Professor’s Congressional Testimony Highlights Threats to NGOs

Suparna Chaudhry has a message to share about the “dangerous global trend of state crackdowns on NGOs.”

Suparna Chaudhry, associate professor of international affairsFor more than a decade, Chaudhry’s research has focused on the causes and consequences of crackdowns on NGOs, or nongovernmental organizations. She recently found that, as of the end of 2023, more than 130 countries have sought to restrict or repress NGOs through an “administrative crackdown.” This type of repression is distinct from a state crackdown that involves violence perpetrated against citizens using police or military.

Chaudhry, associate professor of international affairs, defines “administrative crackdown” as the use of law to create barriers to entry, funding, and advocacy for nonprofits and civil society organizations. Unlike the use of state violence, she explains, these laws are often framed as regulation rather than as restrictions or repression.

“As a result, political leaders are less likely to encounter domestic backlash in response to their passage,” says Chaudhry. “Unlike the use of violence, these laws also rarely elicit international condemnation or threats of withdrawal of aid or assistance.”

Chaudhry’s research is set to be published in her forthcoming book, Civil Societies, Uncivil States: State Repression of NGOs (Cornell University Press, 2026).

NGO Crackdown Threatens Human Rights, Democracy

On September 9, 2025, Chaudhry provided expert testimony via Zoom to members of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, a U.S. congressional body, who met to discuss the topic “Laws Regulating Foreign NGOs: Human Rights Implications.”

“Laws that restrict the ability of NGOs to acquire funds from abroad or engage in vaguely defined political activities have especially pervaded around the world. Over 100 countries have some form of prohibitions or restrictions against NGOs acquiring funding from abroad,” said Chaudhry.

“Throughout the world, these laws have had a chilling effect on the operation of NGOs focusing on a variety of issues, including human rights, media freedom, political advocacy, promoting democracy, and even those providing developmental aid and services, such as health and education to women and children. Many groups have shut down, others have downsized, and still others have gone virtual or adapted their missions.”

Chaudhry also testified that restrictive laws can trigger worsening human rights repression. When a country not only enacts these laws, but also empowers agencies to implement them, this “…can predict state authorities’ worsening respect for physical integrity rights―freedom from torture, arbitrary violence, and imprisonment―and civil liberties. Targeting these nonprofits thus may set the groundwork for increasing democratic erosion,” she said.

In addition to her testimony, she answered questions from the cochair of the commission, U.S. Representative James P. McGovern, as well as commission member U.S. Representative Ilhan Omar, urging commission members to enact policy recommendations to protect against state repression of NGOs.

Foreign Policy Article Explains Global NGO Backlash

Declining support for NGOs was the topic of a recent article Chaudhry wrote for Foreign Policy: “Why the World Turned on NGOs.” In it, Chaudhry traces the rise of NGOs after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and a wave of democratic transitions when NGOs became “power brokers alongside governments in global politics.”

“By the early 2000s,” writes Chaudhry, “major NGOs began to struggle to operate at a larger scale while maintaining the grassroots contacts and input that contributed to their early successes.” In addition, governments around the world, particularly in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, “continued challenging NGOs’ legitimacy. They argued that these groups were elitist and advanced foreign agenda and partisan political objectives.”

Chaudhry points to the first Trump administration’s positioning of some NGOs as a “cultural enemy” as an added obstacle to NGOs’ mounting an effective response to repression.

“Authoritarian governments were no longer the only ones restricting NGOs. Democracies, fearful of these groups challenging their economic interests and questioning their development and industrialization policies, also began pushing back.

Finally, Chaudhry points to a correlation between increased repression of nonprofit organizations with the decline of democracy worldwide, and the potential impacts of this trend.

“If the era of NGOs is indeed coming to an end, the effects will be devastating for vulnerable communities, particularly in the global south,” writes Chaudhry. “Many countries, especially non-democracies, had often tolerated development NGOs because of the services they provided. Increasing anti-NGO rhetoric on both the left and right, and Western donor governments scaling back on aid, mean that development NGOs may face an even narrower civic space. Repressive governments may become even more emboldened to enact restrictive laws—ones that undermine advocacy and development NGOs alike.”

International Affairs