How US nonprofits can defend themselves

Life for civil society in the United States has changed dramatically in the course of just one year. President Donald Trump’s administration has hit the NGO sector and its funders with a flurry of attacks — both rhetorical and regulatory — in a pattern that is recognizable to campaigners living under oppressive regimes worldwide. “We see the same patterns of democratic backsliding and shrinking civic space all over,” said Veronika Móra, the director of the Ökotárs foundation in Budapest and a founding member of Civilizáció, a cooperative dedicated to supporting Hungarian civil society. The U.S. is still in the early stages of such a shift. “We’re not yet Russia, we’re not yet Hungary,” said Yelena Litvinov, cofounder of Stroika, a U.S.-based organization that supports anti-authoritarian movements around the world. Still, activists in countries that have experienced democratic backsliding said that the signs are there — and that it’s happening much more quickly in the U.S. than it has elsewhere. As a result, it’s important for civil society organizations to be prepared for what might come next. “Obviously right now we’re all pushing back against the worst-case scenario,” said Tatyana Margolin, former Eurasia director at the Open Society Foundations, who cofounded Stroika with Litvinov. “But at the same time, we need to learn how to operate in the worst-case scenario. ” While each context is different, civil society organizations around the world — from Russia to Turkey to India — have had to adapt to a shrinking civil society space, and have valuable lessons to share from their experience. “Authoritarians exchange tactics and use the same playbook, so people who resist them should also exchange tactics,” said Margolin. And so, we asked for advice from those who have witnessed attacks on civil society in other countries about how U.S. nonprofits can defend themselves. Now is the moment to prepare Margolin and Litvinov, both born in the Soviet Union and with years of experience working with civil society in Eurasia, said it’s important to recognize that things are “probably going to get worse.” So far, the White House’s attacks have mostly taken the form of smear campaigns, the withdrawal of funding, and threats of investigation or further clampdowns. But there has been little in the way of legally binding restrictions on nonprofits. At the moment, said Litvinov, “there’s a lot of talk, there’s a lot of fear, there’s a lot of panic. But if you are actually looking at laws, restrictions … or other bureaucratic moves that can slow down an organization’s work to a halt, we’re not actually seeing much.” As a result, “this is the time when there’s room for action … [It’s] likely it will get worse for groups, so taking those preparedness steps now is really valuable.” One specific piece of advice for grantmakers is to distribute money during this window of opportunity. “Today, it costs one dollar to move a dollar to an NGO. Tomorrow, it may cost you $1.25. But in five months it may cost you $5,” said Margolin. This was her experience when supporting civil society in Eurasia, as barriers to giving money to NGOs started to rise. “You should be moving all your money right now to your partners, because you have no barriers right now,” she said. Scenario plan, scenario plan, scenario plan While it’s difficult to predict exactly what might happen next, there are examples to look at — internationally or in U.S. history — that offer scenarios you can plan for. That might include the shuttering of legal entities or the freezing of bank accounts, for example. The key piece of preparedness advice that Stroika is giving, said Litvinov, is to “think really pragmatically and practically about what it means to continue your operations, even if you were not a 501(c)(3) [tax-exempt nonprofit organization], even if the legal entity you work under was dissolved for some reason … How can you be more flexible and open-minded about ways to continue that work, even while under attack?” For example, he has seen organizations that were forced to liquidate and yet their staff members were able to keep doing their work, perhaps by operating as freelancers or through partner organizations. The same goes for finances, added Margolin. “What are you going to do if you can’t access your bank account tomorrow? … Do you have alternative bank accounts that you can access?” As the attacks could target both individual organizations and the sector as a whole, these scenario-planning exercises should be done both internally — bringing together senior leadership with operational colleagues, legal counsel, donors, and finance staff — and collectively in tandem with other organizations. “This is the moment for the sector to be very clear-eyed about what’s possible and really run through how they would react to a number of worst-case scenarios,” said Litvinov. “And we actually find that to be a very empowering process … getting really specific around every possible mode of attack on the work … and then getting very real about ‘what are we going to do?’” Even if none of the worst-case scenarios come to pass, many of these preparatory steps are best practices that will make your organization more resilient for the future, said Litvinov. Remember, you’re all in this together All the experts stressed the importance of solidarity as a sector. So far, this hasn’t always happened effectively, warned Margolin, in part because the assaults on civil society in the U.S. have happened so quickly that organizations “haven’t had time to adjust … [or] to even acknowledge or process what’s happening.” She pointed to when the Associated Press was banned from the White House press pool for refusing to refer to the “Gulf of Mexico” as the “Gulf of America.” “Lessons from everywhere tell us that if one of you gets banned from the White House, none of you [should] go,” said Margolin. “This administration needs media exposure … so it was very easy to turn around that punishment on the administration [and] say ‘if you don’t let the AP in, none of us go’ … But because everyone was caught completely off guard, there were no solidarity efforts.” This is dangerous, Margolin warned, because the administration at the moment is testing how far they can go. If they don’t encounter sufficient resistance, there’s no reason for them to stop pushing the boundaries further. In Hungary, said Móra, it took a couple of years after the attacks began for Civilizáció to come together. As in the U.S., the attacks had initially taken the form of smear campaigns and financial investigations of specific NGOs. Despite attempts to form a coalition during this period, it was only after the first anti-NGO law was introduced in 2017 — which targeted NGOs receiving foreign funding — that the sector finally came together in a formal way. “We had to learn to cooperate in spite of our differences, and that took time,” said Móra. But this solidarity has been critical in withstanding the attacks, in various ways. First of all, although the 2017 law was eventually retracted after the European Union sent the case to court, Móra believes the sector’s actions also played a role. “The loud protest of Hungarian civil society also generated international solidarity,” she said. “I think it had an important role in kickstarting the legal procedures.” Secondly, it has enabled knowledge sharing — “like what to do when the tax authority comes, what are your rights, how to improve cybersecurity and security in more general terms. We could provide a lot of knowledge and know-how to one another,” she said. And finally, solidarity has been critical for supporting the mental health of those working in the sector and resisting the attacks, said Móra. Don’t comply in advance Although Trump so far hasn’t managed to impose many legally binding restrictions on civil society, Margolin and Litvinov said they have seen organizations “complying in advance.” One example they pointed to is the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation, a large, U.K.-based grantmaker that withdrew its support from U.S.-based NGOs, citing regulatory confusion. They also said they are seeing funders rethink strategic priorities and program areas in a bid to avoid being targeted. But this is unlikely to be an effective strategy, said Margolin. “What is, I think, most instructive from international examples is that there’s no area of work that’s safe,” she said. “Any kind of nonprofit activity, any kind of civil society work, can be deemed … a threat to the national narrative at any time.” By “chopping off” pieces of your work, you are only giving force to threats that currently have no legal backing. “For as long as you can legally keep doing it, keep doing it,” she advised. Take control of the narrative Smear campaigns are a common feature of authoritarian attacks on NGOs, and one that has already started in the U.S. “When they say that these organizations are corrupt, they’re a waste of taxpayer money, that foundations are a cancer on society, as [U.S. Vice President] JD Vance said — these are messages that start permeating the consciousness of everyday Americans, and it becomes much harder to build back up that reputation after it’s been lost,” warned Litvinov. As a result, it’s important to take control of the narrative and put out a strong, positive message about the work that civil society does, the experts agreed. Having public support “raises the political price of attacking you,” said Móra, and can also help to bring in financial support if needed. However, said Móra, one very important lesson from Hungary “is never to react directly to the attacks. Communicate about yourself proactively, show what you do, show … how it benefits people. But do not reply to the attacks or the disinformation.” That is very hard to do “when they are spreading lies about you,” she said. “But while reacting to those lies directly, you basically reinforce their narrative … You put yourself in the framework that they want you to be in.” That said, Margolin and Litvinov pointed to one example where this did work well — because humor was used to subvert the framework. After the “foreign agent” law was passed in Russia in 2012, it was used to target and stigmatize a swath of NGOs, activists, and media outlets. But instead of reacting with anger, many of those who were struck with the designation of “foreign agent” poked fun at it, embracing it as a sign that their activism was having an impact and turning it into a social media meme. “They neutralized this terminology by making fun of it and normalizing it,” said Litvinov. “Authoritarians want fear … and when you can inject humor, when you can take them unseriously, it’s really powerful and it drives authoritarians crazy. That’s why they actually were targeting a late-night comedian,” he added, apparently referring to the brief suspension of Jimmy Kimmel’s show from ABC. Keep your staff and beneficiaries safe Divisive rhetoric around NGOs can put staff at risk. In Hungary, there haven’t been any physical attacks on offices — other than police raids — but there have been cases of hostile journalists turning up and trying to goad staff into making comments. Staff should be prepared with simple safety tips and basic communications training — such as “the two sentences that you should say if you are approached,” said Móra. At her foundation, there is an infographic in the doorway instructing staff on what to do if someone hostile appears at the door. Civilizáció has also been able to provide some small grants that organizations can use to support employee mental health, through initiatives such as staff retreats or psychological support. Attempts at transparency — voluntary or otherwise — often mean that NGOs share large amounts of information publicly. But this can also create risks. In some cases, it can’t be avoided, but in others it can. For example, suggested Litvinov, “this might be a good time to take staff names off the website.” Some NGOs did this in Hungary after a pro-government newspaper published a list of civil society staff members, trustees, journalists, and academics whom it claimed were part of a plot to overthrow the government. In general, organizations should think about “reducing the number of small details — particularly on beneficiaries, partner organizations, the individuals that they work with — that could put those individuals at risk,” said Litvinov. “Really think about the cost versus benefit of what information you’re sharing publicly.” That might also require funders to rethink the amount of information they require from their grantees. “Both funders and nonprofits alike are information hoarders and are holding on to much more data than is actually necessary for [Internal Revenue Service] compliance,” said Litvinov. Think about what data you really need to keep, and then take measures to protect it.