At RightsCon, Human Rights and Democracy Advocates Grapple With Profound Change in World Order

Last week, democracy advocates from around the world traveled to Taipei for RightsCon, the annual conference on human rights and technology. Amidst panels and workshops on topics like tools and techniques for circumventing censorship, the evolution of social media regulation, and how to address disinformation and anti-democracy narratives, participants also grappled with the new reality of a United States government that has abruptly ended support for pro-democracy efforts around the world and appears set to abandon its post-World War II leadership position in international affairs in favor of a “Great Powers” approach that regards rules and multilateral institutions as distractions.

The day after the conference ended, the gravity of the situation was underscored by a contentious meeting in the White House, where US President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance castigated Ukrainian President Zelensky. Trump has falsely claimed that Zelensky is a dictator and that Ukraine is to blame for the war with Russia. The incident caused some analysts to mark the beginning of a new world order that threatens the security of the free world. The Wall Street Journal reported that the incident indicates that the US is, at best, a less reliable ally and that it is clearly "retreating from global commitments in ways that stand to fundamentally reshape America’s relationship with the world."

According to experts at RightCon, this historic realignment under President Donald Trump's second administration—underway even before the encounter with Zelensky—has created a domino effect that will play out over the next months and years. At a high level, the fracturing of the rules-based consensus and erosion of the post-Cold War order upends assumptions about shared values, international solidarity, and commitments to democracy. Alignment around multilateral institutions and approaches will give way to more insular, nationalist agendas. In the best-case scenario, the US is simply no longer a trustworthy ally for international democracy advocates; in the worst, it is the enemy.

At a more tactical level, experts in Taipei painted a dire picture of the operating environment for democracy and human rights activists. Most acutely, the cancellation of grants and contracts by the US State Department and USAID is set to hobble many civil society organizations and may lead many to close.

“Even if we don’t receive funding from the US government, this is affecting all of us,” noted Access Now executive director Alejandro Mayoral Baños during a panel on the funding environment.

Representatives from some civil society organizations attending the conference received notice of cancellations while in Taipei. Others noted that the shock of the US government’s about-face, while of great magnitude, is only one in a series of shocks to the funding environment for pro-democracy work.

Changes in philanthropy—such as substantial cuts at the Open Society Foundations (OSF), the announced closure of the Wellspring Philanthropic Fund, and shifting priorities amongst other funders—are occurring just as other governments, particularly in the UK and Europe, are facing new pressures to shift spending to defense and other priorities.

One expert in Taipei estimated that more than $10 billion has been drained from the field over ten years. No single donor or coalition of donors has stepped up at the scale required to fill the emerging gap. The cumulative outcome is an environment where civil society faces both reduced resources and a heightened risk of hostile operating conditions.

That means human rights and democracy advocates are squeezed from multiple angles. Already, many groups reported losing significant percentages of their budgets, leading to program cancellations, layoffs, and legal repercussions related to contractual obligations. When large grants are canceled abruptly, organizations may be unable to meet obligations to employees or contractors, triggering local labor or contractual suits. These legal challenges add another layer of instability and cost, particularly for small or regional organizations that lack legal resources.

But beyond financial and legal difficulties, there are real risks that repressive regimes will seize on the changing environment to settle the score with democracy and human rights organizations they regard as enemies. Speakers warned that authoritarian-leaning governments have seized on the US defunding measures and anti-civil-society rhetoric to justify further crackdowns on NGOs. Quinn McKew, executive director of Article 19, recounted a striking example:

In Serbia … the government is raiding the offices of four NGOs. And the justification … is that [Trump administration officials] said that USAID was fundamentally fraudulent … They took that statement as cause for investigation.

Experts described how states in Africa and elsewhere have long labeled NGOs as “foreign agents” and used that pretext to block them from engaging in social or political policy. Ashnah Kalemera, a program manager at the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA), underscored that with funding frozen or canceled, repressive governments’ dismissive arguments—“We told you these were foreign agendas!”—gain traction, making it easier for them to silence dissent.

Luisa Ortiz Pérez, executive director and co-founder of Vita-Activa.org, an organization that provides support to journalists, activists, and human rights advocates, pointed to a spike in attacks and disinformation targeting both advocacy work itself and the broader language of human rights—especially around issues like gender identity, disability, and democracy. She said the situation exacts a substantial toll. “The attacks are semantic, economic, and moral,” said Ortiz Pérez. “The moral injury is large.”

Many in Taipei emphasized the necessity of finding alternative financial models that rely less on philanthropy and governments. One speaker noted that the “economic model for the movement is a ridiculous one.” In another session, Dr. Timnit Gebru, founder and executive director of the Distributed AI Research Institute (DAIR), pointed to the urgency of finding new ways to create value and raise revenues.

“Can we do consulting? Can we do other stuff? Because our business model right now is waiting for other people to become billionaires doing the things we don't like, that we are arguing against, and then hoping that they give us money,” said Gebru. “We have to think about what are alternative ways that we can fund our movements.”

The immediate task for many of the advocates gathered in Taipei is resilience and survival: sharing legal strategies, finding new funders, pursuing flexible funding models, and caring for staff. But ultimately, the discussions emphasized that funding troubles are just one symptom of a global crisis in democracy. The larger work involves reclaiming narratives, shifting power, and organizing to support people, not just institutions.

The path ahead will demand building and rebuilding alliances, finding creative ways to acquire and channel resources, and doing as much as possible to protect the people who engage in human rights and democracy advocacy and defense as much as possible, including addressing their security and psychological well-being.

But by the end of the week in Taipei, the shock and dread gave way to solidarity and determination. “There’s nothing more resilient than the people in this room,” Article 19's McKew declared. “We are strong and creative—we just need the space to let that creativity shine.”