Margolin, who hails from the former Soviet Republic of Belarus, has spent decades understanding and developing tactics for resilience against creeping authoritarianism. Litvinov, a trans immigrant from Ukraine, has leveraged lived experience to understand and explain why authoritarians target disadvantaged communities — and how to fight back. They’re bringing the lessons they’ve learned about combatting authoritarianism internationally home to the U.S., where their relevance is now clear.

Looking at the United States right now, what has you most worried?

Yelena V Litvinov: Two things. First, we are seeing all of the classic moves of the authoritarian playbook unfolding, which are very familiar to folks who've lived through authoritarianism in other places. But I think what is different in the U.S. is how quickly those moves are being taken. The pace is meant to overwhelm us and make it more difficult to respond. And it shows that this particular authoritarian government has learned from other authoritarian governments.

And the second thing is that U.S. civil society is far less prepared, both operationally and mentally, than it should be. There were many warning signs that authoritarianism was taking hold in this country. Rather than heeding those alarm bells, I think a lot of folks held on to the faith that our institutions will protect us, the rule of law will protect us, that these are not the kinds of things that happen in America.

Now that we are actually in it, there's a different version of American exceptionalism that has taken hold. It is this idea that what is happening here is so unprecedented and so unexpected and so beyond the pale, when, in fact, we have seen so much of this before. And so there’s this paralysis where folks are not really working collectively to respond. They are not learning from the examples of other countries because there's this sense of this being ahistorical or unique. When it’s not.

Tatyana Margolin: I grew up in the former Soviet Union. I came here as a teenager. I remember the decrepitude of that regime. I remember what it's like to live under a government that malfunctions, to have health care where you can't navigate it without bribes. These are all things that I experienced firsthand. And watching it take hold and seeing the beginnings of it here is really disturbing to me.
‍
An average American has not dealt with day-to-day corruption. They have not had to bribe their way out of a parking ticket. They haven't had to pay a doctor to be seen. There are many other obstacles to accessing services, but that level of corruption was not in the DNA of this country for many years. And watching the oligarchy rise here, and seeing the administration push out these loyal civil servants who have been doing their jobs non-corruptly, is really scary for me. Because we actually do not have a solution for corruption.

Corruption is very easy to introduce. It's like a pill you slip in the water. Getting it in is not hard. But getting it out is nearly impossible. And we are so in denial that this level of corruption can happen here that when it does, we don't actually know what to do about it. We don't know how to talk about it, we don't know how to fight it. We almost can't accept it on a very molecular level, and therefore, we just do nothing.

Yelena, you are a trans person as well as an immigrant. Why do you believe that authoritarian regimes so aggressively target immigrants, LGBTQ people, and other vulnerable communities?

Litvinov: It's the oldest trick in the book. It's really easy to distract from your own failures of governance, from your own corruption, by blaming everything on some subgroup of people. They seek out groups that are vulnerable enough that you are able to tell a story that places them in this scapegoat category. It’s a very malleable tool.

And immigrants are obviously a very easy target. What's happening in the U.S. now makes me think a lot about the way that Orbán consolidated power in Hungary, by really campaigning against the E.U. allowing migrants to move into Hungary, when in fact, that was not actually happening. Hungary was not a destination for that migrant wave. You see the same thing here: elections are being won on this same anti-immigrant rhetoric, even in places where there's not a big immigrant influx. This was a campaign tool in many states that were nowhere near a border.

As for the attacks that we're seeing on trans communities right now, it's another example of how malleable this tool is. Attacks on trans communities have just taken the place of what were before, to take one example, attacks on access to reproductive care. Remember, abortion was this really easy wedge issue for Republicans for many years. Then they saw public opinion shift. They needed a new target.

They used to go after the LGBTQ community more broadly. But the gay and lesbian rights movement really pushed this idea that gay people are your neighbor. They are your coworker. There was a big visibility campaign that really made that another tough wedge issue. Trans folks represent such a small percentage of the population. There are fewer individuals who know a trans person the way they know other LGBTQ people. So they are an easier target. They become the very scary other that they can focus on.

Tatyana, can you talk a little bit about the administration's attacks on nonprofits, on media, on lawyers? We now have media outlets paying Trump off and big law firms bending the knee.

Margolin: The fact that they would attack civil society was very obvious to us. You could really see it from a mile away. Because we have a fully subservient Congress. We have a Republican executive branch. We have a judicial branch that has been somewhat compromised. So we knew those would not serve as a check and balance. That leaves only civil society and the business community, because businesses can be a really powerful tool against authoritarianism.

That's where I think the attacks on law firms come in. Attacking corporate law firms serves two purposes. One is that you're undermining the NGO sector, because even groups like the ACLU depend on corporate counsel. Smaller NGOs rely on pro bono hours of big law firms. So you’re crippling them. Second, you are effectively taking an enormous chunk of the business community out of the game, in terms of pushback against the administration.

You both spent a long time at the Open Society Foundations. As you know, the right has long talked about George Soros as this evil puppet master. But now, you have another rich guy, Elon Musk, getting far more directly involved in our politics than Soros ever did. Yet they seem not to have any problem with that.

Litvinov: One thing to remember about far-right movements is that they love to accuse their opponents of doing what they themselves are doing. They accuse progressive groups of taking over the media, for example, when that's actually what authoritarians do.

The idea that every accusation is a confession.

Litvinov: 100 percent. And the louder the accusation is, the more of a confession it is.

Margolin: The attacks on George Soros were not invented here. They started in Russia because the Open Society Foundations were one of the biggest philanthropies working to support civil society. And then they migrated towards Hungary. And the U.S. right just saw that this particular boogeyman worked as a scapegoat and copied the talking points. They just adapted it to the local context. The age-old anti-Jewish stereotypes, of course, also came into play with Soros.

Litvinov: The narrative around George Soros was that there was this secret international cabal of people sitting in rooms, strategizing, pulling the strings. For those who've actually worked inside of philanthropy, we only wish there was more coordination. Because the idea that there was some international strategy between the E.U. and private foundations and all of these rich people on the progressive side, that's not the reality.

Margolin: We wish we were as effective as we're being accused of being. We would be accused of rapidly funding protests, for example. But it would take us, on average, to make a grant, six months minimum. And yet we would be accused of somehow immediately mobilizing buses of people.

Litvinov: The reality is that there is, in fact, an international collaboration that is extremely strategic and effective and well-resourced — and it’s on the far right.

Look at the way that anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQ laws were spreading country to country using exactly the same rhetoric, even in places where that rhetoric made no sense. You can see that these are imported narratives. It's like, where did those narratives come from? It's because politicians and corrupt church leaders and other members of the far-right were coming together at international networking meetings like the World Congress of Families, and literally exchanging PowerPoint presentations on how to make use of these as wedge issues in order to consolidate power, in order to win elections.

In Sudan, they would have folks go to opposition protests with rainbow flags and plant them in the protest so they could say, “Oh, look, these are the gays who are out here leading these anti-government protests. They're the ones trying to destabilize our country.” Those strategies were exported from one authoritarian country to another, often at these networking events. One example on the U.S. side is CPAC.

There is a transnational right-wing cabal of very high-powered, well-resourced folks who are pumping tons of money into these far-right movements. As we pointed out earlier, they are doing the same things that they accuse progressive foundations of doing. Progressive groups just do not have either the resources or, frankly, the operational savvy to do those things.
‍
What are some of the lessons that Americans can learn in terms of resilience from what's happened in the rest of the world?

Margolin: We are always championing people who are not just surviving these situations, but they are continuing to push, they're continuing to fight, they're not giving up. And everyone should really be learning from their counterparts. Journalists, for one, should be talking to their counterparts in Russia. They need to learn to do their work in an authoritarian context.

We have many examples of people doing it. They have followed the same trajectory we are seeing here, where first their newspapers were taken over, and they left those newsrooms because they could no longer in good conscience work there. It’s what you see happening with the Washington Post. They go to other outlets, but the other outlets become compromised as well. So they have to set up their own outlets.

This is what I want American journalists to be thinking about. What are you going to do with the reputation you've built for yourself? Are you going to set up a YouTube channel? Are you going to start reaching people on other platforms? Are you going to go to Substack? Who are you going to try to reach?

This is perhaps a naïve question, but I think it’s an important one. Most Americans have never lived in a fully authoritarian regime before. We don’t have a sense of what it’s like. How does life feel different?

Margolin: I think it's a great question, and I hope you never feel the full experience. I hope you never get the whole package. But in a lot of what's so challenging about fully comprehending it is that, for many people, life really just goes on as usual. Until suddenly, it doesn’t.

Litvinov: I want to talk about how we fight back and how we live in this moment. Yes, you need to continue to litigate in the courts. Yes, you need to continue to push other narratives. Yes, you need to continue to do all the resistance work that people are doing. But that’s not all.

The goal of authoritarians, when they rewrite the past, when they tell you that everything is horrible and dark and scary, is to convince you that they are the only hope for a better future. And it is incumbent upon us to offer up a different alternative for the future. It is not enough to say, “We want to go back to the way things were.” Because clearly, some people were unhappy. There are things that are very broken about our society, and there is a reason why this rhetoric of the authoritarians has so much appeal.

And part of that is while they are actually diagnosing a problem, they are also offering a false solution to that problem. And so the more that we can uplift the voices of those who are offering different solutions, who are thinking optimistically and joyously about the future, I think that is what gets us through.

Finding joy gets us through. And having hope for a different reality that actually works for everybody and that unites us. Because authoritarians divide. But in fact, we all want the same things. We want our kids to be able to get good health care and a good education. We want our infrastructure to not be falling apart. We don't want to be throwing bombs around the world, whether via a Signal chat or otherwise. These are just common values, and I think they're common American values that we can unite in and around.

The authoritarians are becoming so powerful, perversely, because they understand that they are losing. They can't win without these machinations, without their manipulations of the electoral playing field. Because our multicultural, pluralistic, multiracial democracy represents the majority. You only have to employ the tactics of authoritarianism when you can’t win without them.

Originally published by The Ink.

We’re both intimately familiar with this strategy. We were born in the repressive former Soviet Union, and have supported activists and journalists in some of the most restrictive countries. We’ve seen this tactic used repeatedly in Hungary, Turkey, Russia, Uganda, and many others, first through our work at the Open Society Foundations and then as the co-founders of STROIKA, which supports and connects anti-authoritarian grassroots movements globally. In each case, the vilification of independent organizations as so-called “enemies from within” often includes increased scrutiny of their funding sources or alleged administrative violations, as a way to stifle dissent.
‍
The Trump administration has already signaled it will deploy such tactics. Trump’s pick to lead the IRS, for example, is not opposed to taking away an organization’s tax-exempt status if he disagrees with its mission. Legislation that passed the House last year — and is expected to pass in the Senate — will allow the administration to strip organizations of their nonprofit status by labeling them as terrorists. Meanwhile, Vice President JD Vance has called some foundations “cancers on American society.”

Over the past year, STROIKA has helped U.S. groups — including independent media outlets, civil liberties lawyers, climate justice movements, trans activists, and foundations — build their resilience for 2025 and beyond. Alarmingly, however, we’ve found that grant makers and nonprofits, regardless of their size, are woefully underprepared for attacks on their ability to operate. In their focus on securing their mission and programs, many forget that as legal entities — with salaries to pay, bank accounts to manage, and contractual obligations to meet — their operational structure itself is vulnerable.

Even seemingly neutral work can be targeted. And while repressive measures may be unleashed all at once, creating panic and paralysis, more often such restrictions happen gradually, like frogs boiling slowly in a pot. Each new restriction becomes the norm, paving the way for the next.

We cannot predict how a second Trump administration will unfold, but we do know this: With one-party control of the presidency, Senate, and House of Representatives, civil society groups may be the last remaining check on otherwise unchecked power. This makes them particularly vulnerable.

With that in mind, funders must invest in protecting civil society’s operations immediately — plugging the holes before the damage becomes irreparable. This is not the time for further mappings and landscaping studies. The threat is clear, and the time to act is now.

Below are our top recommendations, based on global experience, for what philanthropy must prioritize and fund — both for their grantees and their own internal operations — to withstand authoritarian attacks from this administration.

Explore alternate legal structures. To maintain their tax-exempt status, nonprofits are subject to extensive reporting and IRS compliance requirements. That makes them particularly vulnerable to government scrutiny. By contrast, authoritarians are usually hesitant to restrict the for-profit sector, which already faces fewer barriers in a business-friendly U.S. legal environment. They may even decrease regulation to enable their own corruption. For these reasons, the most resilient organizations in countries where civic space is shrinking set up alternative legal entities early on.

An immigrant rights organization, for example, might consider registering one or more independent limited liability companies, or LLCs, in other states or countries. These LLCs could continue to receive funds from donors or intermediaries, and pay program and staff costs via consultancy agreements, in case the 501(c)(3) entity is forced to halt operations.

Foundations should be flexible about supporting individuals and legal entities that do not have 501(c)(3) status, and encourage peer donors to do the same. And they can provide legal support to grantees registering LLCs and other for-profit companies. This alternative legal and financial structure can lay dormant until needed, but quickly activated should the nonprofit come under attack. Foundations can also consult a trusted attorney to register other independent organizational entities themselves.

Secure your finances. Financial compliance is an easy place of vulnerability because even unfounded accusations of financial malfeasance or money laundering can lead to an organization’s assets being frozen while investigations occur, irreparably damaging its reputation.

Allocate resources for yourself and your grantees to hire trusted accountants to ensure books are audit-ready and all documents and past filings can stand up to financial investigations. Then, develop clear plans for how you can fund grantees if existing accounts are inaccessible or your foundation’s work is criminalized. That could include opening additional bank accounts or establishing partner agreements with other organizations who can make payments on your behalf, including intermediary organizations or fiscal hosts.

Support grantees in doing similar scenario planning focused on how they will pay salaries and expenses if they’re targeted. They could, for example, open a for-profit entity or partner with a more secure organization to pay staff as consultants. Or they could work with intermediaries who use prepaid cash cards or cryptocurrency to move funds.

Safeguard communication and information systems. Establish alternative communication channels with staff, grantees, and donor networks, using end-to-end encrypted messaging services, such as Signal. This minimizes the chances of a third party accessing sensitive data and releasing it to the public or using it as evidence in a lawsuit.

Support grantees in also using secure communication platforms to reach their audiences and beneficiaries. And start early to ensure everyone is accustomed to these changes. This is also the time to do a thorough digital security audit of both in-office and work-from-home systems.

Review data-retention policies. Grant makers retain enormous amounts of data about every aspect of their own work and their grantees’. While that’s helpful for monitoring and learning, foundations hold on to far more information than needed for IRS compliance, posing risks in case of a subpoena or digital security breach. Since requirements vary by state, donors should review data-retention policies with a trusted attorney, and avoid keeping more than needed while remaining compliant with state and federal laws.

Add unrestricted funds for security. Funders committed to supporting at-risk groups and movements must accept the financial and logistical demands involved, both internally and for their grantees.

The overhead costs that are so often capped by grant makers are critical to retaining the qualified professionals who will help nonprofits withstand future attacks. To effectively protect and sustain grantees’ work, foundations must increase unrestricted funding for operational costs, and earmark money for security.

Emergency funds for the unexpected, such as physical and digital security threats, audits, and litigation, must be easily accessible. Grant makers who can’t move funds efficiently can use intermediaries and service providers with a proven track record of rapid response and the capacity to support the fields they fund.


Internal resistance is likely when proposing big changes to funding approaches and challenging the status quo within institutions. But “we’ve always done it this way” is no longer an excuse. We’ve seen remarkable problem solving when program and operational staff from across different departments collaborate to prepare for a range of future scenarios. And we encourage grant makers to share their strategies with peer organizations to help shift practices across the sector.

To move beyond this moment of paralysis and despair, grant makers should start taking these steps immediately. Investing in preparedness now will be far less expensive and time consuming than being stuck in a reactive mode later. It will also help fortify American civil society’s resilience for the long term — not just the next four years.‍

Originally published by The Chronicle of Philanthropy.

2024: Preparedness

Our focus in 2024 was on strengthening civil society resilience during a global mega-election year. We worked with partners to imagine expected and unexpected futures and map out practical strategies for even the most uncertain times.
‍
We have been building our partners’ preparedness for authoritarian attacks — in particular, for the targeting of the civil society structure itself, including non-profits, grassroots groups, and the media.

We continued connecting civil society leaders with their peers across geographic and thematic divides, helping them share experiences, coordinate tactics, and find inspiration in their collective resilience against authoritarianism. We also linked them with legal, financial, and digital security experts to build up their holistic security.

In total, STROIKA worked with 152 organizations in 2024. Some of the groups we supported included
- Civil liberties lawyers in the Americas and in Eastern Europe
- US activists working on racial justice, economic justice, climate justice, and LGBTQI+ rights at the state and national levels
- HIV service providers in Central Asia
- Independent media organizations
- Philanthropic donors in the United States, Eastern Africa, and Western Europe

2024: Writing

Our year began with Tatyana’s article in Politico Europe, reflecting on the meaning of home in the age of exile. STROIKA has been amplifying exiled journalists’ voices in the western press since our founding. In 2025, we will launch a major project supporting & connecting exiled journalists.

Yelena contributed to the Kettering Foundation’s From Many, We series, covering the ways that authoritarians use war, attacks on LGBTQ+ rights, and book bans to consolidate power. He was also in conversation with Harvard law professor Alan Jenkins about the role of art and culture in defending democracy.

2024: Speaking
‍
In the spring, STROIKA traveled to the SKOLL World Forum in Oxford, presenting a session on Empowering Civic Resilience: Strategies for Action in Repression. We shared with a global audience practical strategies for finding hope and solidarity in the face of seemingly unbeatable odds.

In the fall, Tatyana took the stage at the Vital Voices Anti-Authoritarian Summit in Warsaw, with women leaders from around the world. She led a series of workshops that culminated in the release of The Anti-Authoritarian Playbook: Recommendations from Women Leaders for Women Leaders in the Global Fight for Democracy.

Looking ahead to 2025

In 2025, we are expanding our Anti-Authoritarian Fund, to provide flexible, responsive support directly to those making the greatest impact in standing up to authoritarianism.
‍
We have already increased support to groups in the US most at risk of attacks by the Trump administration, while continuing to connect and resource our global partners.

And we will continue bringing our international expertise to both movement and donor spaces, sparking hope and collective action against transnational authoritarianism.
‍
We are deeply grateful for your continued support and partnership. Please consider including STROIKA in your year-end giving with a tax-deductible donation.
‍
With gratitude and resolve,
The STROIKA Team‍

This isn’t a drill. Recently, Congress introduced a bill that would allow the Secretary of the Treasury to designate U.S. nonprofits as “terrorist-supporting organizations” and revoke their tax-exempt status. Though defeated, similar legislation is likely to return. This move is part of the authoritarian playbook, used successfully in countries like Hungary, Turkey, Russia, and Uganda.

Leaving us exhausted before battles even begin is also a tool in the authoritarian toolbox. So conserve your energy and focus on proactive steps that build resilience. Even small, low-cost actions can make a difference.

Here are five key areas to focus on for nonprofits, funders, activists, and independent media:

- Consider Legal Structure: The nonprofit model is particularly vulnerable to scrutiny. Consult a trusted attorney about establishing for-profit entities in other states, and advocate for donor flexibility to support non-501(c)(3) entities.

- Clean Up Finances: Ensure your financial records are audit-ready. Consider opening additional bank accounts and developing contingency plans for payroll and expenses.

- Diversify Communications: Establish alternative channels with staff, partners, and networks, using encrypted messaging and secure platforms. Introduce these now to prepare your network for January.

- Secure Data and Information: Review data retention policies and avoid storing excess data while staying compliant. Conduct a digital security audit, and if you aren’t already, begin using VPNs regularly.

- Scenario Plan: We often assume that the future will be a small variation on the past – that Trump 2 may be a slightly worse version of Trump 1. But history shows that change can be rapid and unpredictable. Consider both likely and unlikely scenarios and map out the practical ways in which you’ll respond.

If you want more insight into managing risk in any of these areas — or if you feel uncertain about where to begin — please reach out. STROIKA remains committed to building the resilience of U.S. and global civil society, informed by anti-authoritarian movements worldwide.

Unless studied closely, the past 20 years of Russia’s anti-LGBTQ+ policies blur together, with each being more restrictive than the last. Yet at the end of 2023, the Russian Supreme Court reached a new low when it ruled that the “international LGBTQ+ movement” is an “extremist organization.” Though there is no entity with that name, the intentionally broad label could be applied to any and all queer persons and those suspected of supporting them. In a closed-door hearing with no defendant, the Court determined that this “movement” was “inciting social and religious discord.” Punishment for supporting an “extremist organization” can be up to 12 years in prison, frozen bank accounts, and disqualification from running for public office. Simply displaying the “symbols” of an extremist organization (such as a rainbow) can have a penalty of up to 4 years in prison. The court ruling is a setback for LGBTQ+ rights and exemplifies how authoritarians attempt to hold on to power, sow disinformation, and silence opposition.

Escalating Restrictions and Authoritarian Creep

The new ruling is only the latest in a steady escalation of Russian anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric and policy. While ostensibly framed as a return to some mythical “traditional values,” the scapegoating of the queer community has coincided with Vladimir Putin’s efforts to maintain his hold on power.

Between 2006 and 2013, various Russian mayors attempted regional bans on LGBTQ+ “propaganda.” The bans marked a turning point in Putin’s regime by bringing a crackdown on civil liberties and freedoms that continues to escalate to this day. Also around this time, Putin’s public addresses and speeches began to focus on the theme of family and “traditional values” as a distinguishing feature between the Russian Federation and “the liberal West.”

In 2013, Russia outlawed the “propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations” to minors. Any media materials showing queer relationships in a positive light had to be sealed with an “18+” label, as if they were pornography. This led to a documented rise in hate crimes, which doubled between 2013 and 2015. In response to global criticism against this new law, the government emphasized that the law was only “about protecting children” and “not about imposing any kind of sanctions against homosexuality.” In 2013, Putin claimed, “[sexual minorities] are full-fledged members of our society and are not being discriminated against in any way.” The coming years made clear that these repressive laws had nothing to do with the interests of Russian families. Rather, exemplifying a common pattern of authoritarian creep, they were just the beginning of a more expansive wave of repression.

‍“Traditional Values” in Putin’s War of Misinformation

By 2022, Russia had banned “propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations” among people of all ages, a culmination of antigay rhetoric that had been worsening year by year. An outsider may wonder, Why had the LGBTQ+ community in particular become the target of government-sanctioned hate? Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 made clear the true objective of this campaign.

Putin actively uses anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric as part of his misinformation campaign to justify the Ukraine war. Talk of defeating “Nazis” in Ukraine has been replaced by calls to defend the Russian family, and the war is positioned as an existential battle against the immoral West. According to one Russian lawmaker, “we are fighting so that in Russia instead of mom and dad there isn’t ‘parent No. 1,’ ‘parent No. 2,’ ‘parent No. 3.’ ”

In July 2023, the Kremlin used the war with Ukraine to justify bans on transgender healthcare and legal gender change. Abortion access is also under threat. All are framed as a threat to Russia’s “traditional values” and way of life, but the focus on abortion is particularly ironic because in 1920 the Soviet Union became the first country in the world to legalize abortion.

‍Sending a Message to the Opposition

The Russian Supreme Court’s latest “extremism” ruling only went into effect in January 2024. Police raids on LGBTQ+ clubs began almost immediately. Though more repression is inevitably coming, it remains unclear exactly how the new ruling will be implemented. The uncertainty has caused panic, and many individuals have made urgent arrangements to leave the country. In response, Russian LGBTQ+ movement leaders are working to bring international political attention to their situation in Russia in hopes of building greater support for their community and to condemn the persecution of peaceful human-rights activists.

The broader lesson is that Putin now has another tool for targeting his political opposition and those who dare to oppose his bloody war in Ukraine. Activists beyond the LGBTQ+ community are rightfully concerned that similar laws can be used to target them in the future.  

‍Modeling Repression

Russia models its anti-LGBTQ+ policies worldwide and is setting a dangerous example globally. The draconian laws provide a chilling example of how targeting minority groups can have widespread repercussions while serving as an easy political tool. Creating internal enemies stokes fear and consolidates power. In 2021, Hungary enacted a law that replicated the Russian antipropaganda law. More recently, Uganda passed a cruel antihomosexuality bill. Russia considers scapegoating the LGBTQ+ community such an effective tool that it tried to share its strategies with Sudan in 2019 while advising the Sudanese government on how to quell pro-democracy protests. Each repressive action against a minority group can bring grave consequences that include increased nonstate violence, financial restrictions, and justification for the state targeting of individuals.

Russia’s escalation in repressions serves as a stark warning for those witnessing a resurgence of anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric in their own countries. Targeting the queer community serves as a political tool to suppress opposition, activists, and dissenting voices.

We must remain vigilant against the extremist laws being used to silence political opponents. And we must remember that the fight for LGBTQ+ rights is inseparable from the broader struggle for human rights and democratic values worldwide.

Originally published by the Kettering Foundation. From Many, We is a Kettering Foundation blog series that highlights the insights of thought leaders dedicated to the idea of inclusive democracy.

Now is the time of year when we often hear the phrase “home for the holidays.” But what exactly is “home” for those like my house guests, who have left and can never go back? What does it mean when your home exists but is unrecognizable?

I left my native Belarus in 1994 and have never returned since. My own story mirrors the millions living in a perpetual state of exile, compelled to leave their birthplace due to conflict, political upheaval, religious persecution or the impact of climate change.

At the end of 2022, some 71.1 million people remained displaced within the borders of their own country, with an estimated 36.4 million refugees and 6.1 million asylum seekers worldwide. Moreover, according to the World Bank’s worst-case figures, as water becomes more scarce and agricultural livelihoods are threatened, some 216 million people could move internally by 2050.

Each of these experiences will be unique, but the plight of leaving our birthplaces and redefining what home means — both in the present and for our futures — is one that’s shared.

So, what exactly is a home, and can we have more than one?

We recently asked this question of a group of exiled journalists from Iran, Afghanistan, Syria and Russia. And their answers varied widely.

“Home is where other people speak my language;” “home is a place with familiar smells;” “home is where my childhood memories live.”

These responses echo my own perceptions of home. That much of what defines home is intangible, that it is a feeling, a sense, a collection of memories.

I have lived in the United States for almost 30 years now — more than twice as long as I lived in my native Belarus. But I hadn’t felt a connection to my “new” home until the Tree of Life massacre — the 2018 synagogue shooting — in my American city of Pittsburgh. As my adopted hometown grieved, I grieved with it. Having walked the intersection where the synagogue sits hundreds of times, I didn’t feel like an exile or a transplant then. And my adolescent memories entangled with the neighborhood of Squirrel Hill, Pittsburgh.

Yet, when Belarus later experienced a pro-democracy uprising in 2020, after its dictator Alexander Lukashenko — already in power for 26 years — attempted to falsify the results of another election, it was as if I was transported to the city of my birth. Glued to social media, fully absorbed in the events taking place there, I acutely felt that this was also happening at home.

Then, when the uprising was violently crushed a few months later, thousands of Belarusians joined me in exile.

A home doesn’t need to be perfect — it often isn’t. They are places we want to improve, challenge and make better for our own generation and the next.

Exiled journalists shoulder much of this responsibility, publishing stories and investigations deemed too perilous for their counterparts back home. They exemplify a new approach to championing human rights, emphasizing the need for a solidarity that extends beyond borders and a more unified fight for justice. They inform, investigate and weave together stories that create a sense of shared community and responsibility. And thanks to the fluidity of today’s technology, enabling collaboration and connection across borders, they are transcending geographic limitations and redefining their roles.

In authoritarian countries like Belarus, internal exile is becoming the norm for such free-thinking citizens, as those who disagree with the dictatorial regime must keep their opinions to themselves, lest they risk prison or worse.

Others leave for a new place, but ties to the old remain. And this enduring connection is especially pronounced among those same journalists and activists committed to bettering their homeland, resisting rights abuses, and challenging the regressive policies that ultimately compelled them to choose exile.

We see this, for example, with Russian independent media, as almost all were forced to leave after the country’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. But even while entire newsrooms were relocating, they didn’t skip a beat, relentlessly reporting on President Vladimir Putin’s atrocities in Ukraine and the escalating repression in Russia.

In an effort to undermine this work and erase dissent, authoritarians often brand such exiles as out of touch. And those who subscribe to this perspective inadvertently prop up strongmen leaders.

So, with half the world preparing for major elections in 2024, now is the time to support these critical voices so essential in shining a light on the truth. We must help fund them, platform their perspectives in Western media, and offer a supportive space to share their ideas and continue their work. Such amplification is essential for a more nuanced and inclusive discourse. And without it, authoritarianism will flourish.

The concept of “home” for the exiled is a complex tapestry woven with threads of memory, resilience and pain. And as we witness the growing numbers of displaced individuals globally, our understanding of belonging must evolve. In this age of exile, let us embrace a broader definition of home — one that extends beyond geographical confines and recognizes the power of shared ideals to unite us all.

Originally published by Politico Europe.

I felt transported back to September 11, 2001, in New York City: first was the shock and pain of loss, and then the immediate anger and disbelief as collective grief was used to justify not only wars abroad but also domestic crackdowns on civil liberties in the US. This ambiguous “war on terror” included increased surveillance codified into law by the Patriot Act; the overpolicing of Muslim communities; and the horrific kidnapping, detention, and torture of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and other secret facilities globally. Over 20 years later, many of these wrongs have not been righted and have become an accepted part of the American political landscape.

Authoritarian-leaning governments deploy numerous strategies to shut down dissent and consolidate power domestically: co-opting independent media, increasing citizen surveillance, restricting internet freedom, limiting the right to protest, and so on. Usually, would-be authoritarians make an initial effort to justify these policies by vilifying their opposition and scapegoating minority populations in the name of “national security.”  

War makes the job easier: It’s the ultimate opportunity to diminish civil liberties in the name of “patriotism” and the war effort.

Precedents Set in the Russia-Ukraine War

Vladimir Putin has made full use of war as a tool of domestic repression since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. An already repressive state was made even more so after a March 2022 law amending the criminal code to include “public dissemination of knowingly false information about the use of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation.” In practice, this law has been used to silence protests and crack down on all remaining independent media. Journalists committed to continued reporting of the truth were forced to flee the country and set up as media in exile simply for calling the conflict a war rather than a special military operation. Thousands of people have been detained and hundreds face criminal charges and prison sentences for speaking out against the war, posting about it on social media, or even holding a blank piece of paper. Teachers have lost their jobs and students have been arrested.  

And wartime restrictions are not limited to Russia in this conflict: Ukraine’s government has also been putting limits on its citizens in the name of war. Wartime media restrictions were compounded by the December 2022 legislation that drastically increased the role of the government’s media regulator and the monopoly of state-run media. These restrictions were justified as resistance to Russian disinformation. As a result, independent journalists report increased self-censorship and compounded challenges when reporting on controversial issues such as government corruption. To be sure, there is no need for false equivalencies: Ukraine is fighting a war for its survival and one of Russia’s potent weapons has been its well-financed and sophisticated propaganda machine. But at a time when Ukrainian civil society has resumed its steadfast work of holding its government to account, it is important that critical local voices are able to have broad reach in the name of a more pluralistic and democratic Ukraine.  

Silencing Dissent in Israel  

Since October 7, 2023, Israel has also been cracking down on freedom of speech and the right to protest. Police have arrested protestors—including former members of Knesset, Israel’s parliament—and Israel’s Supreme Court upheld a police ban on antiwar protests. Emergency regulations have extended the maximum time for detention without a lawyer. On November 8, the Knesset amended the Counter-Terrorism Law to criminalize “the consumption of terrorist materials,” including online content. As a result, Israeli citizens’ social media posts are leading to police questioning, detention, and arrest for alleged “support for the enemy.” Even messages of unity are being silenced. Peace activists were detained for publicly displaying a simple message: “Jews and Arabs, we will get through this together.”  

Autocratic Hamas has engaged in years of brutal repressions and restrictions of Palestinians’ freedom of expression in Gaza. But Hamas’ actions do not excuse Israel from adhering to democratic norms and respecting the rights of its citizens. If national trauma is used to secure unchecked power, Israel further diminishes its claims to being a functioning democracy.

It is important to remember that right up to October 7, hundreds of thousands of Israelis took to the streets weekly to oppose proposed judicial reforms that would curtail the power of their supreme court. Israelis saw these reforms as a way for Prime Minister Netanyahu to evade his corruption trial and impose authoritarian rule. This protest movement, the largest in the country’s history, warned that their far-right government’s actions were making the country more vulnerable to attack; tragically, they were right. If current protests against Netanyahu grow, it would not be surprising for the government to justify more direct repression to resist the increasingly loud calls for his removal.

A Call to Action for the United States

Even the most unpopular leaders can instrumentalize war to secure unchecked power for themselves and their allies. Would-be authoritarians watch each other and learn from each other’s examples. All of the US presidential candidates for 2024 are noting how war can make domestic policy changes possible.

As a Jewish American immigrant from Ukraine, I am keenly aware that history repeats itself unless citizens pay attention and deliberately push back. I am deeply inspired by the journalists, legal advocates, and ordinary citizens who are standing up for justice and actively resisting the dismantling of democratic norms in times of a national emergency. Prodemocracy leaders within the US can and should learn valuable lessons from the work of these activists.

In Israel, legal advocacy organizations like Adalah and the Association for Civil Rights in Israel are working to protect freedom of speech and the right to protest. The prodemocracy protest movement has reoriented to direct mutual aid work and is providing essential services to the families of hostages in the stark absence of government support. Peace activists like Peace Now and Standing Together remain committed to Israeli-Palestinian solidarity, even in wartime, and are holding the government to account for its domestic repressions.

Russian independent media like Bumaga, Dozhd, and Proekt have relocated abroad to continue reporting for Russian audiences. Organizations like OVD Info are defending the right to freedom of assembly inside of Russia. In Ukraine, the Institute of Mass Information works to maintain journalistic standards and freedom of speech. Ukrainian independent media like Slidstvo are reporting on the war but also holding their government to account, while legal advocacy groups like the Kharkiv Human Rights Group are documenting Russian war crimes and also defending the rights of Ukrainian citizens, including those held in prisons and police detention.

Now is the time to support these civil liberties champions; direct financial support from the international community strengthens their ability to stand up to authoritarian measures. It is also the time for US civil society organizations to build meaningful relationships with international movement leaders who have direct experience with wartime repression. Examples of effective antiauthoritarian resistance provide valuable lessons to other democracies at risk, and we urgently need these lessons to build our own preparedness.

Originally published by the Kettering Foundation. From Many, We is a Kettering Foundation blog series that highlights the insights of thought leaders dedicated to the idea of inclusive democracy.

This is not a description of the expulsion last month of two Black Democratic Tennessee lawmakers, Justin Jones and Justin J. Pearson, after they stood with protesters advocating for gun control. Instead, it is an account of an eerily similar event in 2012 when the pro-Kremlin majority in the State Duma, the Russian parliament’s lower house, voted to expel a dissident lawmaker, Gennady Gudkov, for joining anti-Putin protests.

The lawmaker’s expulsion set a dangerous precedent for the suppression of dissent in Russia. Similar tactics are now showing up in the United States, including in the Tennessee case and then a few weeks later in Montana, when Republican state legislators barred Rep. Zooey Zephyr from the House floor for speaking out against a bill banning gender-affirming care for youth.

All of this is straight out of the authoritarian playbook, a set of strategies used by corrupt political leaders to seize and maintain power, consolidate wealth, and repress dissent.

We were both born under the former Soviet Union’s repressive regime. As rights and justice grant makers, we have successfully supported activists in the most challenging and restrictive countries in the Eurasia region, including Russia — first with the Open Society Foundations and now as co-founders of Stroika, where we fund and connect resistance movements around the globe.

We know all too well that authoritarianism doesn’t take hold overnight. The first time something as egregious as expelling democratically elected leaders happens, it seems shocking and unprecedented. The next time, however, it no longer seems quite so horrific. Authoritarians will continue to push the line, further and further.

To be sure, the United States is not Russia. Borrowing lessons from the civil-rights movement, expelled Tennessee lawmakers Jones and Pearson showed what it looks like to fight back and quickly regain their seats. The authoritarian playbook works only when the tactics elicit fear and keep people in line.

Change begins with those who resist. We have witnessed firsthand how supporting passionate and pragmatic advocates — whether they work in organizations, informal movements, or on their own — can thwart authoritarianism and alter history. In this fraught and fragile moment for U.S. democracy, there is much philanthropy can learn from Russian activists about how to help build a stronger antiauthoritarian movement in this country. Here’s what our grant making in Russia and other countries battling autocracy has taught us:

‍Learn from those who have lived through rising authoritarianism. Campaigns to attack social-change advocates of all stripes — Indigenous climate activists, feminists, independent journalists, and more — are increasingly coordinated, resourced, and connected throughout the world. They are designed to keep movements in a reactive mode, forcing advocates to fight local struggles on their own rather than joining larger efforts to stop authoritarianism.

At the same time, social-change movement leaders are hungry to learn from each other and to work together across issue areas and geographical boundaries. They already see the intersections in their work — whether they focus on reproductive or racial justice, climate or voter protection, labor or trans rights. Jones and Pearson, for example, knew their expulsion was mostly about racism and the stifling of dissenting voices, not guns.

Most progressive donors, however, lack an interdisciplinary approach to funding, keeping movements separate and limiting true collaboration. In the face of encroaching authoritarianism, that must change.

Grant makers can start by taking the simple but critical step of supporting in-person and online gatherings where individuals who are under attack can connect, strategize, and learn from those living through rising authoritarianism. They should then provide generous and flexible funding for activists to experiment and test out the new tactics they’ve learned together.Our organization, for instance, is bringing together 30 intersectional feminist and LGBTQ+ activists from around the world this summer to develop strategies to fight back against political leaders pushing a “traditional values” playbook used by authoritarians from Moscow to Texas to create fear and draw attention away from real problems. We hope to raise another $120,000 for the event so that all participants will leave with seed grants for their work.

‍Counter misinformation with accurate and hopeful stories. Authoritarians attempt to manipulate public opinion through rapid, continuous, and repetitive lies — or what scholars Christopher Paul and Mariam Matthews call “the firehose of falsehoods.” Getting in front of misinformation or propaganda, instead of refuting falsehoods, is the most effective response. That means priming the public with the correct information and hope-based alternatives to fearmongering — before the lies start escalating.

Jones and Pearson were strategic in calling out the authoritarian tactics that their expulsion represented. They took advantage of this critical moment to draw attention to a frightening shift in U.S. politics, while continuing to speak out for their constituents’ concerns and energize their supporters.

The events in Tennessee have created a valuable opening for broadening the national conversation, not just about authoritarian tactics, but also about the hopeful possibilities for resistance. Philanthropy must ensure that journalists and storytellers are resourced and well trained in how to explain these dangerous trends.

This involves more than investing in a professional cadre of so-called narrative-change consultants. Donors should help build strategic communications skills within progressive movements by investing directly in content creating organizations such as TransLash Media and Scalawag Magazine, political commentators like the abolitionist lawyer Olayemi Olurin, and socially engaged artists. Their voices serve as a powerful antidote to hate and fear.

‍Fund local movements. States and municipalities have become laboratories for authoritarian tactics. The far right has spent the past decades investing in a big tent of white nationalist and antidemocratic allies at the local level to complement a network of neutral-sounding national and global think tanks and professional groups, such as the Alliance Defending Freedom, CitizenGo, World Congress of Families, and the American College of Pediatricians, all of which push a far-right agenda.

Major liberal donors, after spending years focusing their funding on large international and national organizations, must now play catch-up. Local pushback is critical — and where philanthropic resources are urgently needed today.

‍Prepare for worst-case scenarios. Anti-nonprofit rhetoric took off during the Trump administration, including questioning sources of nonprofit funding to delegitimize activist movements. This was straight out of the authoritarian playbooks of Putin and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. Both men have first vilified donor-funded nonprofits and then used the banking and legal systems to criminalize the nonprofits’ activities and prevent them from receiving financial support.

Donors shouldn’t wait until these tactics arrive in the United States to act. They should immediately start funding and expanding digital, physical, and financial security measures, and emergency plans for organizers and their families. This includes funding security audits and building flexible financial reserves into grantee budgets for emergency use, such as covering legal fees, crisis communications support, and even relocation costs.

Records between donors and grantees that reveal personal information or internal strategic documents should also be secured. Stroika advises donors on how to meet their compliance requirements while minimizing grantee risks in case of a data breach.

‍Don’t recede into cynicism. Grant makers should be clear-eyed about the similarities between the United States and its more authoritarian counterparts, but also recognize the differences. This country is not living under Putin-like rule. We still have wide space for dissent, a vibrant civil society, and clear pathways to political change, despite deliberate attempts to restrict democratic practice. Enough Tennesseans recognized the unacceptable actions of Republican legislators to reinstate Jones and Pearson to their rightful positions as their representatives.

Ample opportunities remain to act and change America’s authoritarian trajectory before it becomes status quo. This is the moment for donors of progressive movements to let go of American exceptionalism, deepen their understanding of authoritarian tactics, and build forward-looking strategies to prevent further democratic backsliding.

Originally published by the Chronicle of Philanthropy.

Working through a daze of shock and grief, we started a small grassroots fund to raise money for Ukrainian groups we knew and respected, who were not getting adequate support from international aid efforts. We set out to raise $100,000.

The STROIKA Ukraine Fund has exceeded all of our expectations: we have now raised over half a million dollars for the Ukrainian grassroots. By the end of 2022, we will have disbursed over $420,000 to seven local organizations working in public health, human rights, and environmental protection. An additional $100,000 will be going out in January to five feminist organizations, and we continue to fundraise. These funds come at a critical time for the groups, as this brutal war grinds on and a long cold winter with frequent power outages has set in.

Having seen that war is the ultimate tool in the authoritarian toolbox, STROIKA’s mission is all the more urgent: to reverse the tide of rising authoritarianism globally by building, resourcing, and connecting resistance movements around the globe.  

In 2023, we will continue to provide networking and fundraising support for exiled journalists who have fled their politically oppressive countries. We will bring together for joint strategizing abortion rights activists working across borders (US/Mexico & Poland/Ukraine), and will pilot strategic communications work to challenge “traditional values” and “anti-gender” narratives in authoritarian contexts. And we are most excited to launch a globally-focused STROIKA Anti-Authoritarian Fund, building on the Ukraine Fund’s success. We look forward to sharing more information with you soon.

We are also continuing to provide consulting support to private philanthropies and international NGOs, both large and small. Maximizing the impact of the ‘social good’ sector is a critical part of our mission, because even the best-intentioned organizations fall short of their purpose when they don’t properly attend to critical internal issues. Don’t hesitate to get in touch if you’d like to learn more about how we can help.

As this intense year winds down, we offer a very heartfelt thank you for your support. You were with us from our earliest days, and it has meant the world to us.

We wish you and your loved ones a restful holiday season. We hope that the new year is a healthier and more peaceful one for us all.

With deep gratitude,
Yelena & Tatyana
STROIKA, Inc.