100 Days of Trump: Global Digital Rights and Internet Freedom Advocacy Efforts Face Generational Crisis

In just the first 100 days of the Trump administration, seismic shifts in United States policy and geopolitics have destabilized the global digital rights ecosystem—and raised urgent questions about its future. Funding cuts and the dissolution of US federal agencies and programs, a shrinking civic space, and increasing pressure from state and corporate actors are creating an environment of uncertainty for organizations working at the intersection of technology, human rights, and democracy. Across the world, digital rights groups are facing an existential crisis, grappling with the implications of diminishing resources and a rapidly changing political landscape.

According to a recent survey by the Tech Global Institute (TGI), 71% of digital rights organizations in Global Majority countries have already scaled back programming. In Africa, a staggering 92% of affected groups have reduced activities, with nearly 35% forced to lay off staff. In some cases in the African continent, over 60% of teams have been wiped out, gutting years of policy, research, and advocacy work, according to a survey by the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA).

The full tally of funding cuts is difficult to ascertain, but likely can be measured in hundreds of millions of dollars. The fallout is sweeping: Legal aid for persecuted journalists has dried up. Digital safety training for at-risk activists has been drastically reduced. And crucial efforts to monitor network interference and digital repression have been abandoned altogether. People are not only witnessing the loss of critical protections, but are also losing the key resources and evidence that once supported policy on the human rights impacts of technology.

These cuts reflect not just a funding crisis, but an existential one—threatening the survival of the global digital rights ecosystem at a moment when it is needed most. The question now is not just how to survive—but how to rebuild. Tech Policy Press reached out to global digital rights groups to explore how they plan to adapt and move forward.

A crisis of funding and fragile civic space

The impact of the funding freeze has been immediate and profound. “The USAID cut hit us overnight,” says Phet Sayo from non-profit Engage Media, reflecting on how partners in Bangladesh and Cambodia were forced to scale back operations almost immediately. “Operationally, it’s been a disaster. When CIDA — Canada’s international development agency — shut down its funding, it took nearly a year for the impact to fully hit. In contrast, the USAID cuts happened overnight,” he said. “But similar to the impact of CIDA cuts, my fear is there will be a chilling effect on advocacy going forward: where groups would not use words like 'human rights,' 'feminism, and ‘reproductive rights’ in their funding proposals.”

Across the globe, it’s the same story. Lillian Nalwoga from CIPESA notes that these setbacks are severely hampering the ability of African groups to engage in critical legislative processes and their ability to push back against policies that threaten digital rights. Several digital rights advocates told Tech Policy Press that funding priorities are shifting toward short-term geopolitical concerns, while support for issues such as gender rights, climate change, and social justice is waning. “Shifting government priorities mean that critical topics receive less attention or support, and we’re seeing a narrowing of civic space—not just in our ability to act, but in how our concerns are even talked about. Together, this shrinking environment and limited operational capacity are constraining both local and global advocacy efforts,” said Juan Carlos of Derechos Digitales.

According to a global network of civil society organizations primarily based in the global south, the civic space is significantly shrinking for marginalized groups like Women Human Rights Defenders (WHRDs) and LGBTQ+ activists. “These trends fracture movements, pitting groups against each other for access to dwindling resources and weakening collective action. Without urgent intervention, civil society’s role in upholding rights risks irreversible erosion,” said the group, while requesting anonymity to avoid any repercussions.

Among the initiatives most significantly impacted by the funding cuts is the now-shuttered Civic Defenders Initiative, which was launched as a follow-on to Internews' Greater Internet Freedom (GIF) Project. “GIF is likely the largest global effort of its kind,” said Brittany (Bee) Piovesan, who lost her job due to the cuts. “Entire areas of work have been wiped out. In some countries, the history of digital security efforts effectively began with GIF—and now that foundation is gone,” she said.

Similarly, Freedom House received a termination order from the US State Department for its multi-year grant supporting Freedom on the Net (FOTN), which accounted for 50% of the project’s annual budget. “The project has partnered with more than 200 internet freedom defenders, cultivating a worldwide network of advocates who fight against digital repression,” said Allie Funk, Research Director for Technology and Democracy, at Freedom House.

“Technology companies have cited FOTN when refusing to sell their products to authoritarian regimes, while democratic governments have used our analysis when crafting their cyber strategies,” she said, talking about the report’s impact, adding that the termination of half of the project’s budget had heavily impacted their ability to produce FOTN like previous years. Still, the Freedom House team, said Funk, is adapting and fundraising to continue to inform global stakeholders about internet freedom.

The rise of Big Tech power and the erosion of civil society's influence

Another consequence of this funding shift is the growing power of Big Tech companies. No longer reliant on civil society, many fear tech giants will now invest less in CSO partnerships and invest more in lobbying. “They don’t need civil society the way they once did,” said Phet Sayo, reflecting on their shift to paperclip funding with no real incentive to prioritize meaningful engagement. “We shouldn’t focus on techno-libertarianism anymore—it's techno-feudalism now. Free speech isn’t the rallying cry it once was—globally, it favors Big Tech, while nationally, we’re drowning in overregulation, he said. “We need to pivot toward economic frameworks like digital trade agreements and reclaim conversations around open-source movements and data rights. It’s a question of priorities now—we have to be clear-eyed about where the real fights are and what leverage we still have.”

"Digital rights aren’t just about national expression anymore—they operate at multiple layers: in regional blocs, at the UN, and across multistakeholder venues. But what’s especially concerning now is the alignment of state and corporate power,” said Juan Carlos. “In many of the countries we work in, Big Tech companies already wield outsized influence. When we see governments rolling back DEI initiatives and tech companies following suit—changing their language, shuttering programs—it signals deeper risks. These shifts will directly affect how platforms handle user-generated content and how they approach harm," he noted.

Andrej Petrovski, Director of Tech at SHARE Foundation in Serbia, argues that this represents a fundamental shift in the regulatory landscape. “For the first time, we’re in a moment where change could mean losing rights, not gaining them, both in Europe and globally,” he said. “Deregulation initiatives are gathering pace—major frameworks like the AI Act and GDPR are now on the table for renegotiation. Cracking open hard-won legislation is extremely dangerous. The ripple effects of this moment could last not just through one political term, but for 10 to 30 years,” he added.

The fallout is both ideological and structural. “Civil society organizations will have less bargaining power, with funding cuts and alternative sources of support drying up,” said Sabhanaz Rashid Diya from TGI. “When tech companies step in offering funding, CSOs’ ability to resist or maintain independence is further weakened, and we may see increasing 'capture' of civil society,” she noted.

According to Usama Khilji from Pakistan-based Bolo Bhi, the debate around free speech and regulation has become increasingly muddled, with only certain types of speech being protected as "free," while speech that challenges US policies—particularly foreign policy—is being persecuted. “Platforms should take a stand against such censorship rather than become party to it, and civil society, especially in the US, has to step up and use the courts and legal processes before the trickle-down effect is felt far too widely,” he said.

Rethinking priorities and cross-border collaboration

The response to these funding cuts and the changing environment will not only determine the future of the digital rights movement but also set the course for how civil society responds to the rising tide of digital repression. It is clear that the fight for human rights in the digital age requires more than just funding—it requires a rethinking of priorities, strategies, and alliances.

“The digital rights sector is undergoing a radical shake-up—but maybe it's a necessary one, to force clarity about what’s needed for the future,” said Phet Sayo. “Alternative models aren’t proving sustainable either: the nonprofit model is struggling, and commercial service-fee models aren't viable for most organizations. There’s a deep split over this,” he said, adding that groups are even considering China for funding — “it’s ironic, but for many, it’s about survival.”

Funding suspensions, anti-rights movements, the normalization of precarious conditions, and the fragmentation of global digital governance processes are all contributing to an increasingly difficult environment for civil society. “Digital and internet policy-making spaces are becoming more fragmented, with numerous initiatives and policy-setting processes that lack transparency, inclusivity, and effective stakeholder engagement. This fragmentation makes it increasingly difficult for organizations to stay informed, build expertise, and participate meaningfully in shaping policy,” said a global digital rights group.

Civil society's ability to engage is further limited by state crackdowns, restrictive regulations on funding, and barriers to movement, including visa restrictions that disproportionately affect actors from the Global South. “As a result, civil society organizations often find themselves with overlapping agendas, which could benefit from greater alignment. While regional and global events remain important spaces for exchange, there is a growing need for more focused and coordinated strategizing to address the complex challenges of digital rights advocacy in today's fractured landscape,” the group stated.

Juan Carlos warned that these barriers to mobility—reminiscent of the Muslim travel bans and the Covid-19 pandemic—are exacerbating the challenges faced by grassroots organizations, making it harder to bring key voices into policy conversations and advocacy spaces. Compounding the problem are heightened surveillance and intimidation risks at the US border, which deter critical voices from participating in key conferences.

“After the USAID funding cuts, we even considered removing social media posts critical of Trump—that’s how much paranoia there is now,” said Phet Sayo. “The US is no longer a welcoming place to host global civil society conferences. It’s not only about safety; it’s about affordability too. We’re already planning contingencies because it’s an enormous burden to ask civil society groups to travel right now,” he added.

According to Funk, given the influential nature of US government funding in advancing internet freedom, filling the funding vacuum will be a tall task. Calling democratic governments, philanthropic foundations, and the private sector to prioritize flexible and streamlined funding approaches, allowing organizations to cover their core costs, she said, “particular attention should be given to supporting frontline defenders and those operating in exile.”

Sustaining digital rights advocacy in an uncertain future

With US funding drying up and geopolitical shifts, the digital rights ecosystem faces a pivotal moment. How can civil society survive—and thrive—in a landscape marked by volatility, authoritarianism, Big Tech consolidation, and fragmented global governance? Tech Policy Press asked global experts: What does the future of digital rights collaboration look like if US support for digital freedoms and democracy remains inconsistent or disappears for good?

For Sabhanaz Diya, this moment demands more than stop-gap solutions. “It’s a time for reflection,” she said. “We need to rethink existing models of partnership, funding, and alliance-building. That means investing in south-to-south coalitions, community-funded initiatives, and building structures that can endure political turbulence. Conversations today are less about projects and more about resilience, solidarity, and long-term strength.”

Others echo the need for urgent recalibration. “Digital rights cannot survive in a world where social justice doesn’t,” said Andrej Petrovski. “We talk about building bridges—but too often we never cross them. It’s not enough to focus on one privileged aspect of digital rights; this fight must be about rights for all. Maybe movements, not just organizations, are the better answer. It’s easier to be louder, braver, and more unified when you are part of a collective with shared messaging.”

Ben Grazda, an independent digital rights advocate, sees a troubling vacuum in global leadership. “Authoritarians are targeting marginalized communities while democratic governments retreat from their human rights commitments,” he said. “Meanwhile, Big Tech is pouring billions into AI and data centers, while cash-strapped civil society groups—often the only line of defense for at-risk users—are left behind. Tech companies must step up and fund those working to protect the most vulnerable on their platforms.”

From a Global Majority perspective, Usama Khilji of Bolo Bhi called attention to the unequal toll of the funding freeze. “Staff in the Global South have been laid off without notice, while US-based staff remain protected by domestic labor laws. This reflects the deep inequality in how the global development sector functions.” He warns that relying heavily on US foreign policy-driven funding is no longer tenable. “We need to diversify our funding sources and move toward self-sustaining models. The current system places more burden on reporting than it does on impact.”

Lillian Nalwoga of CIPESA noted the competitive pressures ahead. “With fewer funding sources, NGOs are likely to compete more for shrinking support. That makes collaboration even more critical. Stronger networks can amplify our voices and make our advocacy more effective.”

Juan Carlos agreed. “The future is uncertain—and it’s not going back to how it was even a year ago. Operational costs are up. The way we do our work is changing. That’s why collaboration isn’t just useful—it’s essential. We must be more intentional and strategic in how we work together.”

For Allie Funk of Freedom House, history offers some perspective. “Under both Republican and Democratic administrations, the US funded research exposing digital repression, supported the development of privacy-preserving anti-censorship technologies, co-founded the Freedom Online Coalition, and empowered advocates championing human rights online in the most authoritarian spaces. That strategy has been upended.” Still, she sees hope. “The digital rights community has always evolved to setbacks. Organizations creatively bypass censorship to report on human rights abuses, and operate in the most closed environments. That same resilience will allow the community to adapt to meet the moment,” she said.

Other digital rights groups emphasized that solidarity must go hand in hand with systemic change. “Authoritarian states and corporate power—led by the Trump administration and Big Tech—have unleashed devastation. But they’ve also sparked renewed resistance,” a representative of a global rights organization noted. “Across civil society, we’re seeing a push to develop collaborative funding models, demand corporate accountability, and build decentralized, community-led infrastructure to counter monopolized tech power.”

The developments during Trump’s 100 days have shown that collaboration can no longer be a convenience—it must be a cornerstone. As funding landscapes shift and the global governance of technology fragments, the future of digital rights depends on building movements that are resilient, regionally grounded, and collectively powered.