By CIVICUS
May 19 2025 –  
CIVICUS speaks with Eric Bjornlund, President and CEO of Democracy International, about the impacts of the US foreign aid freeze and the resulting legal challenges the Trump administration is facing. Democracy International is a global civil society organisation (CSO) that works for a more peaceful and democratic world.

Upon taking office, Trump immediately suspended all foreign aid and dismantled the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), blocking over US$40 billion in congressionally approved funding. This halted crucial global work in democracy, development, health and human rights. In February, several CSOs, including Democracy International, filed a lawsuit challenging Trump’s legal authority to freeze these funds. Despite a court ruling ordering the release of the money and the restoration of foreign assistance, legal proceedings continue.

Eric Bjornlund

What are the most severe consequences of the funding freeze?

The impact on vital international work on democracy, healthcare, human rights and international development has been devastating and far-reaching. The government has even refused to honour invoices or reimburse legally authorised expenses, including those incurred under the previous administration. With 83 per cent of programmes cancelled, many organisations have been forced to shut their operations.

Health services were among the first to collapse: thousands of healthcare workers were dismissed, with essential medicine and food aid left stockpiled and expiring, being damaged or stolen. This has increased deaths from HIV/AIDS and malaria and left reproductive health needs unmet.

Beyond healthcare, the damage spans multiple sectors: education for girls cut, demining operations suspended, Ukrainian refugee shelters compromised, protection for minors from gang recruitment in Central America terminated, cybersecurity in Ukraine halted and support for civil society opposing authoritarian violence in Myanmar ended. Even efforts tracking zoonotic diseases in Bangladesh have ceased.

How has Democracy International been affected?

With 98 per cent of our 2024 revenue from USAID, we’ve been crippled. Despite a federal court declaring the terminations unlawful, all our programmes have been cancelled, forcing staff furloughs, office closures and delayed payments.

The human cost has been immense. In Bangladesh, we’ve discontinued medical assistance to students injured during protest crackdowns. In Burkina Faso, the lives of human rights defenders documenting violence against Christian communities are at risk because we can no longer relocate them. The same lack of crucial support is affecting Nicaraguan political prisoners, state violence victims in Mozambique, government critics in the Philippines and democracy advocates in Tanzania. In Jamaica, over 500 vulnerable young people risk being recruited by gangs without our counselling services, apprenticeship opportunities and vocational skills-building training.

We’ve also been forced to abandon critical governance initiatives. We’ve suspended support for Bangladesh’s post-authoritarian transition, legal assistance for civil society navigating foreign agent laws in Kyrgyzstan, funding coordination for displaced Armenians and democracy leadership in Libya.

Beyond immediate harms, this has broken the trust of communities we’ve supported for years, undermined civil society credibility and surrendered significant political influence to authoritarian powers such as China and Russia.

What collective action has civil society taken?

The freeze blindsided us, but we quickly recognised the need for a coordinated response. We’ve partnered with former USAID officials – particularly those whose work focused on democracy and human rights – to advocate for foreign aid restoration and defend democracy and the rule of law in the USA. We’ve also worked with USAID implementing partners, consulted global experts and sought to identify new funding opportunities.

But our strongest strategy has been legal action. We joined a coalition of USAID partners to file a lawsuit that secured a temporary restraining order in February and a preliminary injunction in March, ordering the government to resume payments and restore funding.

Despite our case reaching the Supreme Court, the administration has largely failed to comply, creating a constitutional crisis that’s testing the judiciary’s ability to check executive power. While legal action remains central to our strategy, we recognise the need for congressional involvement to achieve a sustainable solution.

What are your legal arguments?

We challenge the government on multiple grounds. First, we argue the blanket termination of foreign assistance under the Administrative Procedure Act is both arbitrary and unlawful. Second, we contend this action fundamentally breaches the constitutional separation of powers. Neither the President, Secretary of State nor USAID Administrator has legal authority to unilaterally withhold appropriated funds or dismantle a statutory agency.

The administration has violated both Congress’s exclusive power over spending and its shared foreign policy role. The Impoundment Control Act explicitly prohibits defunding programmes based merely on policy preferences without following strict procedural requirements.

The court has agreed with our position that no rational basis exists for such a sweeping freeze if the stated purpose was merely to review programmes’ efficiency and consistency. The government has also disregarded organisations’ significant reliance on these funds, forcing many to close permanently.

How can democratic institutions be strengthened against such overreach?

Constitutional checks and balances function only when all branches respect them. Congress must defend its spending authority, courts must continue asserting their oversight role and ultimately, the executive must respect the rule of law. But whether it will do so remains uncertain.

If this situation persists unresolved, the humanitarian toll will continue mounting globally while the security, prosperity and global standing of the USA deteriorate. Robust accountability mechanisms and institutional safeguards are essential to protect aid systems globally and democracy at home.

GET IN TOUCH
Website
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
LinkedIn

SEE ALSO
USA: ‘Trump is advancing a 21st-century US variant of fascism, backed by a white nationalist ideology’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Samuel Worthington 03.May.2025
Trump and Musk take the chainsaw to global civil society CIVICUS Lens 07.Mar.2025
Tech leaders cosy up to Trump CIVICUS Lens 20.Feb.2025

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Ted Danson
NICE, France, May 19 2025 – Seafood is a staple in my house – fish tacos, paella, sushi. But no matter how good it tastes, I can’t help but wonder: was my fish caught responsibly? Or did something go horribly wrong before it ever reached my plate?

Next month, as world leaders gather in Nice, France for the third United Nations Ocean Conference, they must confront a hard truth: a lack of transparency at sea is enabling illegal fishing and undermining efforts to protect our oceans.

Too often, bad actors exploit the vastness of the ocean to fish illegally and launder their catch into the seafood supply chain – with devastating consequences for marine life, coastal communities, and legitimate fishers.

This means the seafood at your local grocery store or favorite restaurant might be tied to these illicit activities — and you’d have no way of knowing. But it doesn’t have to be this way.

Ted Danson

In 2023, Oceana – where I serve on the Board of Directors – analyzed fishing activity near Ecuador’s iconic Galápagos Islands, a marine protected area since 1998. What we found was alarming: hundreds of industrial fishing vessels – mostly flagged to China, but also Spain, Panama, and Ecuador, clustered near the border of the protected area – only to disappear from view after disabling their public tracking devices.

This kind of behavior often signals something is wrong. A vessel might be trying to hide its location to fish illegally, operate in another country’s waters without permission, or offload its catch under the radar.

Even in places with rules, those rules are often flouted. The European Union, for instance, requires vessels over 49 feet to keep their tracking systems on at all times, unless there’s a genuine safety issue. Yet in our analysis of fishing around the Galápagos, 24 Spanish-flagged vessels disappeared for more than 35,000 hours combined.

Fifty-three Chinese-flagged vessels vanished for nearly 27,000 hours – and nearly all had a potential encounter or transshipment activity, where fishing vessels transfer their catch to refrigerated cargo ships at sea. While not illegal, this practice is often used to mix legal and illegal seafood, making it nearly impossible to trace.

If these practices continue unchecked, local fishers may soon find themselves coming home empty-handed.

But there’s a better way.

In 2023, small-scale mahi-mahi fishers in San Mateo, Ecuador – where 90% of the community relies on artisanal fishing – pioneered a program to build trust and traceability. Their boats were equipped with cameras and digital tracking systems.

The catch data was embedded in QR codes, allowing buyers to trace each fish back to the boat and the people who caught it.

Peru is also stepping up. The government is working to ensure that every vessel fishing for human consumption is tracked and reporting its catch. This isn’t just a top-down regulation – small-scale fishers are helping lead the way, alongside groups like Oceana.

And at the end of April, the governments of Cameroon, Ghana, and South Korea all endorsed the Global Charter for Fisheries Transparency at the Our Ocean conference. But more must be done.

The upcoming United Nations Ocean Conference is a prime opportunity for other governments around the world to follow suit and commit to greater transparency and accountability in global fishing.

That means requiring all vessels to keep tracking systems on at all times, cracking down on those who disappear at sea, and supporting programs that help fishers prove they’re following the rules.

We already have the tools. Platforms like Global Fishing Watch let anyone track fishing vessels in near-real time using satellite data. But to close the loopholes, we need governments to act.

Our oceans are not the Wild West. They are a shared resource – and a shared responsibility. By committing to transparency, we can protect marine ecosystems, ensure a level playing field for honest fishers, and give consumers confidence that their seafood is safe, legally caught, and honestly labeled.

The decisions made in Nice could shape the future of our oceans. We can’t lose sight of what’s at stake.

Ted Danson is an actor, advocate, and Oceana Board Member

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Kizito Makoye
DAR ES SALAAM, May 19 2025 – As global demand for carbon credits rises, Tanzania has become a magnet for carbon offset projects. From Loliondo in Arusha to Kiteto in Manyara, foreign firms and conservation groups are looking for land to capture carbon and sell credits to polluting industries in the Global North. The growing interest in carbon trading has sparked hope, confusion, and concern— putting millions of hectares of village land and the livelihoods of people who depend on it at risk.

What is carbon and carbon trading?

Carbon is commonly referred to as pollution from oil, gas, and coal, whereas carbon trading is a global tool to fight climate change. It allows companies or countries that emit a lot of carbon to “offset” their emissions by paying for projects that reduce carbon elsewhere, like protecting forests or improving land use through sustainable grazing. So, big polluters sell their pollution to areas where there is low pollution and balance their books through it. Everybody has to decrease their carbon limit global warming to 1.5°C, global emissions need to be reduced by 45 percent by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050, according to the Paris Agreement.

Who are the main players? 

Tanzania has become a key player in the carbon market, thanks to its vast forests and efforts to conserve them. Foreign investors and carbon credit firms from Europe and North America partner with local NGOs to manage swathes of village land often used by Maasai communities for grazing. Major players include Soils for the Future Tanzania Ltd, backed by Volkswagen Climate Partners and The Nature Conservancy, active in Longido, Monduli, and Simanjiro districts.

How are carbon credit schemes regulated?

Tanzania’s carbon market is growing fast but lacks regulation. Backed by the government, foreign firms and conservation groups are luring local communities to use their land for carbon credit projects. In the Arusha and Manyara regions, such schemes increase, promising income, better infrastructure, and environmental benefits. But while investors call it a win-win, the reality on the ground is complicated.

What are communities agreeing to?

Most villagers don’t understand how carbon markets work. Many sign 30–40-year contracts without knowing what rights they’re giving up or what they’ll get in return. Villages usually get a one-time “signing fee”—sometimes called dowry money—that critics say leads to rushed, secretive agreements.

The contracts are in English— not Swahili— and often exclude women and youth from decision-making. In Loliondo, pastoralist leaders say they were asked to agree to carbon credit deals without clear information on how long the land would be locked and what would happen if terms changed.

What exactly does the deal entail?

Under the Longido Monduli rangelands carbon project, a conservation group called Soil for the Future Tanzania—which works to restore degraded rangelands and savannah ecosystems—is managing a deal on behalf of Volkswagen Climate Partners. The project spans 970,000 hectares and pays 59 villages between 40 and 130 million Tanzanian shillings (about USD 15,000–50,000) over a 40-year period, from January 2024 to December 2063, in exchange for carbon credits. In return, communities must limit activities such as grazing and burning grasslands, raising concerns among some residents about losing access to land they have used for generations.

Whom does the law protect?

Tanzania’s land laws recognize both statutory and customary ownership, but there are no clear rules for carbon trading—leaving rural communities exposed to exploitation.

Although the Village Land Act of 1999 protects customary tenure, problems arise when carbon offset contracts are signed without the free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) of everyone affected.

Often, traditional grazing land is reclassified for conservation without compensation.

In Loliondo and Ngorongoro, where land disputes and evictions are rife, residents fear more land loss.

The contracts are often difficult to cancel and unclear about how benefits will be shared. With no national guidelines on transparency or accountability, communities are left in the dark.

Is carbon trading undermining Maasai traditions?

Traditional Maasai pastoralism depends on mobility—moving herds across vast rangelands for water and pasture. But carbon projects often enforce rotational grazing and land-use rules aimed at storing carbon, which can clash with pastoral survival strategies, especially during droughts.

Are villagers stakeholders or just bystanders?

Though marketed as “community-based,” many carbon projects sideline rural Tanzanians in decisions that affect their land for decades. The government backs carbon trading to boost revenue and conserve nature, but without clear policies, critics warn it could repeat old patterns of exploitation—this time under a green label.

What is the situation elsewhere?
Tanzania’s experience reflects a broader trend across Africa, where Indigenous communities are being drawn into carbon deals that may offer quick cash but raise lasting concerns about land rights, sovereignty, and justice.

Note: This feature is published with the support of Open Society Foundations.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Ed Holt
BRATISLAVA, May 19 2025 – The international community must take action to uphold international humanitarian law, say healthcare and rights advocates, as attacks on healthcare in war zones reached a record high last year.

A new report from the Safeguarding Health in Conflict Coalition (SHCC) released today (May 19) documented more than 3,600 attacks on doctors and health care workers, hospitals, and clinics in zones of armed conflict in 2024—up 15 percent from 2023 and 62 percent since 2022.

The report’s authors say attacks on healthcare in war zones are not only more numerous but are also more destructive and involve heavier weapons—there was a growing use of explosive weapons in attacks against healthcare, rising from 36 percent of incidents in 2022 to 48 percent in 2023. Perpetrator use of drones against health care facilities drove much of the increase, as their use nearly quadrupled, according to the report.

Meanwhile, more than 900 doctors were killed last year—a rise of 21 percent from 2023—and almost 500 were arrested. More than 100 were kidnapped.

However, the report suggests attacks on healthcare in war zones may be even more widespread, as the collection of data on violence is impeded by insecurity, communications blockages, and the reluctance of some entities to share data on violence.

It also says the rise in attacks has come alongside attempts by perpetrators to limit legal protections for health care and civilians in war.

It highlights how Israel has “sought to dilute legal requirements of precaution and proportionality during conflict” while “campaigns to delegitimize the International Criminal Court (ICC) are underway,” with US president Donald Trump imposing sanctions on ICC staff and their families for having charged Israelis with war crimes, Russia criminalizing cooperation with the ICC or any foreign court seeking to hold Russians to account, and other countries announcing plans to leave the ICC.

The authors say regimes around the world are increasingly flouting international human rights laws, and action must be taken to bring actors behind these attacks to justice or risk a proliferation of military targeting of healthcare.

Christina Wille, Director of Insight Insecurity, an SHCC member, told IPS that the international community has a role to play.

“International humanitarian law, which says that healthcare in conflict must be protected, is not being respected. The international community should come together to ensure that there is accountability for these attacks and the people responsible for them are brought to justice. But if nothing is done and this continues, other states may see the targeting of healthcare as a tactic that they can use in conflict without risk of censure or sanction and will go ahead with it,” Wille said.

While the report documented more countries last year reporting attacks on healthcare, the majority of recorded incidents occurred in a handful of states.

By far the largest number of attacks on health care—more than 1,300—took place in Gaza and the West Bank, but there were also hundreds of attacks in other countries that have seen brutal conflicts, including Ukraine (544), Lebanon (485), Myanmar (308), and Sudan (276), where there has been evidence of systematic targeting of local healthcare facilities and workers by attacking, or both attacking and opposing, forces.

The results of these attacks have been dire, not just in terms of the immediate casualties among healthcare workers and civilians from such strikes but also the knock-on effects on the local civilian population from the destruction of facilities, as in some cases even the most basic of medical services subsequently become unavailable.

The report points out that in Gaza, every hospital has been hit, and many multiple times, with dire impacts on their capacity to address the massive number of traumatic injuries, treatment for chronic and infectious disease, and safe childbirth.

“The health system in Gaza has collapsed. Hospitals and clinics have been completely destroyed, like the of the civilian infrastructure. Today, only 22 out of 36 hospitals are partially functioning, and that can mean only being able to treat a few patients a day. Most of the labs are not running, there is very little material available, the staff is exhausted, and some are still detained,” Simon Tyler, Executive Director of Doctors of the World, the UK chapter of the international human rights organization global Médecins du Monde network, told IPS.

A charity organization working in Gaza, Medical Aid for Palestinians (MAP), said that devastating attacks on two hospitals – the European Gaza Hospital (EGH) and Nasser Hospital in southern Gaza—in the last week had worsened the situation.

“The attacks put the EGH out of service and increased the pressure on services at Nasser, as well as destroying parts of the hospital, including the burns unit. EGH was the only hospital in Gaza providing cancer services following the destruction of the Turkish Friendship Hospital in March,” MAP communications manager Max Slaughter told IPS.

Israeli forces have often claimed that hospitals in Gaza were being used as bases for Hamas military operations.

But the UN has said Israeli forces’ attacks on healthcare in Gaza are a war crime.

Doctors in Myanmar who spoke to IPS on condition of anonymity for security reasons said the intensified use of drones by government forces fighting rebel groups in the last 18 months “posed grave threats to the provision of humanitarian aid and healthcare services.”

“Deliberate attacks on healthcare facilities, including hospitals, rural health centers, and other related infrastructure, have resulted in severe damage to health facilities, injuries, fatalities, and, in some cases, permanent disabilities among healthcare workers,” one said.

The doctors added that a combination of people being afraid to travel and frequent displacement of healthcare service sites has significantly disrupted access to essential medical care, and drone attacks targeting group activities, such as the provision of humanitarian aid, hinder effective delivery by deterring gatherings of people and creating logistical challenges.

Meanwhile, the risk posed to humanitarian workers by these attacks has reduced the presence of organizations on the ground, diminishing aid availability for affected populations.

In Ukraine, the healthcare system has faced similar widespread destruction.

Earlier this month, Ukraine’s Health Ministry said that Russian forces had damaged or destroyed more than 2,300 medical infrastructure facilities since the start of the full-scale invasion in February 2022.

In some areas near the line, healthcare systems have all but disappeared, with people having to either rely on local aid groups and NGOs for basic care and essential medicines or travel long distances in difficult conditions to facilities that are still functioning.

But it is not hospitals that have come under attack, as Russian troops regularly target ambulances—since the beginning of the full-scale invasion, 116 ambulances have been damaged, 274 destroyed, and 80 seized.

But hospitals and clinics in areas far from the fighting have not been spared. In one of the worst attacks on healthcare since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion, the Okhmatdyt Children’s Hospital, one of the largest of its kind in Europe, was hit by a missile on July 8 last year. Two adults were killed and at least 34 people, including nine children, were injured.

Despite initial denials by the Kremlin that its forces had hit the hospital, evidence showed the building had been deliberately struck with a hypersonic missile.

Another problem faced in many conflict zones is how attacks on other infrastructure, such as energy facilities, are impacting healthcare.

Volodymyr Hryshko, Senior Legal Counsel with Ukrainian group Truth Hounds, told IPS more intense Russian targeting of energy infrastructure in 2024 had had a devastating impact on healthcare. In a survey by the group, 92 percent of doctors reported such attacks had experienced power cuts at work, and 66 percent said medical procedures had been affected. The attacks had led to deaths from oxygen deprivation as life support systems failed and staff at some hospitals were forced to work in complete blackouts.

“But the impact is not only immediate risk to patients but also long-term system degradation, staff burnout—reported by over 80 percent—and psychological trauma among both patients and healthcare providers,” he said.

However, despite the death and destruction caused by such attacks, the report shows they are increasing in number.

Wille said the reasons for this are varied and that not all strikes on medical facilities documented may be deliberate.

“Weapons may not be as accurate as believed, and heavy weapons can also have a ‘wide area’ effect—attackers may not have been aiming to hit a hospital, but the impact of the strike still damaged it,” she said.

However, she pointed out that militaries are aware they can gain an advantage in conflict by targeting healthcare systems.

“Health systems are often seen by conflict parties as a system that can help keep the enemy going—treating injuries, helping them recover, and providing a place for them to rest and recuperate.

“Attacks on health systems can also damage morale significantly because health facilities and workers supply the services the population, especially very young and old people, desperately need,” she explained.

But groups working to provide medical and humanitarian help in war zones believe the fact that the regimes behind these attacks are carrying them out with seeming impunity is fueling continued attacks on healthcare in war zones.

“The principle that civilians and aid workers should be protected is being violated time and again. In recent times, we’ve seen clinics bombed, convoys attacked, and our colleagues targeted simply for doing their job in Gaza, the West Bank, and Ukraine. We can no longer rely on or guarantee protection for our staff and services. Civilians, humanitarian workers, health workers, and infrastructure should never be targets. We firmly condemn all attacks on healthcare and call for independent investigation and accountability for the perpetrators,” said Tyler.

“The continued inaction of… some of the most powerful governments in the world in the face of the Israeli authorities’ deadly blockade is indefensible—and could be judged as complicity under international humanitarian law and human rights law. We must hold all responsible for violations accountable to ensure justice for victims, deter further violations, and prevent future escalations,” he added.

MAP’s Slaughter warned that Israel’s “… deliberate blockade of aid and continued attacks on healthcare, all with no real accountability or impunity, are setting a precedent that the international community will permit such atrocities to be committed with no recourse.”

The SHCC report calls for UN states to take action to ensure healthcare is protected in conflicts, including ending impunity by encouraging investigations, data sharing, prosecutions through the International Criminal Court and empowering monitoring bodies.

Wille admitted, though it may be difficult to get a powerful international consensus that would lead to such attacks being stopped, or at least significantly reduced.

“I have little optimism that governments can prevent such attacks in the current climate. When major powers that should uphold the rules-based international order instead question its legitimacy—and even erode the rule of law at home, as in the US—it becomes nearly impossible to build the international consensus needed to enforce those rules,” she said.

“Yet it remains essential to keep calling for these attacks to stop and for perpetrators to be held accountable because even a fractured international order can be repaired, and justice demands persistence,” she added.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);