By Laurie Chen
BEIJING (Reuters) – Dozens of non-government groups monitoring dissent, human and labour rights in China have laid off staff after being forced to suspend work following a freeze on foreign aid by U.S. President Donald Trump, the monitors say.
The groups are key to documenting a years-long crackdown by President Xi Jinping on minorities, rights defenders and lawyers. Last year, the EU expressed concern about the “very serious” human rights situation in China, particularly its regions of Xinjiang, Tibet and Hong Kong.
“A lot of these NGOs were blindsided – they thought, because of U.S.-China competition, even if there are funding cuts, the China programmes will stay,” said Maya Wang, associate China director at Human Rights Watch.
“The suspension of U.S. funding for these causes will essentially deal a very heavy blow to global civil society.”
Among the affected groups is U.S.-based Freedom House, which said its project, China Dissent Monitor, staffed by researchers in Taipei who keep a public database of Chinese protests, was forced to suspend all research due to the funding freeze.
Freedom House received $80 million in U.S. government grants in 2024, making up 88% of yearly revenue, its financial report shows.
Its dissent database, tracking more than 7,000 protests since 2022, has become an important tool for journalists and China researchers as the government moved to rein in protests over the slowing economy and sharply rising youth unemployment.
“The relevant reorganisation of U.S. institutions is their internal affair,” the Chinese foreign ministry told Reuters in a statement.
FUNDING WOES
HRW’s Wang estimates the freeze has hit dozens of similar China-focused groups because NGOs and grassroots groups work on projects funded by the same grant.
Numerous Chinese laws effectively bar domestic NGOs from receiving foreign funding, and heavily limit the operations of foreign NGOs in China.
Official data shows the United States pledged $10.7 million in foreign aid for China issues in 2024, mostly through USAID. Almost half of that figure, or $5.2 million, went to projects related to democracy, human rights and governance.
Many China human rights and democracy groups became heavily dependent on U.S. funding over the years because private foundations and corporate donors avoided these causes, while other governments prefer to back purely humanitarian projects, said Wang.
There is no public breakdown of how much USAID funding went to specific organisations or projects. Many China rights NGOs choose not to disclose exact funding sources to avoid Beijing’s accusations of being overly influenced by foreign governments.
Trump has halted most U.S. government-funded aid globally for 90 days, while moving to dismantle USAID, which he has described as being run “by a bunch of radical lunatics”.
The move is part of an effort by his administration to slash the federal government workforce and curb spending it considers wasteful.
While Trump has said some funds may be released when the pause expires, it is unclear what could be restored, setting off a scramble among many China-focused groups for savings, further funding, and efforts to cut reliance on the United States.
Beijing has long blamed Washington for seeking to foment “colour revolutions” in China by supporting civil society NGOs through USAID and the U.S. Congress-funded National Endowment for Democracy.
This week, state broadcaster CCTV ran a segment titled, “USAID: Aid as a pretext for interference.”
Seven staffers of the New York-based China Labor Watch, founded by a veteran China labour campaigner, Li Qiang, to monitor abuses in Chinese factories, have been furloughed. Some on temporary work visas face deportation to China, Li said.
Roughly 90% of the group’s budget came from the U.S. government, beginning from 2021. Li estimates running costs this year at $1 million, up from $800,000 last year.
“It’s like telling us our projects aren’t important and what we do has no meaning,” said Li, who is now trying to raise funds elsewhere.
“I put too much trust in the U.S. government and neglected finding new sources of funding. This was a strategic mistake. We could have diversified much earlier.”
(Reporting by Laurie Chen; Editing by Antoni Slodkowski and Clarence Fernandez)
Comments