‘Trump Is Advancing a 21st-century US Variant of Fascism, Backed by a White Nationalist Ideology’

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Economy & Trade, Featured, Gender Identity, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, Migration & Refugees, North America, Press Freedom, TerraViva United Nations

May 7 2025 (IPS) –  
CIVICUS speaks about democratic decline in the USA with humanitarian and civil society activist Samuel Worthington, former president of the US civil society alliance InterAction and author of a new book, Prisoners of Hope: Global Action and the Evolving Roles of US NGOs.

The USA has been added to the CIVICUS Monitor Watchlist due to rising concerns about civic freedoms under Donald Trump’s second administration. Since January 2025, executive orders have driven sweeping personnel changes across federal agencies, particularly in the Justice Department. USAID has undergone dramatic restructuring, with funding cuts severely impacting on civil society organisations (CSOs) that support excluded groups across the world. Protests – particularly those addressing immigration and Israel’s war on Gaza – face heightened scrutiny and restrictions. Against this backdrop, civil society is mobilising to preserve democratic principles and civic engagement.

Samuel Worthington

How would you characterise the current state of US democracy?

The USA is experiencing what can only be described as a technocratic coup, rooted in far-right authoritarian ideology. The Trump administration is using every tool at its disposal, even if that means ignoring and breaking laws. The goal is speed: to use technology, claims of waste and abuse, combined with actions that dismantle institutions and attack individuals and organisations.

The Trump administration has adopted a typical authoritarian playbook, similar to that used by leaders such as Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, but at a much greater scale and speed that has taken many by surprise. A prime example is the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which uses computer systems to cripple organisations, create lists of ‘illegal’ individuals for targeting and dismantle protections for civic freedoms. Trump is attempting to centralise power in a 21st-century US variant of fascism, backed by a white nationalist ideology and largely based on Project 2025.

Civil society and institutions were not prepared for this level of attack. Many assumed democracy was more resilient and norms would hold. Instead, we are now witnessing core democratic institutions under assault. For the first time, we are seeing explicit federal government-driven censorship, with official lists of banned words. The administration is systematically attacking diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives and withholding funds to punish noncompliant universities and institutions.

Trump is weaponising public money as leverage – even blackmail – to force organisations and US states to comply with his ideology. While pushback from the courts is increasing, this resistance has led to Trump’s attacks on the judiciary. The administration is also limiting media access to outlets that don’t align with its ideology.

As with all forms of fascism, there must be a scapegoat, and here, it’s migrants and transgender people. The Trump administration labels migrants as ‘illegals’ and mass deportations target anyone who doesn’t fit its narrow definition of who is an American. Changes to the constitution are being proposed to strip citizenship rights from US-born children of undocumented parents. Random arrests, disappearances and militarised threats against migrants are becoming increasingly common.

All of this has transpired in just the first hundred days. Democracy’s core institutions — civil society, media, Congress, the judiciary — and the rule of law itself are under enormous stress. The USA is in the midst of a profound constitutional crisis.

How has USAID’s restructuring impacted on civil society?

USAID served as the administration’s test case for destroying a government agency. DOGE destroyed USAID by disabling its computer systems, stopping funding and cancelling contracts. Under the constitution, only Congress has the authority to control appropriations or close government agencies. Even when courts ruled against the administration and ordered programmes to restart, the damage was irreversible: USAID’s systems had already been dismantled by DOGE and could not be easily rebuilt.

Many CSOs that relied heavily on USAID funding lost between 30 and 80 per cent of their resources, leading to mass layoffs, office closures and collapsed partnerships. Fortunately, the USA has a strong tradition of private philanthropy amounting to around US$450 billion a year, with over US$20 billion directed internationally. This private funding is helping some organisations survive. Many are now reorganising around private donors and preparing for the possibility that foundations themselves could become targets of future attacks.

Some CSOs are considering transforming into businesses to protect themselves. Others are fighting back through lawsuits. Some are trying to stay quiet in the hope of being overlooked — not a healthy strategy, but an understandable one. For most, simply trying to survive has become the primary focus.

What global implications are resulting from these domestic developments?

Global civil society has long been critical of the USA, but there was still an assumption that it remained committed to the values of democracy, freedom and global cooperation. This assumption has now been shattered.

The US government is no longer promoting democracy abroad. Instead, it is openly supporting authoritarian regimes and undermining civil society efforts worldwide. Both domestically and internationally, it is actively restricting independent civic action.

The dismantling of USAID alone will cost millions of lives. The USA once provided around half of global humanitarian resources. With this pullback, we’re already witnessing mass deaths and growing risks of famine. Essential supplies of medicines, including HIV/AIDS treatments, are being cut, putting millions more lives at risk.

As the USA disengages and retreats from its global leadership role, it leaves a vacuum, likely to be filled by authoritarian powers such as China and Russia. They will try to reshape the global system in ways that threaten human rights and democratic values.

Finally, the administration’s rhetoric about annexing Canada and seizing Greenland is eroding the post-Second World War rules-based international order, which was established specifically to prevent territorial expansion. By undermining these norms, the USA is effectively encouraging other authoritarian-leaning states to expand through force.

How are people responding to these challenges?

As Trump’s authoritarianism intensifies, people are mobilising to defend democracy and resist repression. Three major protest movements have emerged: the broad-based ‘Hands Off’ movement against fascism and in defence of democracy, student protests focused on Gaza and Palestine and the growing resistance to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deportations.

Protesting against ICE or in solidarity with Gaza has become increasingly dangerous. Citizens may face serious criminal charges simply for joining protests, and non-citizens risk prison and deportation. The case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia illustrates this reality: after living in Maryland for 13 years and with legal protection, he was forcibly deported to El Salvador.

Despite these risks, as ICE steps up deportations, activists are taking steps to protect vulnerable people. In some cases, they form human chains to block ICE officers and help people reach their homes, where immigration agents cannot enter without legal permission.

People are fighting back both in the streets and in the courts, challenging these injustices, pushing back against escalating repression and defending fundamental rights.

Do you see any hope for US democracy?

I believe that ultimately, Trump’s attempt to break the US government and dismantle constitutional democracy will fail, for several reasons.

First, we are a country of independent states, and states like California, Illinois and Massachusetts are actively resisting, fighting in courts and passing their own laws to protect their residents. This resistance comes at a cost. The Trump administration has already threatened to cut all federal funding to Maine after its governor refused to follow the administration’s anti-diversity directives. So far, the courts have sided with Maine.

Trump has repeatedly bypassed Congress and violated the separation of powers. In response, CSOs, US states, unions, universities and citizens have already filed over 150 lawsuits against the federal government alleging breaches of the constitution. These lawsuits are steadily moving through the courts and so far, the rulings have overwhelmingly gone against the administration.

At the grassroots level, daily protests continue and constantly evolve. Instead of trying to bring millions to Washington DC, the strategy has shifted toward organising thousands of decentralised protests across the country. After national parks were shut down, for example, there were 433 protests across every single national park on the same day. Movements like ‘Hands Off’ have mobilised millions.

We are learning from struggles in Hungary, Turkey, Ukraine and elsewhere. We now know that democracy cannot be taken for granted; it must be defended every day. But we also know that our strength lies in solidarity. People are forming networks of resistance across the country. We have realised that if we stand alone, we may fail, but together, we can preserve our democracy.

GET IN TOUCH
LinkedIn

SEE ALSO
Trump and Musk take the chainsaw to global civil society CIVICUS Lens 07.Mar.2025
Tech leaders cosy up to Trump CIVICUS Lens 20.Feb.2025
US funding cuts: Philanthropy must step in to support locally led development CIVICUS 12.Feb.2025

  Source

Speaking Out for SRHR: Why Lived Experiences Must Shape Policy and Practice 

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Development & Aid, Gender, Headlines, Health, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Advocacy for policies that protect and expand comprehensive sexuality education, safe abortion (where permitted), and youth-friendly SRHR services must not stop at international commitments. We must hold our governments accountable and ensure those commitments translate into action

The Commission on Population and Development (2024)

NAIROBI, May 7 2025 (IPS) – Just a month ago, I found myself in a hospital, anxiously waiting for my son to be attended to. As we sat quietly in one of the waiting rooms, an emergency case was wheeled in — a young woman, barely out of her teens. Her face contorted in visible pain. Her dress was soaked with blood, which had begun to pool beneath the wheelchair and trickle onto the floor.

I couldn’t help but overhear the nurse asking the girl who had accompanied her, “What happened?” “She just started her periods,” the friend whispered, her voice laced with fear and confusion.

But from my own experience, I knew periods don’t arrive like this. The heavy bleeding, the extreme pain, the sheer urgency: something was terribly wrong. In a country where abortion is criminalized and conversations on reproductive health are often shrouded in silence, there are things you don’t say out loud, not even in a hospital.

Presentations were dominated by government departments and bureaucrats. I couldn’t help but wonder — where were the voices of the people these policies are meant to serve? Where was the civil society that brought these stories from their grassroots partners?

Later, I learned the young woman had been referred to a higher-level facility because the hospital couldn’t handle her case. I left that day with a prayer on my lips, hoping she lived to tell her story.

So why am I sharing this? Because last week, I sat in another room, far away from that hospital, attending the 58th Session of the Commission on Population and Development (CPD58) at the United Nations.

This was my first time attending the annual conference. The conversations were a sobering reminder of how precarious sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) remain, especially for young women like the one I saw that day.

Despite the gravity of the global challenges, CPD58 felt like a more formal than interactive space. At many of the side events I attended, audiences sat silent, rarely given the chance to ask questions.

Presentations were dominated by government departments and bureaucrats. I couldn’t help but wonder — where were the voices of the people these policies are meant to serve? Where was the civil society that brought these stories from their grassroots partners?

Breaking the silence

One of the few spaces that broke this silence was a gathering organized by the International Sexual and Reproductive Rights Coalition (ISRRC), a coalition of organizations from all regions of the world dedicated to advancing SRHR. It offered a rare moment of authentic exchange, where the few CSO voices present could reflect on the battles we face both at home and on the global stage.

But overall, the opposition to SRHR remained stubborn and vocal. I listened as some delegations pushed back against terms that should be non-negotiable: Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE), safe abortion, gender equality.

These are not just words; they are lifelines for young women, especially those navigating complex realities in countries like mine, Kenya.

Ironically, many CPD58 conversations just wanted to focus on maternal health, not on teenage pregnancies or young mothers. Basically, addressing maternal health without discussing the process that leads to pregnancy (sex and sexuality) and therefore CSE.

I couldn’t help but think: How do we talk about preventing HIV without talking about sex? How do we address teenage pregnancy without speaking openly about reproductive health? How can we ignore child marriages when they remain a heartbreaking reality across many countries? And what do we say to survivors of rape — young or old — who become pregnant? Should they be forced to carry these pregnancies, regardless of the trauma or the risks?

As an advocate and a believer in the power of quality data to inform decisions, these questions weigh heavily on me. Are the policies we design grounded in real, lived experiences? Do we collect and use data to reflect the brutal realities so many young women face daily?

Combating anti-rights narratives

One clear takeaway from CPD58 was this: facts and stories must go hand in hand. Data alone can inform, but stories can transform. Both are essential to combating anti-rights narratives and creating spaces for conversations.

Another key take away is the critical need for civil society to maintain both its presence and momentum in these spaces. The CPD remains one of the least attended UN meetings, and its negotiation process is opaque.

The anti-rights movement’s growing clout risks reversing many SRHR gains by easily passing resolutions without push back. If civil society isn’t present and organized, no one will be the wiser. It is essential to occupy and safeguard this space.

We must train youth activists to counter opposition and challenge anti-gender, anti-abortion, and anti-CSE rhetoric not just with facts, but with human stories.

Tell the stories that humanize the data; stories like the one I witnessed in that hospital room. Digital spaces hold tremendous potential to advance SRHR, especially for marginalized communities.

Yet, with opportunity comes risk. The same platforms that can empower young women are breeding grounds for misinformation. Our efforts must include both creating digital solutions and equipping young women to navigate these spaces safely and wisely.

I was encouraged to see progressive voices from the European Union, Latin America, and parts of Africa and Asia stand firm in defending SRHR within the final negotiated text. But the fight doesn’t end there.

From Nigeria to Mozambique, from Jordan to Guatemala — and every corner in between — we must ensure young women in all their diversities are not left behind. Their voices, rights, and choices must be respected.

Finally, we must keep the pressure on at home. Advocacy for policies that protect and expand comprehensive sexuality education, safe abortion (where permitted), and youth-friendly SRH services must not stop at international commitments. We must hold our governments accountable and ensure those commitments translate into action.

The young woman in that hospital room deserved better. So do countless others like her.

And the only way forward is by standing up, speaking out, and refusing to let silence win.

Mary Kuira is Global DMEL Coordinator at Hivos East Africa

  Source

New Forms of Power-Sharing are Needed to Uphold Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Democracy, Featured, Global, Global Governance, Headlines, Human Rights, Indigenous Rights, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

KATHMANDU, Nepal, May 7 2025 (IPS) – A UN groundbreaking report published in 1982 laid the legal ground for defining the inalienable rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The document, written by José Martínez Cobo, a United Nations Special Rapporteur, analyzed the complex discrimination patterns faced by Indigenous Peoples.

If the international community is serious about protecting and safeguarding their rights, then it is indispensable to go back to one of the central questions raised in that report: the identity of indigenous people has always been intrinsically interconnected to their lands.

This tenant, now a legal concept mainstreamed in the international human rights jurisprudence, is with few exceptions, unheeded.

Disregarding and violating the rights of Indigenous Peoples to their own lands had led to disenfranchisement, alienation and countless suffering.

The relationship of Indigenous Peoples with their lands with all the measures needed to be enforced to protect it, are the foundations of United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), adopted by the General Assembly on 13 September 2007.

Upholding the Declaration’s principles and ensuring its implementation remains one of the key challenges faced by Indigenous Peoples worldwide. It was also the theme of this year’s United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, (UNPFII) the most important UN sanctioned gathering of Indigenous Peoples.

In its 24th session, hosted at the UN HQ in New York from 21 April to 2 May 2025, discussions were focused on how power sharing should underpin any quests of implementing the UNDRIP.

Because, essentially and let’s not forget it, the UNDRIP, is about recognizing Indigenous Peoples’ power. Ensuring Indigenous Peoples’ rights to their lands is paramount if we really want to ensure an inclusive form of governance that respects them.

Discussions over more inclusive forms of governance for Indigenous Peoples should yield to venues for them to have a much stronger saying over their own affairs. After many years of advocacy and legal battles, there have been some victories.

New Zealand, before the rise to power of its current conservative government, and Canada made major strides to respect and uphold the sovereign rights of their Indigenous Peoples.

There have also been strides also on other fronts, more locally.

A research presented at last year’s session of the Forum, showed some encouraging practices. For example, the Sami Parliament in Norway, the concept of Indigenous Autonomies in Mexico City and some traditions from the Tharu and Newar Peoples of Nepal, do offer some models of self-governance.

But, overall, the picture is grim.

Despite the legal framework that has been established and despite many declarations, still, the right to self-determination of Indigenous Peoples, paramount to their quest towards autonomous decision making, is contested and fought back.

And the only way to ensure its realization is when states will accept that in case of governance, whenever the rights of Indigenous Peoples are implied, it should be shared.

To be clear, this process should not be seen as a devolution of power. Rather it should be understood as a legitimate reclamation of power. The just concluded UNPFII tried to underscore this concept.

One of the conclusions of this year’s session underscored that “there has been growing recognition of the need for formal UN mechanisms that ensure Indigenous Peoples’ meaningful participation in global governance”.

The Secretary General of the United Nations, Antonio Guterres, acknowledged, in his opening remarks at the Forum, the violations and abuses faced by Indigenous Peoples.

“The difficulties facing Indigenous Peoples around the world are an affront to dignity and justice. And a source of deep sorrow for me personally”.

The daunting challenges posed by climate warming and the imperative to transition to a net zero economy are going to further challenge the compliance of the UNDRIP.

At the 24th Session, a central focus was the role of Indigenous Peoples in the context of the extraction of critical minerals that are indispensable to ensure a just transition.

On this aspect, a major study, submitted by Hindou Oumarou Ibrahim and Hannah McGlad, two members of the Forum, highlighted that there is no quest for critical minerals nor any just transition unless Indigenous Peoples are put at the front of this epochal shift.

One of the key questions is to think how governments, already pressed by geopolitical imperatives and in many cases already not compliant with the UNDRIP, can really involve, engage and consult with Indigenous Peoples.

The principle of Free, Prior, Informed Consent (FPIC) a foundational pillar of the UNDRIP, is normally only paid lip service to. But without respecting the FPIC, there won’t be a “Just Transition”.

In this regard, the worst performers in upholding this right are often multilateral and bilateral banks. Some difficult questions must be solved.

What could be done to ensure that Indigenous Peoples are at the center of the decision making whenever their lives and lands are concerned?

How to shift from a legal landscape in which the few positive exceptions become the norm? How can Indigenous Peoples better channel their grievances and come forward with their own solutions?

The UNPFII remains the only major platform that Indigenous Peoples can leverage. Yet, no matter its relevance, we are still dealing with a tool driven by symbolism that holds no binding powers.

Certainly, we cannot forget the existence of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples.

If the former can offer valuable insights, the latter, as all the special procedures within the United Nations Human Rights Council, lacks teeth and enforceable powers.

One of the major requests at UNPFII, since several years, has been the appointment of a Special Representative or Advisor on Indigenous Issues to the Secretary General. Yet, even if this demand were to be fulfilled, such a new role would not lead to any substantial impact.

Even within the UNFCCC process, Indigenous issues do struggle to get attention. The recently approved Baku Work Plan could be seen just as unambitious document and the existing

The UNFCCC Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform (LCIPP) is not only designed to dilute the voice of Indigenous Peoples but it is made ineffective by purpose.

More promising it is the upcoming debate to create an Indigenous Voice, the so called on Article 8(j), within the framework of the UN Convention on Biodiversity but the negotiations are going to be contentious.

The real crux is how to engage the many governments that, even now, do not recognize the unique identities of Indigenous Peoples. But here is still a lot that the United Nations system could do on its own.

This was a major point of discussion at UNPFII because UN agencies and programs must do a much better job at involving and engaging Indigenous Peoples beyond tokenism.

The probable restructuring process that the UN might be forced to undertake following the cuts in official aid by the new American Administration, should simplify its governance. But such redesign should lead to imagining new spaces that, at minimum, would enable Indigenous Peoples to have their voice heard.

The call for a “Second World Conference on Indigenous Peoples” to commemorate the twentieth anniversary of the UNDRIP in September 2027, offers an important opportunity for Indigenous Peoples.

But the advocacy work needed to hold such a historic event would only be justified if the focus in 2027 will be on measures to return the decision making to Indigenous Peoples. Essentially, any new World Conference on Indigenous Peoples should be centered on new forms of governance and power sharing.

These are the two key but inconvenient concepts that must be analyzed and discussed and ultimately internalized with the overarching goal of finally giving back Indigenous Peoples what is due.

Simone Galimberti writes about the SDGs, youth-centered policy-making and a stronger and better United Nations.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source