What Are Civil Society Organizations?

Since President Trump released executive order 14169, “Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid” on inauguration day and the Department of State released guidance putting a freeze on nearly all U.S. foreign assistance a few days later, the role of foreign assistance writ large, as well as the role of civil society organizations (CSOs) within it, has been hotly debated.

By definition, such organizations are free of government control and advocate for their issues on behalf of their membership. This makes them an occasional thorn in the side of governments pursuing policy aims with broad, heterogeneous constituencies and often far wider considerations than the narrow issue sets of CSOs.

They are also, however, significant recipients of U.S. government funding. Of United States Agency for International Development (USAID)’s nonmilitary funding from 2013–2022, 52 percent was implemented by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), a subset of CSOs. This makes them vulnerable to funding-related changes in U.S. government policy.

While individual CSOs often raise issues in opposition to the policies of the U.S. government, civil society as a sector is an invaluable partner to the U.S. government in its pursuit of strength and a safer and more prosperous world.

Q1: What are Civil Society Organizations?

A1: Per the United States Department of State, in guidance released on January 20, 2025, “Civil society is the collection of social organizations, formed voluntarily by citizens to advance shared goals or interests. This includes independent public policy research organizations, advocacy organizations, organizations that defend human rights and promote democracy, humanitarian organizations, private foundations and funds, charitable trusts, societies, associations and non-profit corporations. It does not include political parties.” Further, “[t]he United States firmly believes that a robust civil society—independent of state control or government involvement—is necessary for democracy to thrive.”

The Organization of American States has a similarly broad definition, stating CSOs are “any national or international institution, organization, or entity made up of natural or juridical persons of a non-governmental nature.”

Q2: How are CSOs funded?

A2: Historically, CSOs have received a mix of government and private funding.

For funding from the U.S. government, most civil society funding comes from grants or contracts that CSOs bid on and are awarded to achieve a particular goal. For example, an agency of the U.S. government may determine there is strategic value to ensuring elections are free and fair in an upcoming election cycle in a partner country. That agency will then put out a request for bids for an election observation activity, sometimes called a Notice of Funding Opportunity or a request for proposals, but also potentially by other names. Organizations interested in providing those services will put together a bid, which will ultimately determine what organization is awarded the contract or grant.

These contracts and grants allow CSOs to continue their functions and develop their capacity to do ever more complex and important work. The vast majority of U.S. government funding for CSOs goes to project-based support rather than generalized support for organizations’ work and development. Similar models are followed by other large governmental and international organizations such as the United Nations and the European Union.

According to a survey put out by USAID partners who had been impacted by the aid freeze, only 18.3 percent of for-profits and 29.2 percent nonprofits believe they have the resources to maintain operations for longer than three months (36.5 percent and 33.8 percent respectively were unsure). Significant numbers of global CSOs may not last the aid freeze and are at risk if uncertainty around funding continues. This could result in a fundamental change in civil society across the world.

On the private side, donors, either through foundations or in their individual capacity, can fund CSOs based on interest in a particular issue. This support may be project based, with an individual or foundation donor providing money to complete a particular task or goal, or may be general, with donors providing funding to civil society groups for their continued existence and development. While these funding decisions are dependent on the individual or foundation involved, they are based primarily on the historical efforts or focuses of CSOs receiving funding.

Q3: How do CSOs contribute to U.S. foreign policy goals?

A3: Traditionally, CSOs have been strong and vibrant partners in the United States’ foreign policy goals. This is particularly true with regard to efforts in countries with undemocratic governments, and those opposed to a rules-based international order. In these situations, civil society provides a vital connection to the people of a state, fostering understanding of the goings-on within a country and the needs of its population. Some of the strongest connections between the U.S. government and CSOs are in countries with unfriendly governments.

CSOs can also serve as key providers of U.S. assistance, fostering goodwill and pro-Americanism globally. CSOs often serve as primary healthcare providers in areas with limited healthcare, and distributors of food, water, and humanitarian supplies when disaster strikes. CSOs also act as representatives of populations, advocating for the needs and demands of people in areas where governments are often unresponsive or intransigent.

CSOs have long served as an independent force against global competitors such as the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Given the PRC’s economic might, governments, including those allied with the United States, have often been reluctant to anger Beijing. This is not a compunction shared by CSOs who are willing to push back on things like infrastructure contracts guaranteed with natural resources, opaque mining contracts, and mass surveillance with equipment provided by Chinese companies.

Upon taking the mantle of the Department of State, Secretary Marco Rubio said that all U.S. support should be justified by the answer to one of three questions: “Does it make America safer? Does it make America stronger? Does it make America more prosperous?” CSOs provide healthcare, support stability and improve democratic governance and the ability of individuals to play a role in the decisions that most impact their lives.

Even when geographically distant, pandemics and outbreaks threaten the United States. Instability reduces U.S. partners and influence, making the United States weaker. A world that is less democratic limits U.S. markets and makes the United States less prosperous. In addition to providing services and stability that improve both U.S. standing and U.S. security, strength and prosperity, CSOs are an important ally in pushing back on geopolitical adversaries such as the PRC.

Q4: Are attacks on CSOs new?

A4: In short, attacks on civil society are not new. CSOs have always occupied a love-hate relationship with governments. On one hand, they provide vital services and often serve as allies in policymaking, providing services and important context that governments are not privy to, all while providing an often-direct line to the people who governments serve. On the other, in advocating for their issues, they can disagree with governments, often vehemently, consistently pointing out policy flaws or problems with implementation. These dual roles can often be occupied by the same organization at the same time on a multitude of issues, further complicating the relationship.

Until recently, however, the main source of attacks on CSOs was authoritarian governments that do not tolerate dissent and fear any alternative centers of power.

There is a wide array of tactics used to silence and intimidate CSOs. Among the most prominent are mimicry, starvation of resources, public vilification, and outright repression.

Government-organized nongovernmental organizations, often called GONGOs, serve to mimic traditional CSOs, however, they align statements and advocacy with government policy. According to Ambassador Daniel Baer, “repressive regimes have found that because they are often unable to convincingly answer the criticism voiced by citizens who join to form bona fide CSOs, they can set up their own fake organizations that will shill for the government in an attempt to distract from repressive failings. GONGOs defend countries’ policies, attempt to delegitimize genuine civil society voices, and consume time, space, and other limited resources that could be used for real, meaningful dialogue.”

Given that the main source of resources for CSOs is either government or private, cutting off funding and thus limiting their work consists of either limiting the amount of funding that can go to CSOs (or, more often, redirecting funding to only those that parrot government viewpoints) and interfering with the ability of private individuals or foundations to provide resources to CSOs. This can either use the law, with approaches such as freezing the assets of would-be donors, or use the information ecosystem, intimidating would-be donors into compliance.

Finally, in particularly authoritarian contexts, CSOs can be subject to outright repression. This can take the form of arrest, physical violence, arbitrary suspension of licensing, investigation by tax authorities or countless other forms. Often these approaches are melded, with independent-minded CSOs facing repeated audits, either having licenses suspended or kept in a legal gray area that allows for legal harassment for operating without a license, arrest or intimidation of members and leaders, and public vilification by the government and its allies.

Andrew Friedman is a senior fellow in the Human Rights Initiative at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.