Foreign agent laws are spreading like wildfire and crippling NGOs

In May of this year, Narendra Modi’s government passed a new amendment to India’s “Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA),” blocking foreign-funded NGOs from distributing “news content” to their audiences. Any organization with an FCRA registration found doing so will have it suspended; and any foreign-funded NGO already distributing news content and applying for an FCRA will be denied. Why does that matter? Without an FCRA registration in India, an NGO cannot receive funding from abroad. The amendment left many NGOs across the country scrambling. What constitutes news content? Does it include policy briefs? Newsletters? Advocacy papers? Program data? In short, nobody knows because no definition has been provided. The ambiguity of the amendment serves to create a chilling effect in which NGOs would rather self-censor than risk losing a vital source of funds that keep them afloat. This is the latest example of the weaponization of laws around the world — adopted under the guise of protecting against foreign interference — that are, in reality, being abused to blunt the work of civil society. What can broadly be categorized as “foreign agent laws.” To understand what these laws are and how they came to be, it is necessary to first grasp the very real and genuine threat of foreign interference. Throughout modern history, one of the most paralyzing fears for any country is another meddling in its domestic affairs. And with good reason. Whether it be the propaganda campaigns of the world wars; the espionage of the Cold War; or the cyber hacks, data leaks, and disinformation of the 21st century, foreign interference has consistently and successfully wreaked havoc on elections, public opinion, and government policy. It can seed an impression of instability that deters international cooperation and investment, hampering global development. It was this fear that first led India, in the grip of the Emergency period from 1975-1977, to adopt the FCRA. The law stipulated that any organization or individual in India receiving money or gifts from foreign sources must register with the government and transparently report how those funds are used. Organizations or individuals of a political nature, as defined by the government, were prohibited from accepting foreign contributions. There is little documentation to suggest the law was actively enforced at the time, but it left a sinister legacy. Whether intentional or not, the wording in the FCRA was vague. Critical terms such as “political nature” and “foreign contribution” went largely undefined, leaving the door open for misinterpretation and selective enforcement. And so, it proved to be. Fast forward about 40 years to the mid-2010s, and we start to see a trend emerging in the country as Prime Minister Narendra Modi took power. Like dominoes, NGOs operating in India began to report that their FCRA registrations were suspended or applications denied. In 2015, Greenpeace; in 2016, Lawyers Collective; in 2017, People’s Watch; in 2021, the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative; in 2022, Oxfam; in 2023, Save the Children — to name a few. In almost all cases, the justification is the same: These NGOs are using foreign funds to achieve objectives that are political or adverse to national economic interests, predominantly through their advocacy campaigns. This was not happening in a vacuum. Around the same time, some 3,000 miles away in eastern Europe, we see another election — in this case a reelection — spark a similar trend. Vladimir Putin’s return as Russian president in 2012 was met with mass protests on the streets of Moscow. In the aftermath, the Kremlin adopted a new law: the “foreign agent law.” Once labeled as such, an NGO would have to register with the justice ministry and submit regular reports on its activities, finances, and interactions. If the Kremlin does not approve of the activities reported, its assets can be frozen, bank accounts closed, and donations or grants cut off. Failure to comply is met with stringent fines and even prison sentences. The Thomson Reuters Foundation first started to map the abuse of these laws, and others like it, in our 2023 Weaponizing the Law report. But since then, we’ve witnessed the story take another dramatic escalation. In April 2024, Kyrgyzstan adopted its version of a foreign agent law. In May, it was Georgia’s turn. In August, Venezuela. Bulgaria and Turkey tabled draft bills in September and October, before Paraguay signed its own law into action in November. Over the span of just six months, countries across eastern Europe, central Asia, and South America were awash with these laws. This year proves it was no outlier, as Slovakia joined their ranks and Serbian lawmakers also debated a bill submitted to parliament. The small print of the laws may vary, but the core tenets remain the same: vague wording, onerous administration, and legal penalties. There can be little doubt at this point that there is a replicable playbook being passed among autocratic states. A playbook that is increasingly weaponizing this legislation in tandem with a coordinated pullback in global development funding. Sweeping foreign aid cuts have already decimated the budgets of many NGOs operating in these countries. Left unchecked, foreign agent laws could cut off what little is left. Editor's note: Devex is the headline media partner for this year's Trust Conference, bringing together civil society and legal experts to collaborate on solutions that will enable NGOs to continue their vital work. While working in close partnership with the Thomson Reuters Foundation, we maintain editorial independence of our coverage of the conference. Register here to secure your place.