We’ve seen a dramatic change. Even in countries where lawyers used to feel relatively safe when representing journalists or civil society groups, that’s no longer the case.

A deeply concerning shift has emerged: around a third of our cases now involve lawyers, judges and other legal professionals who are themselves being targeted simply for defending human rights, upholding the rule of law or protecting judicial independence. They face charges of obstruction of justice merely for doing their jobs, while others endure politicised disciplinary proceedings and sanctions.

In research we did last year with Media Defence and Thomson Reuters , we found that lawyers defending journalists and other human rights defenders were increasingly being criminalised or subjected to arbitrary legal harassment, having their access to clients obstructed and facing increased threats of surveillance and attacks on attorney-client privilege, facing arbitrary disciplinary actions, including disbarment, and being subjected to threats of violence and online smear campaigns.

This represents an alarming escalation. The right to legal counsel is fundamental, and when lawyers are under attack, that right is eroded. The chilling effect is profound. This is not just silencing individual lawyers but also deterring the next generation. Young lawyers witness these attacks and worry that taking on such cases could cost them clients, result in sanctions or lead to criminal charges.

The implications extend far beyond human rights work. Businesses also depend on legal professionals who can represent them without fear. The independence of the legal profession and the courts must be a priority for anyone who cares about the rule of law.

The funding freeze has directly damaged the support systems that protect human rights defenders, particularly rapid response mechanisms. When the funding stopped, the help available to people in danger disappeared overnight.

For us, the consequences have been severe. Justice Defenders was launched with a State Department grant in 2011, and we’d maintained continuous support since then. This funding traditionally enjoyed bipartisan backing because it supports people who share democratic and human rights values and are working for a more stable and secure world with healthy individuals and communities, which has generally been a priority for the USA.

The freeze has brought much of our work to a halt. We’ve had to let key staff members go and scale down operations significantly. Despite these challenges, we’re doing everything we can to continue. We’ve begun speaking more publicly about our work and raising awareness of our impact and what’s at stake.

We’re also mobilising people who care about civic space and the rights of defenders to help sustain our operations. Our legal support and trial monitoring remain crucial for challenging criminalisation, though trial monitoring is particularly resource intensive since it requires a physical presence in court. We need all the support we can get.

While this is an incredibly difficult time, it’s also catalysing new forms of collaboration, strengthening solidarity nationally and globally. There’s growing recognition that attacks on civic space transcend borders, and that nobody’s immune.

This moment has brought the human rights community closer together and strengthened networks and personal connections. We’ve been overwhelmed by support from colleagues and partners who are also under pressure. Many of our partners in other parts of the world are also facing direct impacts on their operations from the funding freeze and arbitrary mass termination of awards. And we are worried about reports of indirect consequences for partners from the rhetoric and narratives emerging from the USA about foreign assistance and the legitimacy of human rights work.

While we’re hearing a lot of harmful messaging about civil society, the solidarity we’re experiencing gives me hope.

International cooperation is essential. There’s now widespread understanding that when civic space comes under attack, there’s need for a collective response. We need connected and trusted networks where different groups can contribute their expertise, whether in legal strategy, grassroots organisation or international advocacy. Coordination maximises time and resources, which are always scarce, and makes the overall response more effective.

While legal strategies are never the complete solution, they are a necessary foundation for broader responses. When engaging diverse groups, a legal framing provides a shared language and a sense of neutrality. Legal work helps ground advocacy, allowing us to explain not just that something is wrong, but precisely why it violates the law and how it can be remedied. For our part, we will continue to prioritise mobilising the global legal profession to recognise and respond to threats to human rights defenders and to the independence of the profession, and to seek new partnerships and funding sources to help us meet the growing need to do so.