What Holds When Pressure Builds
Eileen Lawless and Bridget O’Loughlin on Lessons from Global Nonprofits
Nonprofit organizations in the United States are facing increased scrutiny, rhetorical attacks, legal and regulatory shifts, and shrinking budgets,threatening their crucial role in our democracy. For many, the uncertainty of the current environment has had achilling effect on activities. While this context may feel unprecedented for many US-based organizations, similar dynamics have played out in other settings, and are now becoming relevant in new ways in the United States. As former USAID foreign service officers and program implementers, we have spent decades supporting nonprofits in countries where civic space—the freedom people have to take part in public life—closes quickly. In this article we offer reflections as practical insights for organizations navigating similar pressures in the United States today.
This moment calls for deep sector-level thinking about civil society reform, but also a focus on the organizational level—how leaders and teams make decisions under pressure and prepare themselves to operate effectively in uncertainty.
Of course, for many organizations in the United States, especially those founded by and serving BIPOC communities, LGBTQ+ communities, and Muslim communities, operating under heightened scrutiny or constraint is nothing new. They have been navigating these realities for years, and there is much to learn from their experience and leadership.
In the following sections we offer lessons drawn from patterns we have seen repeatedly when organizations operate in environments marked by uncertainty, scrutiny, pressure, or rapid change.
First, Find Your Footing
When the external environment shifts quickly, the instinct for many leaders and teams is to respond quickly. However, in our experience, organizations under pressure benefit from intentionally creating space to understand what has really changed before deciding how to respond.
In Serbia, in 2020 government officials increased scrutiny of nonprofit organizations working on media and human rights issues, conductingarbitrary financial audits and promotingnegative public narratives that cast suspicion on their work. In response, USAID and PartnersGlobal (hereafter “we”) worked alongside organizations to help them pause and find their internal footing. Together, we developed practical tools to prepare for potential audits and external scrutiny. We also promoted greater coordination among the sector, helping them improve their collective readiness to respond to government pressure. The 37 organizations placed on a government blacklist responded thoughtfully and with a unified voice, denouncing government harassment disguised as legitimate oversight. In the end, due to local and international media pressure, the government did not follow through with the audits, and the organizations continued their work. They were also better prepared when, five years later, the government followed through on similar threats and raided the offices of some civil society groups.
In Cambodia, growing uncertainty around potentialgovernment restrictions on foreign funding in the Law on Associations and Non-Governmental Organizations, introduced in 2015, created a fragile operating environment for nonprofits. The situation exposed a structural vulnerability within the sector, as many organizations had become highly dependent on foreign donor support, and authorities used this vulnerability to control their activities. In response, we collaborated with organizations to take the time to reflect on these risks, explore ways to diversify their revenue streams, and strengthen their financial resilience. As a result of that space and clarity, some identified new sources of income; others adjusted their operating models to reduce reliance on a single revenue stream. Ultimately, organizations that took the time to target exactly where to invest their energy on proactive improvements were better equipped to continue serving their communities.
These examples demonstrate that organizations that make intentional space to find their footing early preserve more room to maneuver later.
Decide Together, Act Together
When pressure and uncertainty builds, it is common for leaders, boards, and operations teams to interpret the situation differently. When this happens, people within the same organization are effectively working from different assumptions, and even the best strategies can falter in execution. When operating under uncertainty, organizations are more effective if they create a shared understanding about priorities, risks, and roles.
In Senegal, the COVID-19 pandemic led to a sharp decline in nonprofits’ ability to operate. The government issued a series of emergency orders and decrees that effectively criminalized civic participation, and in the coming years, civic actors, especially activists and journalists, would face brutal reprisals for exercising their rights. In this context, many nonprofit leaders, particularly those working on culturally or politically sensitive issues, chose to shield their staff from external risks by centralizing decision-making and limiting internal information-sharing about organizational strategy and risks. While well-intentioned, this strategy made it more difficult for staff to adapt their activities in response to shifts in the operating environment and fostered discontent and disconnection. We worked alongside leadership teams as they prioritized structured, whole-team conversations that created space for information-sharing, reflection, and alignment. Teams unified their understanding of shifts in civic space, improved communications channels, and aligned on roles, expectations, and decision-making responsibilities. Coordination improved and teams developed a stronger sense of belonging while better supporting and understanding leadership decisions.
Organizations where leaders, board members, and staff make decisions together from a shared understanding of their changing environment tend to steady themselves by adjusting without losing internal cohesion, which leads to better results.
Protect Trust While Adapting
Under pressure, organizations often need to adapt their operations. The challenge is doing so without losing the trust of the communities, partners, and stakeholders they serve.
In Zimbabwe, in 2022 government authorities promotedaggressive anti-nonprofit narratives that began to take hold in the public discourse. Civil society leaders often responded defensively, using jargony language that mirrored Western, donor-centric narratives about closing civic space. Unfortunately, this language reinforced government narratives about civil society and heightened community suspicions. We worked with several organizations to deconstruct and analyze public narratives about nonprofits and civic engagement, identifying language that builds trust and, conversely, may fuel fear and division. The organizations then used these insights to clarify how they communicated their purpose, re-working their mission and vision statements to include language that was simpler and more aligned with constituent priorities. We also facilitated exchanges with peers in former Soviet countries who had navigated similar patterns of pressure. In the end, organizations remained grounded in their mission while better navigating a more constrained and politically sensitive environment.
In 2020, the Guatemalan congress enacted Decree 4-2020, which, among other measures, gave the government the power to arbitrarily rescind the legal status of nonprofits. In Guatemala, the operating environment is marked by social tension and strained institutional relationships, making it difficult for pro-democracy actors to maintain trust across divides. In response, we partnered with local civic leaders to invest in coalition-building and collaborative advocacy. The process encouraged and empowered diverse actors to align around shared and consistent messaging about the Decree and prioritize relationships with each other, even when disagreements were sharp. While the law remains in effect, organizations are more unified and have built broader public support for their work.
In sum, by protecting trust as they resist government pressure, organizations can preserve the relationships central to their missions.
Where This Leaves Us
The examples cited from our experiences are not offered as models to copy, but as practitioner reflections from work we have done alongside organizations making decisions under pressure. Across these experiences, we have seen recurring traits in how leaders and teams steady themselves, make choices, and protect their ability to serve their communities. The specifics differ from place to place, but the underlying choices are often surprisingly similar.
For US nonprofits, these lessons are not abstract or distant. Many organizations are navigating shifts in funding, increased scrutiny, and a more polarized operating environment. The patterns we have seen of what works in other contexts are not prescriptions, but they do offer practical ways to steady leadership, strengthen decision-making, and protect trust under pressure. We are all still learning how to do this. We would welcome reflections on how others are navigating pressure from increasingly repressive governments.
Eileen Lawless is the Chief of Programs and Engagement at Civic Safeguard Strategies, where she focuses on helping nonprofits navigate pressure, strengthen decision-making, and sustain their ability to serve their communities. She is a senior international and community development leader with more than 20 years of experience with USAID, international NGOs, and the United Nations, advancing democracy, human rights, and good governance across the Middle East and North Africa, Southern Africa, the Balkans, Timor-Leste, and Azerbaijan.
Bridget O’Loughlin is the Director of Partnerships and Ecosystem at PartnersGlobal, where she focuses on strengthening the global ecosystem of civic actors advancing peacebuilding, democracy, and human rights. She has 15 years of experience supporting civil society around the globe to navigate complex and increasingly constrained civic space, with a particular focus on Latin America.