This year marks the 25th anniversary of Amnesty International’s global Write for Rights campaign, which has supported more than 200 people and groups.
That’s 25 years of people taking action against injustice, writing letters and signing petitions in support of people whose human rights have been denied.Some have been imprisoned for peacefully expressing their views. Others have been targeted because of who they are or who they love. Some have been criminalized simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
More than 50 million actions have been taken – in the form of letters, emails, cards, petition signatures, social media posts and more – since Write for Rights started in 2001. Amnesty’s brilliant supporters have written letters both to those whose rights are being violated, and the person in authority who can make change happen.
People have taken action because they believe hope and humanity can win over fear.
As a result, over 100 people featured in our Write for Rights campaign have seen a positive outcome in their situation. People unlawfully detained have been released, families have been reunited and justice achieved. Just as important – individuals have been reminded that they have not been forgotten.
Here are the stories of a few of them, whose lives have changed – and even been saved – thanks to the support of people like you…
Germain Rukuki – Burundi
Human rights defender Germain Rukuki was arrested in July 2017 and was serving a 32-year prison sentence after he was convicted of “rebellion” amongst other things. During Amnesty International’s global Write for Rights campaign, supporters in 37 countries took action and called for his immediate and unconditional release. He was released from prison on 30 June 2021.
On 30 June 2021, Burundian human rights defender Germain Rukuki was released from prison four years into a 32-year sentence. He had been found guilty of a number of sham charges relating to his human rights work. He was jailed before getting a chance to hold his youngest child, born just weeks after he was arrested in July 2017.
Yves Makwambalaand Fred Bauma – Democratic Republic of Congo
Youth activists Yves Makwambala and Fred Bauma were released at the end of August 2016 in the Democratic Republic of Congo. An amazing 170,000 people took action for the pair as part of Write for Rights 2015. “Every letter, every visit, every word has strengthened us and reinforced our determination in this long but just struggle for freedom and democracy,” said Yves.
Seán Binder – Greece
After more than seven long years, Seán Binder and all 23 defendants were been cleared of all charges in Greece relating to their humanitarian rescue work on Lesvos.
In January 2026, human rights defender Seán Binder and 23 others connected to a search and rescue NGO were acquitted of all charges in Greece. After years on trial, Seán no longer faces the possibility of a 20-year prison sentence for helping refugees.
Eight years after Amnesty first called for the charges to be dropped, Seán was finally acquitted.
Moses Akatugba – Nigeria
Moses was waiting for the results of his secondary school exams when he was arrested by the Nigerian army in 2005, shot in the hand and beaten. After eight years in prison, he was sentenced to death by hanging. Activists including many young people and Amnesty International demonstrated outside their country’s Nigerian embassies his behalf. Moses was freed in 2019.
Moses Akatugba was a 16-year-old student when he was arrested in 2005 by police in southern Nigeria, on suspicion of armed robbery and stealing three telephones. He was tortured by police during their interrogations, beaten and suspended upside down from a ceiling fan for hours. His nails were pulled out with pliers to coerce him into signing a “confession” – the only basis for his death sentence eight years later.
Rita Mahato – Nepal
Rita Mahato Chamar is a human rights defender from Nepal.
In 2009, human rights defender Rita Mahato was threatened with death, rape and kidnapping for helping women in Nepal who had suffered acts of violence. She was a health adviser at the Women’s Rehabilitation Centre (WOREC), a leading NGO in Nepal, yet police failed to provide Rita with protection or to investigate the threats. After Amnesty took up her case for Write for Rights 2009, schools, campuses and other institutions around the world started sending letters, postcards and other materials in support of her. The publicity and posters became so widespread that the police and local authorities began calling Rita to provide support, making her feel less alone. While the harassment has ended, Rita still stands up for what she believes in.
Aleksandra (Sacha) Skochilenko – Russia
Aleksandra (Sasha) Skochilenko, visits Amnesty in the Netherlands, Amsterdam, to thank them from for their support.
Russian artist Aleksandra “Sacha” Skochilenko was arrested for protesting Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. In March 2022, she replaced price tags at a supermarket with paper labels that contained information censored by Russian state-run media. She was charged with “dissemination of knowingly false information about Russian Armed Forces” and sentenced to seven years in December 2023. In 2024, thanks in part to international pressure from Write for Rights 2022, Sacha was finally released as part of a huge prisoner swap, involving Russia and Belarus, who agreed to a swap with the United States, Germany, Norway, Poland, and Slovenia. Sacha now lives in exile in Germany.
Enforced disappearances are reaching alarming levels worldwide, while human rights defenders face increasing persecution and surveillance, United Nations experts warned the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) on 20 October 2026 citing thousands of unresolved cases and growing threats to those seeking justice and accountability.
Andrea Bolaños Vargas, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, warned that criminalization has become the most prevalent global threat facing those who expose abuses and defend fundamental freedoms. Presenting findings from a survey of 1,122 respondents, she reported that 66 per cent of women human rights defenders believed their situation had deteriorated, rising to 78 per cent among LGBTIQ+ women defenders. Three quarters said restrictive laws and regulations had undermined their work.
“Criminalization is combined with disinformation and stigmatization, surveillance, arbitrary detention, administrative restrictions, funding restrictions, digital attacks, and in some cases, violence against defenders themselves, as well as their families,” she said. Such threats extend even to regions with long-standing democratic traditions. “The human cost is enormous,” she stressed, reporting that 83 per cent of survey respondents experienced negative effects on their mental health. Nearly half of the women human rights defenders surveyed reported having to leave their homes to seek safety, with 24 per cent internally displaced and 22 per cent forced into exile.
…The Czech Republic’s representative highlighted the imprisonment of human rights defenders in Belarus and the Russian Federation, drawing attention to Ukrainian activists Iryna Danylovych and Amet Suleymanov, held in Russian Federations prisons without adequate medical care.
Germany’s delegate urged Moscow to release two Indigenous human rights defenders and called on China to free Hong Kong lawyer Chow Hang Tung.
Rejecting the criticism, China’s representative accused Germany of spreading “smears”. “Some countries and political forces seek to portray criminals as human rights defenders to whitewash their unlawful and criminal conduct,” he said.
Belarus’s delegate dismissed the Czech Republic’s allegations concerning medical care for detainees, insisting that free healthcare is available to all, including prisoners. The Russian Federation’s representative, meanwhile, accused Ukraine and the Baltic States of persecuting those defending Russian-speaking populations, citing the arrest of Latvian activist Viktor Gushchin.
The European Union’s representative, speaking in its capacity as observer, warned that growing fear and self-censorship among people cooperating with United Nations human rights mechanisms represents “a substantive loss to us all”, expressing concern over technology-facilitated transnational repression….
According to Novaya Gazeta Europe of 1 October 2026, prosecutors general of Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan have signed an agreement on cooperating to fight terrorism and extremism, Russian state-affiliated business daily RBC reported on Wednesday.
The agreement provides for the timely exchange of information on organisations, groups and individuals that the signatories consider “terrorist” or “extremist” and classify as national security threats. The countries will also reportedly share information on such groups’ international ties, possible attacks and threats to their sovereignty.
Additionally, the deal covers information on illegal armed groups; human, arms and drug traffickers; organisers of illegal migration; and foreign terrorist fighters.
Russia routinely uses terrorism and extremism charges to prosecute political opponents. The laws have become a tool for pressuring human rights defenders, antiwar activists and other groups the authorities see as disloyal.
According to a count by the independent outlet Mediazona, Russian authorities had opened at least 225 criminal cases for “financing extremism” over donations to the late opposition leader Alexey Navalny’s Anti-Corruption Foundation as of April 2026. In the first half of 2026 alone, more than 1,200 people in Russia were convicted on terrorism-related charges, a 38% increase from the same period last year. Nearly a third were tried solely over things they had said.
Kasmira Jefford on 23 September 2026 in Geneva Solutions discusses the transnational repression by Russia as exposed in Mariana Katzarova’s report to the UN.
Reporting to the Human Rights Council this week on the Kremlin’s widening crackdown on Russian critics overseas, Mariana Katzarova urged states to create a binding international instrument to put a stop to authoritarian governments reaching across borders. Since being appointed special rapporteur on Russia by the Human Rights Council in October 2022 – eight months after its full-scale invasion of Ukraine – Mariana Katzarova has reported widely on the Kremlin’s expanding efforts to stifle critics and anti-war voices within its borders.
But her latest report took her into new territory. “Today, I report on how Russia is exporting that rule of fear,” she told members gathered in the Palais des Nations’ Assembly Hall on Monday. The country in question was conspicuously absent.
The Bulgarian human rights expert and former journalist described how Vladimir Putin’s government “has become one of the most prolific perpetrators of transnational repression” by building a state-run system to surveil, intimidate and punish any citizens seen to be voicing dissent abroad.
Drawing on more than 400 documented cases, Katzarova noted these were “not a series of isolated incidents”. “It is the continuation, beyond Russia’s borders, of the same structural, state-sponsored system of repression I have documented at home,” she added.
Her report, she claims, is the first UN country-specific report on transnational repression – a concept for which Katzarova said there is still no universal definition but which she describes as a state reaching beyond its borders to silence political or civic opponents.
In August, Russia introduced a new law imposing sweeping financial, property and consular restrictions on Russians living abroad who have pending convictions, including under legislation used to prosecute critics. “My report calls this civic death, de facto statelessness for people who remain on paper citizens,” she added, calling on Moscow to rescind the law.
Russia declined Geneva Solutions’ request to comment. In a statement issued earlier this month, Moscow’s foreign ministry said its stance was unchanged from previous years. “We do not recognise the mandate of this illegitimate special procedure, and any form of interaction with it is unacceptable to us”.
Several journalists and rights defenders targeted by Russia were also present at the Human Rights Council on Monday to share their testimonies – including Natalia Arno, an exiled Buryat human rights defender, who fell ill in 2023 with suspected poisoning symptoms during a conference visit in Prague.
Arno, who lives in the United States where she founded the Free Russia Foundation, recalls finding her hotel room door open and noticing a strange smell inside. She woke up the next day with sharp dental pain and cancelled the rest of her trip. On the flight back, she said her organs started to fail, and she was rushed to the hospital on arrival.
Arno said US authorities investigating the case couldn’t tell her what happened, claiming it was a matter of national security. However, according to the special rapporteur, she was told informally by a military hospital that was analysing her bloodwork that she had been targeted by a new type of Novichok.
The suspected attack was unlike anything she had experienced before. “This was another eye-opening level, because it seemed like surveillance, cyberattacks – they just wanted some information about us. But to physically attack us, it was something new,” Arno said.
She said that more needed to be done at an international level to raise awareness of transnational repression. “This issue should not only be treated as a human rights issue. It’s definitely a national security issue because it’s also an attack on the sovereignty of your country,” she said as she addressed states in the room.
Roman Dobrokhotov, Russian journalist and editor-in-chief of news platform The Insider, was also at the side event. “You don’t see my name here because of security reasons – I can’t announce in advance when I’m flying to a conference, even if it is a UN event.”
The Kremlin has targeted Dobrokhotov following investigations by his media into the government’s role in a string of deadly incidents, including the poisoning of the late Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny in 2020. Last year, in a long-running trial in the UK, where the journalist and his family have been residing, a court found six Bulgarians guilty of spying for Moscow in a sophisticated operation that included Dobrokhotov among their targets.
He echoed Arno’s concern that repression of individuals was also a problem of global security, saying the same groups targeting him “were also responsible for a big wave of sabotage operations in many different countries”.
Katzarova said countries, particularly in Europe and the United States, where she had seen many cases of transnational repression, needed to work more closely to combat the problem, especially by vetting international compliance databases like Interpol to prevent politically motivated entries or arrest warrants from being automatically cleared.
The expert called for a UN convention to establish common definitions, host-state responsibility, and frameworks for prevention, accountability, and cooperation.
“I hope this is not just a distant dream, but there is a lot of work to be done by member states to initiate such a new instrument,” she told journalists, adding that the Human Rights Council should be at the forefront of such a movement.
“In the meantime, while we don’t have this convention in place, I am calling on the host states to actually develop on their national level a whole framework set up to tackle transnational repression with a strategy, with involvement of their law enforcement, prosecutors, civil society, in order to identify who the victims are,” she said.
Human Rights Council members will vote at the end of the session on whether to renew her mandate – in a resolution being led by the European Union. Commenting on the report on the human rights situation in Russia, the EU ambassador noted the existence of a systematic mechanism of repression in Russia that operates even beyond the country’s borders to suppress criticism.
“The EU is concerned about the report’s findings, the cases of murders and poisonings, the abuse of legal and administrative procedures, the conduct of digital operations, and the use of Interpol contrary to its intended purpose — all of which are directed against individuals both within Russia and beyond its borders,” the EU representative noted. [https://ua.news/en/world/es-zaklikav-rosiiu-pripiniti-peresliduvannia-gromadian-cherez-interpol]
On 12 May 2026 PEN America sounded the alarm on a deepening global crackdown on free expression, reporting in its Freedom to Write Index that more than 400 writers are behind bars for the first time since the Index launched in 2019.
In 2025, a total of 401 writers were jailed across 44 countries – up from 375 writers in 40 countries the year before. Over the past seven years, the number of jailed writers worldwide has risen by 68 percent, underscoring a steady and alarming escalation in the suppression of dissent.
China remains the world’s leading jailer of writers, with 119 cases – making it the only country to exceed 100 writers held behind bars. The sharpest increase came from Iran, where authorities carried out 17 new arrests, driving numbers back toward the peak levels seen during the 2022 ‘Woman, Life, Freedom’ protests. The spike signals a renewed and aggressive campaign to silence critical voices. The escalating suppression in Iran intensified in the aftermath of the June 2025 war with Israel, sweeping up both newly targeted writers and long-persecuted dissident voices. Among those arrested were online commentator Hossein Ronaghi, who was detained in June; a group of scholars and translators detained in November, including economists Parviz Sedaghat and Mohammad Maljoo, sociologist Mahsa Asadollanejad, and writer and translator Shirin Karimi; and human rights defenders and authors Narges Mohammadi and Sepideh Gholian, who were violently re-arrested while speaking at a memorial service in December.
Iran was one of three countries among the top 10 jailers of writers that were simultaneously engaged in armed conflict in 2025, along with Russia and Israel/Occupied Palestinian Territory. Authorities in these three countries repeatedly targeted writers who used anti-war language or themes in their poetry, music, scripts, commentaries, articles, or literary output, a key pattern that emerged in the 2025 data.
In Israel/Occupied Palestinian Territory, six writers have been detained by the Israeli government over anti-war statements. Palestinian writers and commentators Mohamed Al-Atrash, Nawaf El-Amer, Radwan Qatanani, Rula Hassanein,and scholar Anwar Rostom were detained on charges of incitement or with no charges at all, in addition to Jewish-Israeli journalist and commentator Israel Frey who was investigated for terrorism, because of their commentary on the war, the genocide, and the occupation.
In Russia the government held 18 writers in prison or detention in 2025, most targeted for their anti-war expression or suspected involvement in anti-war activity. In March, a Russian military court sentenced historian and columnist Alexander Skobov to 16 years in prison for his anti-war posts on social media. Other writers opposed to the war have fled into exile to avoid prosecution or jailing for their dissenting viewpoints.Overall, the top 10 top jailers of writers are China and its autonomous regions, including Xinjiang, Tibet, and Hong Kong (119); Iran (53); Saudi Arabia (27); Vietnam (24); Türkiye (22); Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory (21); Russia (18); Belarus (17); Egypt (13); and Myanmar (10). [https://iranfocus.com/human-rights/57848-record-number-of-imprisoned-writers-worldwide-iran-ranks-second-with-53-jailed-writers/]
Several countries appeared in this year’s Index for the first time including Togo, Mozambique, and the United States. The U.S. case centers on the weeks-long detention of Sami Hamdi, a British opinion writer and columnist, who was detained in what PEN America views as part of the U.S. government’s weaponization of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Hamdi, an outspoken critic of Israel, was on a speaking tour and had just attended a conference when ICE officers stopped him at San Francisco International Airport and held him in custody for two weeks.
“The fact that the United States is in our Freedom to Write Index for the first time should be a sharp wake-up call for everyone in the country who claims to value free expression,” said Liesl Gerntholtz, managing director of the Freedom To Write Center. “No government can misuse its own detention and immigration systems to silence or intimidate independent voices and call itself a democracy.”
On 27 April 2026, Halya Coynash reported on the case of Crimean Tatar human rights defender Lutfiye Zudiyeva.
Russia’s Second cassation court of general jurisdiction cases has rejected Lutfiye Zudiyeva’s cassation appeal against her inclusion by the Russian justice ministry in its notorious register of so-called ‘foreign agents’. Russia is deploying all weapons to silence the courageous Crimean Tatar human rights defender and journalist, and it cannot be said that any other outcome was seriously expected. The lawlessness was, however, even more extreme than usual with Lutfiye’s lawyer arriving for the hearing only to be told that it had been held earlier than scheduled, behind closed doors, with the justice ministry’s decision upheld.
The ‘hearing’ took place on 19 March however it was only a month later, and on the lawyer’s second attempt and she and Lutfiye were able to receive a copy of the ruling. Lutfiye’s application to take part by video link had been rejected, with the court claiming that no object grounds had been given for why the human rights defender and mother of four should come from occupied Crimea to Moscow. The court also pointed out that her presence was not mandatory but failed to warn her that it would also speed up the hearing, thus preventing her lawyer from taking part. Quite the contrary, with the ruling claiming that neither Lutfiye Zudiyeva nor her lawyer had “appeared”. The one hearing, which was over before its scheduled commencement at 10.30 a.m., took place behind closed doors, before presiding ‘judge’ Yelena Regina and two colleagues, Yury Denisov and Yelena Karpacheva.
As reported, the Russian justice ministry announced that Lutfiye Zudiyeva had been added to its ever-increasing register of alleged ‘foreign agents’ on 16 May 2025. It claimed that the renowned human rights defender and Graty journalist had “circulated false information about decisions taken by the public authorities of the Russian Federation and the policies they carry out”; that she was “under foreign influence” and “involved in political activities.”
An appeal was lodged immediately, with this rejected on 11 August 2025 by ‘judge’ Iryna Kozlova from the Zamoskvoretsky district court in Moscow. On that occasion, Lutfiye’s application to participate by video link from Dzhankoi, in occupied Crimea, “got held up” in the Russian postal system, however her legal representative was able to take part, and present Lutfiye’s written objections. These were, predictably, ignored, as they were in the cassation court’s secretive hearing on 19 March 2026.
The claims that have now been upheld by two Russian ‘courts’ were that there was proof of Lutfiye Zudiyeva being ‘under foreign influence’ in her publications in the independent Ukrainian publication Graty, in her commentary to the media and international organizations, as well as her supposed ‘membership’ of Frontline Defenders. There would be nothing at all illegal about such membership, but it is a figment of some Russian ministry official’s imagination. Frontline Defenders have spoken out in Lutfiye’s defence, but so have many other human rights organizations, diplomats and journalists. [https://www.frontlinedefenders.org/en/profile/lutfiye-zudiyeva]
Another bizarre claim which none of the ‘judges’ found the courage to question was that Lutfiye Zudiyeva had received money from foreign sources. To justify this totally false claim, reference was made to money for day-to-day needs which Lutfiye’s husband had transferred to her account. He in turn is involved in selling agricultural goods and, according to the FSB, received money between February and August 2024, from three ‘foreign nationals’ (from Ukraine, Germany and Vietnam). In her written statement for the appeal, Lutfiye explained that in each of those cases, the person had had dual citizenship, with this something her husband could scarcely have known, as he had no right to demand a passport from buyers. She also disputed the Russian ministry’s claim that her human rights work and journalism were ‘political activities’.
On 27 July 2023, Zudiyeva and another journalist were illegally detained, together with 12 other Crimean Tatars for trying to attend a purportedly open court hearing into the appeal against the appalling sentences passed on Crimean Tatar Mejlis leader, journalist and human rights defender Nariman Dzhelyal and two cousins, Asan and Aziz Akhtemov. She was fined on a preposterous charge of having taken part in an unauthorized mass event, with the occupation ‘judge’, like the Russian-controlled ‘police’, ignoring the fact that she had been there as a journalist…
“I cannot calmly sit and watch as the multiple searches which take place all the time in Crimea result in children being deprived of their fathers; in elderly parents being left without their children, without care, and in women remaining without their husbands. I believe that it is my right to have the possibility of speaking publicly about this. And this is the least I can do as a member of society.”
Women human rights defenders (WHRDS) are taking enormous daily risks to help vulnerable people living on the frontline of Russia’s war on Ukraine. Some deliver humanitarian aid to those in desperate need of food and clothes, while others evacuate elderly and infirm residents from communities under fire. Some do this work full-time, others join these efforts when they can. Few had any experience of activism before Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022.
Human Rights First has regularly worked alongside women activists around the northeastern region of Kharkiv, and sometimes in the Donetsk region further south, and has seen firsthand the lifesaving work they do, and the risks involved.
Across the world, women – including women activists – experience war differently from men. In a 2023 report, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders described these environments as the “hypermasculinized context of war”. In these contexts, the role of WHRDs becomes more essential even as they face additional challenges “because of [their] work and because of who they are.”
WHRDs often face the same risks as their male counterparts, including restrictions on their rights, but also face additional and distinct risks shaped by entrenched stereotypes and expectations about women’s roles. They are stigmatized and criticized for actions for which men are praised, frequently stereotyped not as agents of change, but as vulnerable individuals in need of protection.
These are not new prejudices. A 2019 report by the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders also found that women defenders working in conflict and post-conflict are “particularly exposed to gender-based violence, including sexual violence,” and are “more directly affected by breakdowns in health-care services.” Their legitimacy as defenders continues to be challenged and they remain largely excluded from decision-making.
In Ukraine, WHRDs evacuate civilians, deliver humanitarian assistance, and document war crimes, often at significant physical and mental risk. Yet, they are excluded from effective decision-making spaces. In March 2022, UN special procedure mandate holders drew attention to the absence of Ukrainian women from peace negotiations, despite their central role in the humanitarian response.
Human Rights First is part of the Women Human Rights Defenders International Coalition a global network supporting WHRDs facing harassment, threats, surveillance, arbitrary detention and other forms of retaliation. Through this coalition and our own Human Rights Defenders program, we promote the work of WHRDs and work toward their protection. [https://whrdic.org/]
In 2022, Human Rights First supported the production of a guide for journalists on responsibly reporting war-related sexual violence, authored by three Ukrainian women experts in gender issues.
Human Rights First has worked alongside WHRDs in Ukraine since the Russian invasion of 2014. Since the full-scale invasion in 2022, the organization has made dozens of visits to the front-line region of Kharkiv. This has involved assisting WHRDs with evacuations from frontline areas, documenting war crimes, and reporting on the work of local activists providing humanitarian aid, countering corruption and disinformation, and those responding to the mental health crisis.
This report (by Brian Dooley and Suchita Uppal) draws on interviews with WHRDs working in frontline areas of northeastern Ukraine, highlighting their work during the conflict, the risks they face, and the critical role they have played in sustaining communities under fire. Published on April 10, 2026
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 Right Livelihood Foundation and partners have gone into the problems faced by Human Rights Defenders in exile:
Leaving your country means more than crossing a border. It means stepping into uncertainty, a place where language falters, futures blur and belonging must be rebuilt. But exile can also open doors. It can broaden perspectives, forge new alliances and inspire people to rebuild on their own terms.
Through the project “Reconceptualising exile”, Right Livelihood together with theGlobal Campus of Human Rights, work with a group of 14 fellows living in exile to rebuild life, regain identity and purpose while the ground they left behind remains too dangerous to return to. This visual story challenges what you think exile means. It invites you to see how it feels and how people rebuild from fragments, carrying language, memory and conviction across borders.
What forces someone into exile? Behind those numbers are real people punished for what they believe in:
For Natallia Satsunkevich, a human rights defender from Belarus, it was fighting for democracy in the face of the dictatorship.
For Viacheslav (Slava) Samonov, a Russian lawyer and LGBTQ+ activist, the dissolution of his NGO amid the post-invasion crackdown and the rapidly escalating repression against LGBTQ+ people.
For Askold Kurov, a Russian documentary filmmaker, it was promoting free media and LGBTQ+ rights.
For Helen Mack Chang, it was challenging the rampant corruption in Guatemala.
For Abdul Rahman Yasa, it was standing up for human rights, women’s issues and youth advocacy under the Taliban.
Today, 24 January 2026, marks the International Day of the Endangered Lawyer. In recognition of endangered lawyers around the world, the undersigned NGOs, express deep alarm at the growing repression of lawyers worldwide for the legitimate exercise of their professional duties. Attacks on lawyers strike at the very heart of the rule of law, deny victims meaningful access to justice, and enable wider assaults on human rights and democratic institutions.
In Russia, the regime of Vladimir Putin has moved to punish not only opponents but also those who defend them. One year ago this month, to cite just one example, lawyers Vadim Kobzev, Alexei Liptser, and Igor Sergunin, members of the defense team of the late opposition leader Alexei Navalny, were sentenced to an average of four and a half years in prison on fabricated extremism charges simply for carrying out their ordinary professional duties. Since then, Russia has intensified its harassment of lawyers, most recently arresting human rights attorney Maria Bontsler in May 2025.
In Afghanistan, the Taliban’s seizure of the Afghanistan Independent Bar Association and the transfer of licensing to the Ministry of Justice effectively stripped thousands of lawyers of their right to practise, with women lawyers almost entirely excluded from the profession.
In Iran, recent reports show a pattern of state capture of bar associations, politically motivated prosecutions, and gender specific persecution of women lawyers, which together erode fair trial guarantees for all.
In Tanzania, legal advocates have faced systemic oppression from the government, including oppression under the Advocates Act, which gives the executive branch power to manage the legal profession and control over disciplinary measures against lawyers.
In China, the regime systematically cracks down on human rights lawyers, using vague national security laws and administrative controls to dismantle the independent legal profession.
These examples are a part of a wider and well-documented trend. Lawyers are disbarred, disciplined, arbitrarily detained, prosecuted, forced into exile, subjected to surveillance and harassment, and in some cases killed, precisely because they seek to uphold the rights of their clients, including human rights defenders, opposition leaders, journalists, women, minorities, and other marginalized communities.
Despite this, lawyers continue to perform a crucial function. Even in countries without an independent and impartial judiciary, where judicial outcomes are largely predetermined, lawyers document abuses, create records of testimonies and verdicts, and preserve evidence that can one day support accountability. Their efforts also enable recourse to international and regional mechanisms once domestic remedies have been exhausted or shown to be ineffective. As the UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers recognized in her 2024 report, “justice systems play an essential role in safeguarding democracy, and the work of those justice systems is carried out by people. To protect the rule of law and democracy, we must protect those people.”
Justice is never won easily. But it cannot be won at all if those who defend it are left defenseless.
On May 13, 2025, the Council of Europe (CoE) Convention on the Protection of the Profession of Lawyer opened for signature. This is the first international treaty specifically designed to safeguard lawyers from threats, harassment, and undue interference in their work. This is a historic breakthrough, but it will mean little if governments fail to give it real force. We call on all CoE member states to sign and ratify the Convention without delay and to implement it fully. We encourage states in other regions to develop complementary binding standards so that protection of the legal profession becomes a universal norm…
No lawyer should be punished for defending a client. We honour the courage of all endangered lawyers working under threat, and we reaffirm our collective commitment to protect them and to uphold the right of every person to an independent defense and a fair trial.
Respectfully,
Human Rights Foundation
The Anti-Corruption Foundation
The Arrested Lawyers Initiative
Free Russia Foundation
Freedom House
Freedom Now
George W. Bush Institute
Global Magnitsky Justice Campaign
Human Rights First
Lantos Foundation for Human Rights and Justice
Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights
Elisa Massimino, Human Rights Institute, Georgetown Law
