Published on 27 November 2025
This article is an extension of our special issue “Aid in danger: After the shock of 2025, the consequences and the response” published in November 2025. According to the author, as bilateral donors slash budgets and autocrats weaponise localisation, INGOs face an existential moment. Collaboration, not competition, offers the only viable path forward – but transformation demands shedding some old reflexes and reclaiming political voice.
Earlier in the year, we have shared some thoughts on how to make good use of the crisis that has come from shrinking aid by bilateral donors, namely the new US administration. And have proposed how we should utilize the disruption to radically rethink the sector. Some ideas are already taking shape in INGOs carefully re-thinking their business and operational models; and some organisations’ leaders have started thinking beyond immediate crisis alleviation and invest in discussions on how their role and their mandates might change in the future.
The majority is, however, still very occupied with the short-term response to the situation, downsizing staff, closing projects and partner relationships, adjusting their public profiles, and trying individual or joint advocacy initiatives to defend their operational and financial sustainability. Yet, survival is not a strategy. Despite the immediate threats, INGOs need to shift their mindset in how they can not just survive, but thrive in this unprecedented environment.
In the past decades, we have seen the incredible power and potential of civil society organisations, who work for social justice, for a better planet, and for a more just and equal world. Having been dubbed “small political giants” during their political heydays in the last quarter of the past century, many of them have developed into highly professional delivery agents of aid, with strong humanitarian striking power, and institutionalised places at the tables of national, regional and multinational decision-making fora. In a creeping process, much of their work has become subdued to securisation (after 9-11), or geopolitical, or economic agendas. At the same time, their (political) operating space has been shrinking in almost all countries around the world, partly prohibiting operations at all.
Their soft power has often become compartmentalised (focusing political advocacy on themes around injustice, often for specific minorities) or has almost been routinely included in the public discourse. A strong advocacy capacity has remained with many over fighting for public resources. But still, their potential and power are both operational and political and we should not forget this.
The sector is under attack not because NGOs are doing good, but because of their political power, the ability to create transparency and accountability, good governance, the ability to empower people, to be watchdogs, and who are therefore a thorn in the plans of autocrats.
So, the collective response needs to be targeted towards regaining that powerful role of civil society, which is much needed when autocrats partner with tech corporates to shape the world according to their motives.
Collaboration is a key to success. Anti-rights actors have shown and demonstrated how one can do this, with the long-term goals they pursue, which include financial interest, ideological aims and the accumulation of power. For example, they drafted their “Project 2025” playbook for several years, which then kicked in with force, after Trump was elected. Was it for the plans of the US Heritage Foundation, resources for civil society organisations would shrink further, their spending would be de-politicised, and their political voice would be diminished. In many ways, their arguments read convincing: why spend money on foreign countries when economic conditions are difficult at home? Why focus on minorities when the majorities feel left out of development chances? Why finance large (civil society) organisations or the UN in light of their bureaucracy, heavy structures and doubtful impact on the world’s well-being. And why fund political advocacy of CSOs that is directed to the very funding institutions?
The above combination of a waning public support to the values and activities of civil society organisations combined with growing pressure and attacks on them, demands a collective approach to gain back territory. This should be found in various arenas:
- Defending and actively expanding civil society operating spaces, including the spaces for partner organisations and frontline rights defenders.
- Forming coalitions beyond the sector with players who are concerned about human rights, liberal values, democracy, inclusion, and respect for each other.
- Seeking allies in actively targeting anti-rights actors who lead de-legitimisation campaigns against the sector, and develop more transparency around their motives and illegitimate means.
- Developing and actively promoting a positive and hopeful narrative around the work of CSOs, particularly through quantum leaps in digital communication and social media.
- Develop innovative political advocacy formats and find better ways to partner with activists over common concerns and goals.
- Showcase the willingness to consider majority concerns, accept criticism, be willing to transform in radical directions (e.g. work ourselves out of our jobs).
- Walk the talk. Live the values we preach. Show utmost and radical stewardship, transparency and accountability.
- Seek opportunities to combine sectoral advocacy work (e.g on touchpoints between different spheres of discrimination)
Collaboration is key, yet complicated, and it takes and binds resources. But one needs to make, or maintain, this as a priority and take certain risks with it. We have seen so many examples where collaboration worked. Here are a few reminders.
The latest book by Sam Worthington, former CEO of the American NGO platform Interaction, includes an insightful description of the “Together Project”, a successful collaboration to protect Islamic Relief from the attacks by the US Government in 2017.
There have been many successful joint, cross-cutting campaigns like the Debt Justice (former Jubilee) campaign, GCAP, the “Ban Landmines” campaign, which have brought many actors from within and beyond the sector together and achieved real results.
Many other projects brought civil society actors together, like the “Listening Project”, the “Do No Harm” initiative, great examples that show success in mutual solidarity and action. The International Civil Society Centre hosts a number of successful collaborations like the “Leave no one Behind” coalition, or the “Solidarity Action Network”, and has incubated many more, like the “Civic Charter” project or the “Joining Forces” initiative.
We know that collaboration is based on a few good principles. One needs to build trust among actors. One needs to be ready to share and to learn from peers. One needs to address power imbalances in collaborative relationships, particularly between Northern and Southern actors. And one needs to be wary of dividers and divisive forces, so not to fight with each other and forget about the opponents out there.
INGOs have a significant transformation ahead. They will have to let go of decision-making power in local program implementation and policy. They may have to slaughter some holy cows like excessive accountability mechanisms, may need to let go of brand and egos, and will have to overcome their very high level of risk aversion. They may also have to re-discover their political power, in the quest to define their new roles.
There will be the need to focus on new topics like fighting cyberattacks, smear campaigns and attacks on the legitimacy of INGOs.
In summary, collaboration needs to be a defense mechanism, but part of everybody’s strategy in the sector, to move ahead of the curve. Some bold moves might be required.
First and foremost, let’s not self-censor and surrender to political (and financial) pressure too early. It is concerning to see how quickly our ambitions to create gender equality, climate justice or civic empowerment are being taken off the websites and public communication of many US-based NGOs. Rather, we need to re-discover the DNA, the mandates and the values on which our work is based. Only this will enable long-term support by the public, on which we are first and foremost dependent.
We need to invest (financially) in partnerships, and it is great to see examples like the “solidarity fund” of Plan International, or similar initiatives by progressive private donors, to help our heavily hit local partner organisations survive.
There are many more operational decisions that need to be taken, or at least to be considered. Freeing ourselves from Government’s resources and dependencies, considering mergers, slimming down overheads and duplication, decentralising operations. Localisation and power shift need to remain strong ambitions and bring enormous opportunities, not just in cost saving. It can strengthen the legitimacy of the sector and overcome colonial remnants. But we also need to beware of the political ambivalences – autocratic governments have discovered localisation as part of their strategies to sideline strong civil society organisations.
In order to address the growing public scepticism about elites and institutions, about the moral index finger, about priorities that don’t consider common people’s lives, the sector needs to develop different narratives. We need to understand ourselves as part of a greater movement rather than self-centred institutions. We should allow for doubts, empathise, remain principled yet considerate of other opinions.
The sector, and INGOs in particular, have giant steps ahead. We can only make those if we work together. Are we agile enough to re-imagine our roles? There is hope as INGO leaders have shown over and again that they are good at managing crises – let’s hope that they will do this with a long-term horizon.
Picture credit : © Adrienne Surprenant /MYOP
