Regime Change Inc.: The Deep State’s Playbook For Disobedient Nations – Analysis
By Dr. Jagmeet Bawa, Dr. Sandeep Singh and Ranjot Dass
In the clandestine arenas of global power dynamics, the ideals of democracy, liberty, and human rights are often wielded as instruments of strategic manipulation, serving as pretexts for orchestrating regime changes across the world.
While these interventions are publicly cloaked in the language of altruism—aiming to liberate oppressed societies—the ground realities reveal a starkly different narrative: one of destabilization, unending turmoil, and nations plunged into chaos. Over the decades, the United States and its allies have played a central role in reconfiguring the political trajectories of states that dare to diverge from their strategic interests.
A forewarning of this grim pattern emerged in 2008, during an Arab League summit in Damascus. Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, holding up a chilling visual of Saddam Hussein’s execution, declared ominously: “Your turn will come; they will come for you. What happened to Saddam will happen to you too.” His prophecy, met with laughter from the likes of Hosni Mubarak and Bashar al-Assad, unfolded with unsettling precision in the years that followed:
- Egypt (2011): The fervor of Arab Spring protests unseated Hosni Mubarak after three decades of autocratic rule. Though Mubarak relinquished power to the military in an effort to avoid violent reprisal, he spent six subsequent years under various forms of detention.
- Libya (2011): Muammar Gaddafi himself met a brutal end, captured and executed following a NATO-led intervention. Libya, once among Africa’s most prosperous nations, descended into a maelstrom of civil war, lawlessness, and humanitarian crisis.
- Syria (2011): Bashar al-Assad endured a protracted civil war, fueled by US-backed opposition forces aiming to unseat him. Although Assad clings to power, Syria remains devastated, with millions displaced and its infrastructure in ruins.
This modus operandi is far from a modern phenomenon. In 1953, the CIA-engineered Operation Ajax overthrew Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh. In 2003, Iraq became a theater for US-led invasion under the pretense of eliminating non-existent weapons of mass destruction, culminating in the ousting of Saddam Hussein. In both instances, nations that were stable—albeit under authoritarian regimes—were thrust into prolonged chaos.
Recent examples continue to illustrate this calculated strategy. In Bangladesh (2024), US-backed student uprisings led to the ousting of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, who had helmed the nation’s economic ascent. The aftermath has seen the country mired in economic decline and social unrest. Similarly, Pakistan (2022) experienced political upheaval with the removal of Prime Minister Imran Khan amid allegations of foreign interference, plunging the nation into a quagmire of political and economic instability.
The agenda behind these interventions is unmistakable: regimes that challenge US hegemony or fail to align with its geopolitical imperatives are systematically targeted. Beneath the veneer of championing democracy and human rights lies a more pragmatic pursuit—control over resources, regional dominance, and ideological conformity.
History unequivocally demonstrates that the repercussions of such interventions are calamitous. The aftermath typically manifests as persistent instability, economic regression, and humanitarian catastrophes. Despite these devastating consequences, the cycle continues, highlighting the extent to which powerful nations exploit moral pretexts to safeguard their interests.
As an old adage goes, “He who laughs last laughs best.” While Gaddafi’s grim prediction was initially dismissed with derision, its haunting accuracy reverberates in the fates of leaders and nations that dared to defy the prevailing global order. This article seeks to unravel the intricate mechanics of regime change politics, dissecting the underlying motives and the far-reaching implications of these interventions.
A Resurgence of Regime Change: The Deep State’s Unyielding Agenda
In recent years, a troubling trend has resurfaced—a renewed wave of regime changes, masked under the pretense of promoting democracy and safeguarding human rights. While such tactics have long been integral to Western geopolitical strategies, the recent upheavals in Bangladesh and Syria signify a calculated escalation by the deep state in its relentless quest for dominance. These coups are far from isolated events; they form part of a broader strategy to assert control over strategically vital regions and coerce nations into serving specific geopolitical, economic, and ideological interests.
Bangladesh: An Economic Success Story Undermined
Under Sheikh Hasina’s leadership, Bangladesh achieved remarkable progress, emerging as one of South Asia’s fastest-growing economies. Despite inherent challenges such as a dense population and limited natural resources, her government maintained political stability, achieved robust GDP growth, and implemented transformative social reforms. Yet, her increasing alignment with China and her resistance to Western influence made her a prime target for regime change.
The 2024 coup was preceded by ostensibly organic student protests, ostensibly demanding expanded reservations in government jobs and educational opportunities. While these grievances were legitimate, the protests’ scale and coordination bore unmistakable signs of external orchestration. Bolstered by substantial financial backing from international actors and amplified by a complicit media, these protests rapidly escalated into nationwide unrest.
Western narratives painted Hasina’s government as authoritarian, undermining her domestic and international standing. The ensuing regime change replaced her administration with a more malleable government aligned with Western strategic imperatives. However, the consequences for Bangladesh have been catastrophic. A nation on a stable growth trajectory now grapples with economic decline, political fragility, and widespread social unrest—a grim reminder of how national progress is often the collateral damage of the deep state’s ambitions.
Syria: Rekindling the Flames of Proxy War
Syria’s civil war, which erupted in 2011, remains one of the most devastating conflicts in modern history. The attempt to unseat Bashar al-Assad was part of a broader effort to dismantle the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah axis and reshape the Middle East in favor of US and Israeli interests. While Assad weathered years of devastating warfare, recent developments suggest a renewed push by the deep state to destabilize his regime.
The latest chapter in Syria’s turmoil is characterized by reinvigorated support for opposition forces and intensified economic warfare. Crippling sanctions have further devastated the Syrian economy, stoking internal dissent and fueling fresh protests. International NGOs and media outlets have amplified allegations of human rights violations, crafting a narrative to justify further intervention. This meticulously coordinated campaign seeks to erode Assad’s legitimacy and hinder Syria’s recovery from the ravages of war. Also it can be seen through the prism of broader geopolitical maneuvers like Russia’s entanglement in Ukraine, highlights the persistent drive of external actors to reshape Syria’s future while undermining Moscow’s strategic influence in the region.
The Deep State’s Multifaceted Objectives
The underlying motives of the deep state in orchestrating these regime changes are strategic and multifaceted:
- Geopolitical Realignment: The removal of Sheikh Hasina disrupts China’s growing influence in South Asia, reaffirming US dominance in the region. Similarly, undermining Assad weakens Iran and challenges the strategic Russia-China-Iran axis.
- Resource Exploitation: Syria’s strategic location and its valuable oil and gas reserves remain highly coveted. In Bangladesh, control over key infrastructure projects and critical trade routes is a significant motivator.
- Suppressing Independent Leadership: Both Hasina and Assad exhibited a defiance against Western interference, making them inevitable targets for destabilization.
- Preventing Regional Stability: A stable and prosperous Bangladesh challenges Western narratives about South Asia’s dependence on external intervention. Conversely, a revitalized Syria disrupts Western hegemony in the Middle East.
The Mechanics of Modern Coups
The deep state employs a sophisticated array of tactics to orchestrate regime changes:
- Economic Coercion: Sanctions and trade embargoes are strategically deployed to debilitate economies and incite public dissatisfaction against governing authorities.
- Social Manipulation: Protests and uprisings are engineered under the guise of addressing legitimate local grievances, often bolstered by substantial external financial and logistical support.
- Media Propaganda: Orchestrated media campaigns craft narratives that amplify dissent, portraying leaders as autocrats and governments as illegitimate to erode both domestic and international credibility.
- Utilization of Proxy Agents: In Syria, militant groups act as destabilizing forces, while in Bangladesh, opposition parties and student organizations serve as instruments of disruption.
Far-Reaching Consequences
The regime changes in Bangladesh and Syria underscore the deep state’s rejuvenated drive to reshape global political landscapes. These interventions erode national sovereignty, destabilize regions, and prioritize hegemonic interests over the welfare of affected populations.
The aftermath is invariably devastating. Nations once on the cusp of progress are left in turmoil, grappling with economic decline, political fragmentation, and societal discord—all in the name of democracy and human rights.
As history continues to repeat itself, it becomes evident that these actions are not driven by a genuine commitment to liberty but rather by an insatiable quest for power. This relentless wave of regime changes leaves a trail of destruction, despair, and compromised national identities.
Iran Under Siege: A Target of the Deep State
Iran remains a focal point in the deep state’s geopolitical strategy, given its pivotal influence in the Middle East, ideological defiance of Western hegemony, and alignment with adversarial powers like Russia and China. As tensions rise over Iran’s role in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and its support for groups like Hamas, efforts to destabilize its regime have intensified.
Key Narratives Undermining Iran
- Mismanagement of Resources: Western-backed media perpetuate claims that the Iranian government prioritizes regional ambitions—such as funding Hamas—over addressing domestic challenges like healthcare, education, and infrastructure. These narratives target younger Iranians, fueling disillusionment with the regime.
- Women’s Rights as a Flashpoint: Iran’s enforcement of strict moral codes, including hijab mandates, has become a focal point for criticism. Events like Mahsa Amini’s 2022 death in custody spurred protests, organically driven but heavily amplified by external actors and social media campaigns. Women’s rights are strategically used as a rallying cry to galvanize both domestic and international opposition.
- Allegations of Extremism and Oppression: The regime is frequently depicted as authoritarian and a sponsor of extremism, further isolating it diplomatically while painting an image of internal disconnect and incompetence.
- Economic Warfare: Long-standing sanctions have devastated Iran’s economy, fueling public frustration. Framed as tools to counter regional threats, these sanctions primarily aim to weaken internal cohesion and stoke unrest.
Tactics of Deep State Interference
- Media Domination: Global media networks amplify dissent within Iran, portraying protests and unrest while downplaying external provocations. Social media platforms serve as echo chambers for anti-government sentiment and mobilization.
- Backing Opposition Groups: Exiled entities like the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK) receive substantial support, despite their limited domestic legitimacy, and are presented as viable alternatives to the current regime.
- Cultural Subversion: The promotion of Western ideals of individual freedom and gender equality undermines traditional Iranian values, creating a cultural schism. NGOs and cultural organizations serve as conduits for disseminating these ideals.
- Economic Subjugation: Targeted sanctions exacerbate civilian hardships, directing public ire toward the regime and framing economic struggles as internal failings rather than consequences of external aggression.
The overarching agenda regarding Iran appears to focus on systematically undermining its sovereignty, diminishing its cultural identity, and establishing a government that aligns with Western interests. This proposed regime would disrupt Iran’s strategic connections with significant regional partners such as Hezbollah and Hamas, leading to a fundamental shift in the balance of power within the Middle East. It would also reject Iran’s nuclear ambitions, thereby mitigating a key element of its strategic deterrence. Additionally, a shift in foreign policy towards the West would markedly diminish the regional influence of competing powers like China and Russia, thereby altering geopolitical alignments to strengthen Western supremacy. This complex approach highlights a wider initiative to adjust regional interactions to support a Western-oriented global framework.
However, historical precedents—such as in Iraq, Libya, and Syria—demonstrate that such regime changes often usher in protracted instability, civil conflict, and humanitarian crises. For Iran, the deep state’s maneuvers represent a profound threat to its sovereignty and the stability of the broader Middle East. Despite efforts to consolidate power and counteract these narratives, the convergence of sanctions, internal dissent, and external interference renders Iran a focal point for the next chapter of regime change.
India Under Siege: The Deep State’s Covert Strategy
India’s ascent on the global stage, bolstered by its independent foreign policy and nationalist government, has made it a prime target for deep state forces. These forces—often embodied by influential financial elites and geopolitical power brokers—focus on destabilizing regimes that challenge their overarching objectives. In recent years, evidence suggests that international actors, in concert with segments of the domestic opposition, are working to undermine the Indian government under Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
George Soros and the Open Declaration of Hostility
A notable expression of this agenda came from billionaire investor George Soros, who publicly criticized Modi’s administration, citing concerns over democracy and human rights. Soros’s call for regime change, while framed in the rhetoric of activism, underscores a broader agenda to destabilize India by leveraging domestic dissent and amplifying socio-political tensions.
Key Movements Exploited to Challenge the Indian Government
- Shaheen Bagh Protests (2019-2020): Initially framed as grassroots opposition to the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), the Shaheen Bagh protests evolved into a global campaign portraying India’s policies as discriminatory. External funding, logistical support, and widespread international media coverage suggest an orchestrated attempt to frame the Indian government as oppressive. NGOs and organizations with international affiliations were instrumental in perpetuating this narrative under the guise of human rights advocacy.
- Farmers’ Agitation (2020-2021): The protests against agricultural reforms gained significant international traction, with endorsements from foreign celebrities like Greta Thunberg and Rihanna. The infamous “toolkit” revealed strategies to tarnish India’s image on global platforms, raising concerns about foreign interference in domestic policy debates. Evidence of financial and logistical backing from external sources pointed to a coordinated effort to destabilize the government and undermine its economic reforms.
- Khalistani Separatism and Diasporic Influence: Reviving the Khalistan movement has been another strategy employed by anti-India forces, particularly in Canada. Diplomatic strains between India and Canada underscore the deep state’s exploitation of diasporic communities to propagate separatist narratives. These efforts aim to disrupt India’s internal stability by fomenting unrest in regions like Punjab and undermining national unity.
- Political Alignments with External Interests: Allegations of collusion between certain opposition leaders and international actors have surfaced, suggesting coordinated efforts to weaken the Modi government. Reports of financial and strategic support, alongside international lobbying campaigns, often coincide with domestic protests, amplifying narratives that paint the administration as authoritarian and divisive.
Broader Objectives of the Deep State in India
- Eroding India’s Global Influence: India’s rise as a geopolitical heavyweight, coupled with its assertive stance on issues like BRICS, the Russia-Ukraine conflict, and trade relations with China, poses a challenge to Western hegemony. The deep state seeks to curb India’s independent foreign policy by discrediting its leadership and creating political instability.
- Economic Sabotage: India’s burgeoning economy and growing influence in global markets threaten established financial systems dominated by Western powers. Movements such as the farmers’ protests and environmental campaigns are leveraged to disrupt key economic reforms and industrial projects, hampering India’s economic trajectory.
- Exacerbating Societal Divisions: India’s rich socio-religious diversity provides fertile ground for divisive narratives. Misinformation campaigns targeting caste, religion, and regional autonomy are strategically deployed to fracture societal cohesion and create a perception of widespread unrest.
- Compromising Strategic Autonomy: India’s refusal to align with Western interests on various global issues has drawn the ire of power brokers. Destabilizing the current administration serves the deep state’s aim of installing a more pliant leadership that aligns with Western geopolitical objectives.
A Systematic Undermining of Sovereignty
The deep state’s focus on India is part of a larger strategy to neutralize emerging powers that prioritize sovereignty and independent policymaking. By exploiting genuine grievances, fueling dissent, and leveraging separatist movements, these forces seek to destabilize India’s political and social fabric.
The Modi government has thus far demonstrated resilience in countering these challenges. However, the persistence of these subversive efforts highlights the importance of vigilance. Ensuring national stability will require:
- Strengthening internal unity across societal and political spectrums.
- Countering misinformation through transparent and effective communication.
- Addressing legitimate concerns via democratic mechanisms to neutralize vulnerabilities.
In the face of these relentless attempts to undermine its sovereignty, India must remain steadfast, united, and proactive in safeguarding its global standing and internal stability. In summary, the recurring phenomenon of regime changes, presented as efforts to advance democracy and human rights, uncovers a more profound agenda influenced by the strategic objectives of dominant global actors. The interventions in regions such as the Middle East and South Asia systematically undermine the stability of sovereign nations, hindering their political and economic development for the purpose of geopolitical advantage. The situations in Libya, Syria, Bangladesh, and India emphasis the consistent strategies employed by the deep state, including economic coercion, media manipulation, and the exploitation of internal dissent, aimed at destabilizing regimes that oppose Western interests. Although presented as initiatives to promote democratic principles, the actual outcomes of these interventions frequently result in extended instability for nations, eroding their sovereignty and causing enduring humanitarian challenges. As history unfolds, it becomes evident that these actions are driven not by a sincere dedication to liberty, but by an unyielding quest for global supremacy and authority.
About the authors:
- Prof. Jagmeet Bawa, Central University of Himachal Pradesh, Dharmshala.
- Dr. Sandeep Singh, Department of South and Central Asian Studies, Central University of Punjab, Bathinda.
- Mr. Ranjot Dass, Central University of Himachal Pradesh, Dharmshala
Who’s Afraid Of George Soros? – OpEd
George Soros. Photo credit: European Commission
The raging controversy over the Bharatiya Janata Party’s allegation that the Congress Party leadership is hand in glove with the famous US financier George Soros with an infamous track record of funding the colour revolutions and regime change projects is snowballing.
Congress Party may use the floor of the parliament to fuel its public tirades against the government, borne out of the proverbial folklore of Kerala, “Whether the leaf falls on a thorn or a thorn on a leaf, the leaf is always harmed.”
Congress calculates that the Modi government and the BJP would be the losers if this controversy remains in focus. These are early days and how all this pans out is hard to tell, as there are many variables in play. Look at the reticence of the SP and TMC, for instance, to wade into the Adani file. Besides, BJP is a peerless champion for diversionary tactics in Indian politics.
From foreign policy angle, the outcome of the slugfest between India’s two mainstream parties, is going to depend on an “X” factor, namely, George Soros’ clout with the incoming US administration and the attitude of President Donald Trump toward the Deep State’s advancement of a regime change agenda in Delhi as happened in Bangladesh.
The BJP has quietly backtracked from its spokesman’s accusation at the press conference in New Delhi on December 6 that “It has always been the US State Department behind this agenda”.
The BJP National Spokesperson and MP Dr. Sambit Patra directly accused the US State Department of trying to “destabilise India” and claimed that the US “deep state” is working to “target Prime Minister Narendra Modi”.
“The Deep State had a clear objective to destabilise India by targeting Prime Minister Modi,” the BJP spokesman reportedly said. In fact, he anchored on the Deep State and the US State Department the BJP’s entire case of Rahul Gandhi being a “traitor of the highest order” and of Congress “conspiring with foreign forces” to derail the government because of their “hatred” for Modi.
The BJP demanded on the floor of the parliament that Rahul Gandhi ought to be thoroughly investigated for meeting with the controversial business tycoon George Soros and some other American officials during his periodic visits to the US who have “a history of peddling anti-India agenda”.
Of course, this is an explosive charge that could only have been made with clearance (or instructions) from the highest echelons of the BJP and possibly the government.
Surprisingly, however, the BJP subsequently censored the above remarks from its lengthy press release on Dr. Patra’s remarks. The bulk of the corporate media also followed suit with self-censorship, a few exceptions apart.
Such backtracking doesn’t behoove India’s ruling party or our media honchos. It smacks of faint-heartedness and lack of resolve. This is happening despite the well-known fact that Soros indeed has a long history of acting as the frontman of the US State Department in its regime change projects abroad.
Organisations such as Soros’ Open Society Foundations (founded in 1984) or National Endowment for Democracy (founded in 1983) are to be seen as the US government’s “white gloves” for
- instigating colour revolutions to subvert state power in other countries;
- cultivating pro-US forces in target countries;
- misrepresenting the human rights situation in other countries;
- manipulating and interfering in other countries’ elections;
- inciting division and confrontation to undermine the stability of other countries; and,
- fabricating false information to mislead public opinion, using “academic activities” as a cloak for interference and infiltration.
This is a complex story on which Professor Sreeram Chaulia, at the O.P. Jindal Global University, had written a well-researched essay titled Democratisation, NGOs and “colour revolutions” way back in 2006.
By the way, Soros is also a globalist by conviction who genuinely subscribes the neocon ideology. He has given to the Foundations over $32 billion of a personal fortune made in the financial markets. The Foundations are estimated to have $25 billion in assets last year, and amongst worldwide activities, they prioritise “the current challenges … of the rise of new forms of authoritarianism” in foreign countries.
Will Trump put Soros out of business? This seems to be the assumption in Delhi, which is predicated on the antipathy between Trump and Soros who had close links with the Democratic Party — and, conversely, on Trump’s jovial attitude toward Modi.
Soros is a formidable adversary who has reportedly earmarked one billion dollars for a regime change in India. He views regime changes not simply as a neocon pastime but also as a business proposition. In Ukraine, where he funded the Maidan protests and regime change in 2014, he is investing to generate lucrative business (here and here)
No doubt, what remains to be seen is how Trump sees Soros going forward. It is a complicated story, as Soros has his line open to Trump’s inner circle. There are some straws in the wind. Basically, Trump is a dealmaker who has no permanent friends or allies — or enemies, for that matter.
The salience of Trump’s one hour twenty-six minutes long interviewwith NBC News on Sunday, his first after the election victory, is that while he may harshly deal with those officials who misused their authority under President Biden’s watch to harass him, humiliate him and hunt him down, he hopes to work with the Democratic Party lawmakers in the Congress to carry forward his agenda.
Trump acknowledged the criticality of bipartisan support to make the required constitutional amendments in regard of immigration laws. He even paid tribute to the left wing constituency who voted for him.
Significantly, Alex Soros, son of George Soros, had generously contributed to Kamala Harris’ chest, but has since paid a fulsome compliment to Trump. He wrote on X: “Too many Democrats are fighting each other over campaign tactics, because it is easier than accepting that Trump was underestimated as a candidate. He was a “super candidate” with increasing appeal to a broader electorate — likely beyond the reach of both Democrats and Republicans.”
Interestingly, Elon Musk also responded by calling himself the “George Soros of the middle. I don’t want the pendulum to swing too far right, but right now it’s just too far left.”
The bottom line is that Trump has made a thoughtful decision to tap Scott Bessent for the crucial cabinet position of Treasury Secretary. Bessent’s credentials include his stint on a small team at Soros’ investment firm through the 1980s that in 1992 helped “break” the Bank of England with crushing trades against the British pound, having amassed a $10 billion bet that the pound was overvalued.
The New York Times reported, “Though the British government tried to support the currency, it wasn’t able to withstand the pressure, and the pound plunged in value. Mr. Soros’s fund earned more than $1 billion, along with credit (and infamy) for orchestrating one of Wall Street’s most audacious trades.”
Now, there’s nothing Trump loves more than Wall Street’s seductive success stories. Times wrote, “it was Mr. Bessent’s experience at Mr. Soros’s fund — including another high-profile bet, against the Japanese yen — that helped define his career, and that his former colleagues and other associates see as a crucial credential” for the cabinet job as Treasury Secretary.
And now comes the news that Trump has picked a California lawyer Harmeet Kaur Dhillon to head the US justice Department’s civil rights division and nominated her as assistant attorney-general, who, apparently, empathises with pro-Khalistan activists in the US and Canada.
Do not underestimate the ingenuity of the Deep State in America to have its way. Keeping the guard down will be a catastrophic mistake on the part of Delhi establishment. We could get hit when least expected. That’s what happened in Syria and Bangladesh.
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, as they say. Make no mistake, at the end of the day, Trump is a great patriot and nationalist who stands by “America First” as his chosen dictum. An equal relationship based on mutual respect is impossible to forge with the US.
M.K. Bhadrakumar
George Soros, founder and chairman of the Open Society Foundations, attends the European Council on Foreign Relations Annual Council Meeting, May 29, 2018, in Paris. (AP Photo/Francois Mori, File)
By Thalia Beaty - Associated Press - Tuesday, December 10, 2024
NEW YORK — Despite years of internal turmoil and changes, Open Society Foundations wants those in the human rights sector to know their movements will still receive support from the organization, its president Binaifer Nowrojee said Tuesday.
The foundations, founded by billionaire investor George Soros and now led by one of his sons, Alex Soros, have historically been one of the largest funders of human rights groups. But since 2021, they closed some of their programs and reduced their staff as part of a major internal reorganization.
In the process, many grantees and others in the human rights movement have waited anxiously to see where the chips would fall.
“A reimagination has taken place under the leadership of the new board chair at Open Society Foundations,” Nowrojee said, referring to Alex Soros.
“One of the reasons that we wanted to really reiterate in a large way, with balloons, et cetera, that we are still committed to human rights, is because of this fear that’s permeated with the changes that somehow Open Society Foundations is no longer going to be working on rights or equity or justice,” she said in advance of Human Rights Day, which the United Nations observes on Dec. 10.
Nowrojee offered few new details about OSF’s specific funding priorities, though earlier this year, the foundations committed $400 million toward green jobs and economic development.
Another new program focuses on protecting environmental defenders that will work in a few countries, like Colombia and the Democratic Republic of Congo and end after five years, said Sharan Srinivas, a director of programs at OSF.
“We did a survey of what other donors are supporting and in general, we saw that this is where the gap is,” he said of people who come under attack for defending land, water or other resources. “Especially bilateral donors find it much easier to support global organizations, who in turn are able to support prominent rights defenders in capital cities who are well known.”
One benefit of the limited time horizon, Srinivas said, is his team will mostly make grants of three or five years - longer than OSF’s typical grants - and offer grantees more flexibility. It will also have some funds to respond to emergencies for human rights defenders all over the world.
In 2020, OSF was the largest global human rights funder, giving out the most money overall and making the largest number of grants. That’s according to the Human Rights Funders Network, a membership organization of grantmakers that tracks philanthropic funding for human rights groups.
“When major funders adjust their priorities, it can have a ripple effect. Their decisions can dramatically impact the human rights movements they once supported, especially in regions where they’ve been a long-time champion,” HRFN wrote in its most recent Advancing Human Rights report from September.
To add to the atmosphere of uncertainty, another major human rights funder, Wellspring Philanthropic Fund, announced earlier this year that it would end its work by 2028.
OSF’s board aims to employ 600 people in total around the world, Nowrojee said, which is down from a reported 800 in 2021.
Some of the changes OSF made in the last three years include winding down its global public health program and significantly diminishing its programs in the European Union. It spun off its area of work focused on Roma communities into a new organization and issued final grants to many of its partners.
“You never want philanthropy to just be doing the same thing. You want philanthropy to be getting out of stuff,” Nowrojee said. “And so there’s large areas of work where huge achievements were made, which we have retreated from, not because we don’t think that there’s value in them, but the movements themselves have strengthened.”
People who worked for OSF’s public health program and some of their grantees have spoken about its impacts over almost three decades through an oral history project led by University of Southern California Institute on Inequalities in Global Health and funded by OSF.
Jonathan Cohen, who led the OSF public health program and now holds positions at USC, told an interviewer with the oral history project about a decision in 2020 by OSF’s leadership to take funding from its programs and reallocate it to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic.
“That claw-back in April should have been a sign, I think, to all of us that we were not long for this world,” Cohen said, of the public health program. “But of course, you don’t accept that. You fight. You resist. You try to keep your program, which is what we did until we couldn’t.”
Among the movements that OSF had supported under its public health program was the the Network of Sex Work Projects, a global coalition of sex worker groups. It formed in 1992 in part in response to the killing of sex workers living with HIV, said Ruth Morgan Thomas, who was NSWP’s global coordinator for many years, as part of the oral history project. She said she was saddened to see the closure of OSF’s public health work.
“I hope as it reemerges and its global strategy reemerges, it will retain its stance and support for promoting the realization of sex workers’ rights and inclusion in our societies,” she said.
• Associated Press coverage of philanthropy and nonprofits receives support through the AP’s collaboration with The Conversation US, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely responsible for this content.
