indigenous Peoples and local communities have lower deforestation rates and greater carbon sequestration than those managed under other regimes, making their contribution a measurable climate outcome. But without necessary protections — from access to climate justice to the systems and law enforcement needed to prevent threats and tragic loss of life — environmental defenders can’t safeguard vital ecosystems. And such protections can’t materialize or become institutionalized if environmental defenders aren’t accurately recognized and reflected in climate and nature policies.
The UN defines environmental human rights defenders as “individuals and groups who, in their personal or professional capacity and in a peaceful manner, strive to protect and promote human rights relating to the environment, including water, air, land, flora and fauna.” This includes those who defend the collective right to a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment, as well as traditional lands and livelihoods, through actions ranging from community organizing and legal advocacy to protesting, public campaigning and journalism. Many come from Indigenous and tribal groups with deep ancestral ties to the land.
Our research focuses specifically on frontline environmental defenders — those who live in, and defend, resource-rich areas experiencing what the UN Environment Programme describes as “abuse of environmental rights which affects a growing number of people in many parts of the world.”
To understand how defenders are represented in the gray (unpublished) and peer-reviewed literature on climate change under the UNFCCC, we examined 170 peer-reviewed documents from 2015 to 2025, including journal articles, books and reports, to map how defenders’ actions and contributions are reflected. The literature we surveyed both reflects trends in policymaking and serves as a source decision-makers might draw on to develop global and national climate and nature policies. Download
We found that groups such as Indigenous Peoples, women, local communities and youth are increasingly acknowledged as “agents of change” with decision-making capacity, rather than portrayed as victims or passive recipients of project benefits.
However, only 5% of the literature explicitly identifies members of these groups as “defenders” working to protect ecosystems and resources. This represents a crucial gap. Climate literature (and wider climate governance frameworks) tends to recognize who these people are — such as Indigenous Peoples, women-led organizations and youth activists — but without recognizing what they do, such as monitor deforestation and challenge extractive industries, or the risks they face as a result.
This difference may seem subtle, but is crucial. Recognizing someone’s identity alone doesn’t necessarily translate into protection or funding for the stewardship and advocacy these groups engage in. Not all identity groups (for example, Indigenous Peoples) are environmental defenders, and not all defenders belong to these groups, even if there is often an overlap. Recognizing defenders’ on the ground contributions, on the other hand, is important because it highlights their role in delivering concrete climate actions — and the need for institutional support and protection, not just their inclusion as stakeholders.
Protection can include early-warning and rapid-response systems that trigger protective action when defenders report threats or surveillance. It also means access to legal aid and judicial remedies, such as fast-track investigations, special counsel and public defenders trained in environmental and land-rights cases.
Meanwhile, governments are missing out on more effective and equitable climate solutions. Defenders bring unique perspectives, knowledge and lived experience — from agroforestry practices rooted in local traditions to stronger data collection and monitoring for more accurate NDC reporting — and help ensure policies are carried out more effectively. Yet threats to defenders weaken both national and global climate action by deterring those who risk their lives to safeguard ecosystems and enforce laws and policies.
What Would It Take to Support Environmental Defenders?
Frameworks like the Paris Agreement and the Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform (LCIPP) under the UNFCCC already aim to integrate rights-based climate action into national and global goals. But they lack clear definitions and guidance on how defenders should be recognized and supported. To truly support environmental defenders, they must be incorporated into climate policy, reporting and finance.
Here are three ways this can happen:
1) Defining ‘Defenders’
The first step is defining what defenders are — not by identities, but by the concrete actions they take for climate protection and community resilience. Many don’t self-identify as “defenders.” They are individuals and communities that contribute to climate action and environmental protection. This would capture these de facto roles.
Adopting a practice-based definition in national and multilateral policymaking, alongside indicators that track defenders’ contributions to climate action, would allow policymakers to systematically recognize the people protecting ecosystems on the ground. Indicators could include community monitoring results, forest protection metrics or the number of co-designed adaptation plans.
This formalization would have three practical implications: First, recognizing defenders as a group would allow implementation of protection measures by identifying and addressing the risks they take. Second, it could enable governments to allocate budget to support defender-led initiatives. Third, it could strengthen their participation in decision-making at national and international levels by giving them space to share their knowledge on climate action and local ecosystems.
2) Protecting Defenders
Without safety guarantees, defenders cannot participate or contribute effectively. Protection requires two key elements: physical safety and legal resources.
Physical safety includes strengthening safeguards to reduce social and environmental risks and exploitation, for example, when concessionaires undertake projects in resource-rich areas. One way this can be supported is by creating early warning systems that allow defenders to report threats to the authorities and receive support, ensuring formal grievance mechanisms exist to ensure defender safety (with international backing, if needed). Another is by integrating defender protection requirements into climate funding, including zero-tolerance policies for violent reprisals.
Legal protection includes access to resources and courts. However, many defenders lack access due to prohibitive costs, limited connections and a poor understanding of the system. Where corruption is entrenched and governance weak, domestic legal systems can be used against defenders, leading to their criminalization as a way to silence them and stop their work. International accountability mechanisms — including UN human rights bodies, transnational legal networks and climate finance conditions tied to defender safety — can create external pressure where national systems fail. But they can only function if defenders are formally recognized. Without this, accountability is nearly impossible to demand.
Some progress has been made in different parts of the world. The Aarhus Convention, adopted in 1998, requires parties to “ensure that individuals exercising their rights to environmental information, participation and justice are not penalized, persecuted or harassed.” And Article 9 of the Escazú Agreement, adopted in 2018, calls for “a safe and enabling environment for persons, groups and organizations that promote and defend human rights in environmental matters.”
At the national level, climate justice laws and policies in Colombia, Mexico, Indonesia and the Philippines enshrine protection mechanisms that cover defenders and their work, while aiming to provide access to legal support.
Environmental defenders can include anyone that protects human rights related to the environment, including rights to a safe, clean and sustainable environment. They often face threats to their well-being and lack access to legal systems that could help support them. Photo by Eric Isselee/Shutterstock
However, significant implementation gaps remain.
Colombia’s law has stalled due to limited accessibility, the absence of a clear definition of who constitutes a human rights defender and a reshuffling of funds during the COVID-19 pandemic. In Mexico, a backlog caused in part by insufficient staffing prevents cases from being addressed in a timely manner, and protection measures are not always adequately implemented.
Indonesia recognizes defenders explicitly, but in practice, continued criminalization and intimidation prevent them from accessing the legal protection the mechanism provides. In the Philippines, financial and cultural barriers to filing cases, limited legal knowledge among defenders and slow processing times hinder the widespread implementation of legal framework protecting them.
Yet when defenders can access justice, legal action can drive accountability and tangible outcomes. In 2018, 25 Colombian youth aged seven to 26 years old filed a lawsuit against the government, alleging that climate change and failure to reduce deforestation threatened their fundamental rights. While a lower court initially ruled against them, Colombia’s Supreme Court overturned the decision and ordered the government to devise and implement action plans to address deforestation in the Amazon.
Defenders need legal support and safe, inclusive access to the processes behind these laws and regulations. Rights-based climate cases and stronger rule of law systems provide essential recourse when other accountability channels fail.
3) Integrating Defenders into Climate Plans
Protecting Defenders Is Essential for Climate Action
Protecting environmental defenders is a question of safeguarding human rights and life, ensuring climate justice and strengthening climate action.
People like Benitha, who put their lives on the line to defend the forests and other ecosystems that sustain them and the world, should not face these high-stake risks alone. Governments, multilateral institutions and finance bodies share the responsibility of formally recognizing and protecting environmental defenders within climate, nature and other policies.
Doing so is a matter of equity — and a climate imperative. When defenders are safe and supported, forests stay standing, emissions stay out of the atmosphere and frontline communities can continue building resilience for their own futures and the world’s.
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 972 deaths recorded between 2016 and 2025 make Colombia “one of the most dangerous countries in the world” for such activists, according to the UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk.
Following the historic peace accords between the government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) in 2016, the report noted a gradual increase in assassinations. This was linked to the state’s inability to maintain a strong presence in areas previously controlled by the guerrilla group.
Over 70% of identified perpetrators were armed non-state actors, with the majority of cases analyzed by the report involved in drug trafficking, illegal mining, illegal logging, and human trafficking. The number of attacks and threats against human rights defenders investigated by the UN between 2022 and 2025 was 2,018, however this is thought to represent “only a fraction” of the true number due to underreporting and the lack of efficient government records of such cases.
The report recognized the work of the current Historic Pact (Pacto Histórico) government of Gustavo Petro, which has publicly recognized the gravity of the situation and worked to develop a national strategy to counter it. This included the 2022 law that established peace as a matter of state policy, recognizing the state’s responsibility to “guarantee human security” through a “territorial and intersectional approach”.
However, the UN says the state’s response has failed human rights defenders due to its fragmented nature that lacks coordination between national, departmental, and municipal authorities.
“In addition to ensuring accountability for the murders that have taken place, addressing the structural causes of this human tragedy through a comprehensive approach must be a priority for all relevant authorities in Colombia, in order to protect human rights defenders and enable them to carry out their vital work safely,” Türk said.
High levels of impunity have also persisted, with only 55 out of the 800 cases investigated between 2022 and 2025 ending in sentencing. In over half of these cases, no suspects have been identified.
Nearly a quarter of victims identified by the UN were Indigenous (23%) highlighting a disproportionate effect on this population that represents less than 5% of Colombians.
Other disproportionately affected groups include Afro-Colombians, LGBTQ+ individuals, rural community leaders and environmental protectors, as well as political leaders.
The report concluded by urging the Colombian state to take action to combat this issue, recommending institutional reforms and criminal investigations into perpetrators.
Project Galileo celebrated its 10th anniversary with two distinguished panels hosted by the NED (National Endowment for Democracy).
These conversations highlight the future of the Internet and Internet freedom. The panels explored recent U.S. State Department efforts on Internet freedom; the role the private sector plays in helping effectuate the U.S. vision of Internet freedom with efforts like Project Galileo; the current challenges associated with authoritarian government’s influence on Internet standards, governance, and international development.
The discussions also touched on the role policy plays, both in the United States and globally, in efforts to protect the Internet; what the U.S. and other rights-respecting nations stand to lose if the open Internet is diminished; and how all stakeholders (private sector, civil society, governments) can work together to protect and advance the free and open Internet.
Moderator
Alissa Starzak, Head of Policy, Cloudflare
Panelists
Jennifer Brody, Deputy Director of Policy and Advocacy for Technology and Democracy, Freedom House
Emily Skahill, Cyber Operations Planner, Joint Cyber Defense Collaborative (JCDC), Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Adrien Ogée, Chief Operations Officer, CyberPeace Institute
On 12 May 2025, Theodoros Benakis posted about a Finnish pilot programme to support human rights defenders
In 2025, the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, in partnership with Artists at Risk (AR) and the City of Helsinki, will initiate a pilot programme designed to provide temporary support and protection for human rights defenders in Finland. This programme aims to facilitate a three-month relocation for two selected human rights defenders who often operate under hazardous conditions and face significant challenges, including threats and harassment. In severe instances, their lives may be endangered due to their commitment to advocacy.
During their 90-day stay, these individuals can continue their essential work in a safe and stable environment while also fostering connections within local and international networks. The coordination of this programme will be led by Artists at Risk, a Finnish organisation with over a decade of experience developing protection initiatives for vulnerable and persecuted professionals in the arts, including those fleeing conflict situations such as the war in Ukraine.
The City of Helsinki will host this initiative, funded by the European Union’s ProtectDefenders.eu Human Rights Defenders mechanism, alongside contributions from the Ministry for Foreign Affairs and the City of Helsinki. The experiences and outcomes derived from this pilot programme will play a critical role in informing potential decisions regarding establishing a national support programme in the future.
A landmark document for universities seeking to support HRDs, civil society and democracy was launched this February by York University
The Guidelines, co-produced through a year-long collaborative process, aim to support universities involved in human rights protection work and share best practice on hosting HRDs.
This initiative, led by the UNESCO Chair in the Protection of Human Rights Defenders and Expansion of Political Space, was facilitated by the Centre for Applied Human Rights (CAHR) at the University of York. Chairholder Professor Paul Gready highlighted the critical need for these guidelines:
“Civil society is under attack in many parts of the world as it faces legislative, administrative, financial, and physical threats. Universities are spaces that uphold academic freedom and democracy, and they have a crucial role to play in protecting these values everywhere.”
The Guidelines underscore the importance of universities in the human rights protection ecosystem, and their role in providing a platform for HRDs to continue their vital work in safer environments, and respite while rejuvenating HRDs for their future work.
At an event in July 2024 which discussed a draft of the Guidelines, Sharan Srinivas, Director, Protecting Rights Defenders, Open Society Foundations, emphasised the importance of building a community both within and outside of the university environment:
“The Guidelines address critical issues in human rights work, such as risk, trauma and psychosocial support. The process has built a strong community, and it’s crucial to continue building solidarity and links within the human rights ecosystem. I hope universities can scale up this work, and I wish you well in your efforts.”
Professor Charlie Jeffery, Vice-Chancellor of the University of York, attended the event, and provided his support for the initiative. He said “Reading the draft Guidelines, and seeing the depth, purpose and quality of the discussions at this stage shows great enterprise and ambition. For me, the question of how to align these Guidelines with university values, and bring universities along with you is key. At York, CAHR not only aligns with our values but continues to push us further in our mission for public good.”
Professor Gready thanked all the attendees for their generosity in sharing their experiences and expertise. He said “There is an enormous amount of work still to do to ensure these Guidelines have an impact. But these Guidelines will empower universities working with HRDs, who need our support in an increasingly volatile world.”
The UNESCO Chair is planning a series of regional “What Next?” events over the next 6-12 months to discuss how to implement the Guidelines as extensively as possible. To learn more about these events and the Chair’s work, please visit the UNESCO HRD Hub.
Cândida Schaedler on 12 February 2025 asks whether anything can be done to protect them.
In 2023, 196 land and environmental defenders were murdered around the world – the vast majority of them in Latin America. In fact, just four countries – Brazil, Colombia, Honduras and Mexico – accounted for over 70 percent of those killings. Colombia was by far the deadliest country, with 79 murders, followed by Brazil, with 25.
We spoke with some of these brave activists to learn more about the threats they face, how they stay safe and how Colombia and Brazil are working to keep them alive.
Quilombolas in the Jequitinhonha Valley in Minas Gerais, Brazil. Photo: Mídia NINJA, Flickr
“When we recognized ourselves and declared ourselves a quilombo, our peace was over”, recalls Elza,* a Brazilian Quilombola leader in her late 50s.
In December 2008, she was shot and injured in an attack that killed her brother and sister. Since then, she hasn’t left her home alone – not even for a walk in her own territory, one of the 11 urban quilombos in Porto Alegre, the capital of Rio Grande do Sul in southern Brazil.
Quilombos are Afro-Brazilian communities that were originally founded by escaped slaves in colonial times.
Today, they are officially defined as “ethno-racial groups that, by self-definition, have their own historical trajectory, maintain specific territorial relations and are presumed to have Black ancestry related to resistance against historical oppression.” Brazil has recognized quilombos in its constitution since 1988, but the process of gaining legal recognition is time-consuming and often fraught with obstacles. Elza’s community was officially designated a quilombo in 2005, but only after its residents agreed to give up half their territory. Ever since, they’ve been battling gangs and real estate speculators who want control of the same 58 hectares of land they call home.
In 2022, they once again came under attack. Armed men showed up at their door in an attempt to take over a housing project under construction in the quilombo, which had been put on hold due to a dispute with the bank financing it….
Elza and her daughter, Carolina,* live under the protection of the Brazilian government, which has a program to safeguard human rights defenders, environmentalists and communicators.
Jesus Pinilla leads a workshop for the Network of Young Guardians of the Atrato. Photo courtesy of Jesus Pinilla
Jesus Pinilla is a 26-year-old Afro-Colombian activist from a small community in the Chocó Department in western Colombia. He is a member of the Network of Young Guardians of the Atrato, a group composed of 36 young people defending the Atrato River – considered the mightiest river in Colombia.
Back in 2016, the Atrato was the first Colombian river to be given legal rights. Enforcing those rights are a group of 10 guardians, along with the Young Guardians, who are embroiled in a constant battle against mining companies exploiting the river’s waters.
Pinilla works as an environmental educator. He first became an environmental activist at the age of 14, but he fears that the risks often drive young people away from climate and environmental movements in Colombia.
“My community is located by the river, so we are constantly dealing with it on a daily basis,” he says. “We depend on it for our basic needs.”
Policing is not enough to tackle the threats facing land and environmental defenders in Latin America. Photo: Agência Brasília, Flickr
“When combined with the interests of communities, the internal armed conflict becomes even more dangerous,” says Leonardo González Perafán, director of the Institute for Development and Peace Studies (Indepaz) in the capital, Bogotá.
“That’s when actions against environmental defenders and communities come into play,” he explains, adding that environmental conflicts often occur in countries with abundant mineral resources.
In most cases, communities are forced to self-organize to ensure their own safety due to the absence of the state.
“They provide self-protection through Indigenous or campesino [farmer] guards,” he explains.
The communities have also developed communication strategies to share information with each other, as well as with the authorities and other organizations.
But as long as the armed conflict persists, it will be very difficult for the government to tackle systemic threats against environmental defenders, especially in areas where it has little authority, says Franklin Castañeda, director of human rights at Colombia’s Ministry of the Interior.
Castañeda explains that more than 15,000 people are currently protected under the National Protection Unit (UNP), which aims to ensure the safety of members of Congress, mayors, journalists, human rights defenders, community leaders and other individuals facing threats due to their work.
The majority – around 9,000 – of these people are social leaders, including environmental defenders. The UNP provides them with security measures such as bulletproof vests, private escorts, armored vehicles or other measures as deemed necessary on a case-by-case basis.
Still, Castañeda emphasizes that individual measures are a last resort. The government has also invested in prevention, such as ensuring that the military and police are not involved in illegal activities.
Despite these efforts, Castañeda concedes that there is still plenty of work to be done to address the structural drivers of conflict, such as high levels of socioeconomic inequality.
“Most of the territories where social conflicts arise are the least developed ones that the government still cannot reach.”
He says these areas will need internet access, highways and other infrastructure to improve the government’s ability to ensure safety and the rule of law.
A quilombo in southern Brazil. Photo: Cândida Schaedler
In Brazil, the main drivers of conflict are deforestation, illegal mining, real estate speculation and the expansion of agriculture.
The program’s coordinator, Igo Martini, emphasizes the importance of listening to the communities to respond quickly to their protection needs. Last year, it carried out 54 public consultations to devise a National Plan to address threats to these communities. But Martini also points out the need to address the root causes rather than merely deploying the police.
“If we don’t solve the underlying causes, the program will continue for another 20 or 40 years just responding to emergencies,” he warns. “A movement from the states is also necessary, not just from the federal government.”
“We need to strengthen agencies, monitoring systems and prevention systems, like the Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (Ibama), for example.”
The PPDDH operates in three areas: state protection, justice protection and collective protection.
While state and justice protection are offered by the police and courts respectively, collective protection involves strengthening communities and providing them with the tools to communicate with each other and report threats to the authorities to safeguard their territory.
Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards 