By Clarisse Sih and Bibbi Abruzzini, Forus, EU SEE consortium partners
Laws imposing restrictions on CSO operations such as foreign agents laws, are an increasing threat to the enabling environment for civil society worldwide. The ability of associations to seek, obtain, and use resources—including those from foreign and international sources—is a key and essential part of the civil society ecosystem, prohibiting or heavily restricting foreign funding affects their operating space and undermines important advocacy efforts.
Presented as transparency measures, in practice, often these laws oppress organisations by imposing excessive reporting requirements, expose them to fines and closure, but also affect civil society with a “stigmatising label” designed to undermine their credibility and legitimacy.
If we look at their history, Russia’s 2012 foreign agents law was used to discredit nonprofits by labelling them as “foreign agents,” forcing many to shut down or give up their funding. In Nicaragua, over 150 organisations were deregistered in 2022 under similar legislation as part of a wider crackdown on civil society. More recently, proposed laws in Georgia, El Salvador, and Republika Srpska have raised concerns about their potential to target nonprofits and activists, and endanger the global funding framework of civil society organisations. As such, these laws are widely condemned by international human rights bodies.
Through its Early Warning Mechanism alerts and reports, the EU SEE has observed a growing trend in the use of these laws.
Drawing on data gathered by the EU SEE network across 86 countries, this article explores how foreign agents laws are being used to stigmatise civil society, constrain access to funding and silence criticism under the guise of transparency and national sovereignty. As more governments adopt or propose similar legislation, these laws are becoming an increasingly normalised tool for consolidating power and shrinking democratic space.
Funding restrictions and administrative control
India’s Foreign Contribution Regulation Amendment Bill, introduced in April 2026, builds on an already restrictive and widely criticised regulatory regime. It comes alongside revocations of NGO registrations and cancellations of foreign funding licenses, particularly affecting organisations operating in conflict-affected regions. These measures have severely constrained the flow of international support, with only a limited number of organisations able to transfer funds into the country under the current framework, while many international partners have reduced engagement due to heightened compliance risks.
Uganda’s recently adopted Protection of Sovereignty Bill similarly raises concerns about future constraints on the enabling environment for civil society.
“The foreign funding laws limit CSOs’ ability to receive and disburse funds, weakening their capacity and effectively criminalising development work. For smaller organisations, access to financial support is extremely limited. Under the new amendment, the cancellation of registration or refusal to renew it can force organisations to shut down,” says EU SEE network member in India.
Even where laws are not formally labelled as foreign agents regimes, their effects are often comparable. In Kyrgyzstan, April 2024 amendments introduced a “foreign representatives” regime widely considered analogous to foreign agent–type laws, due to its targeted regulation of NGOs receiving foreign funding, expanded oversight mechanisms and punitive sanctions. In Kazakhstan, a Russian-style foreign agents law has also been discussed, and there is already an existing registry of organisations receiving foreign funding, contributing to a broader regulatory environment that places additional scrutiny on civil society actors.
Expanding legal restrictions
In El Salvador, the approval of a Foreign Agents Law in June 2025 has already led to CSO shutdowns and increased stigmatization of organisations through delegitimising public discourse.
In Peru, a new law adopted in May 2025 requires prior authorisation for all foreign-funded civil society activities, significantly undermining organisational autonomy, long-term sustainability and allowing the state to control and condition their work according to criteria aligned with official policies. This mechanism introduces risks of arbitrary control, limits organisational autonomy and imposes explicit restrictions on advocacy, strategic litigation, and human rights defense, especially when these actions are directed against the state. In fact, Article 21.c.2 expressly prohibits the use of cooperation funds for these purposes, weakening civil society’s role in holding the government to account. The rule does not yet have a regulation, but the political context suggests that its application could be discretionary. This situation has particularly affected indigenous organisations, who have been de facto excluded from formal cooperation circuits, and it has created a chilling effect on the sector, especially when environmental and indigenous organisations litigate against the state.
Paraguay’s restrictive anti-NGO law, which entered into force in October 2025, has similarly raised widespread concern.
“Following the entry into force of Law No. 7363/24, known as the ‘Gag Law’ (Ley Garrote), various civil society organisations filed an Action of Unconstitutionality before the Supreme Court of Justice against the law in December 2025, because it violates freedom of association, freedom of expression, political participation, and the principle of legality. We are monitoring and supporting this process. Our country has already endured a very long period of dictatorship, and rather than moving backward, our democratic system requires improvements in quality through the strengthening of its institutions and respect for citizens’ rights. We will not be able to advance collective well-being or move from economic growth to true development unless our National Constitution is upheld. By the will of the people, expressed through their representatives, the Constitution establishes Paraguay as a social state governed by the rule of law and defines its form of government as a representative, participatory, and pluralistic democracy, founded on the recognition of human dignity,” says Pojoaju, the Association of NGOs of Paraguay.
Similarly, in Algeria, civil society actors have raised alarms over a restrictive draft law on associations that could further limit independent activity.
Cambodia, while not currently advancing new legislation, continues to operate under the long-standing LANGO framework (2015), which has been used to exert extensive administrative control over NGOs and restrict their operations.
Recommendations: responding to Foreign Agents Laws
Foreign agent laws are part of a broader set of restrictive legislation and repressive actions. Dozens of countries now have some form of foreign agents law. In contexts where foreign agents laws are proposed or already in force, civil society organisations and their partners can adopt a combination of legal, strategic and advocacy-based responses to mitigate harm and maintain operational space as proven to work in several countries.
- Strengthening legal preparedness and collective defence, with CSOs coordinating early legal analysis, to challenge overly broad provisions in national and regional courts where possible, and to build coalitions to share legal expertise and resources.
- Regional and international human rights mechanisms can also be engaged more systematically to document violations and increase political pressure.
- Improving pro civil society narratives and communication to counter stigma, highlight public interest impact, and reframe foreign funding as legitimate international cooperation rather than external interference.
- Building diversified and resilient funding models to reduce vulnerability, expanding domestic fundraising where feasible, developing pooled funding mechanisms, mutual aid, and increasing flexible, long-term support from international donors to reduce dependency on any single funding channel that may be targeted by restrictive legislation.
- International coordination and diplomatic pressure supporting at-risk organisations, and ensuring that the protection of an enabling environment for civil society remains central in bilateral and accession dialogues.