This is a guest post by Sophie Neuburg, who spoke on a panel at the Article 11 Trust’s recent event, ‘Defending Dissent: Resourcing the right to protest’ on Tuesday 4th November 2025.
UK civic space – the environment for people to come together and participate meaningfully in political, social and cultural life – has been narrowing for more than a decade. Protest is still legally protected, but the law surrounding protest and campaigning is increasingly restrictive. This mirrors the closing of civic space internationally, as described by Funders Initiative for Civil Society in their 2020 briefing.
We are now facing an existential threat to our ability to hold power to account, which in turn threatens our ability to win systemic change. Significant resource is needed to fight back – and it’s crucial that grant makers are not hampered by undue risk aversity in supporting this work.
How grant makers can approach risk at this time
Key resource: Social Change Nest’s paper, ‘How to talk to your board about risk‘.
Consider risk in the round
Traditional risk management often focuses on financial, legal, compliance, and reputational risk. These are important, but focusing solely on them and avoiding activity because of perceived compliance or financial risk can threaten the delivery of your overall mission or goals. It’s important to consider the risk of not doing things – whether to your reputation or to the prospect of achieving systemic change – as much as the risk of doing them.
Take calculated risks rather than minimising altogether
All activity which can bring about significant change will carry some risk. It’s crucial to think carefully about your risk appetite – what risks are you willing to take, and which elements do you most want to prioritise and protect from risk?
Do what you can, now
Authoritarian populism is rising across the world, and some funders are struggling to get money to the grantees they most want to help because of legal barriers, asset freezes and other threats. Funding work which protects protest and civic space, now, can help to keep our society open. Moving money into the causes and issues you care about sooner rather than later will also help to insulate grantees for the future.
If you get attacked, fight back
Funders may be inclined to keep a low profile if they are attacked, but this isn’t necessarily the most effective response. Open Society Foundation, for instance, has faced negative narratives and conspiracy theories, about both the Foundation itself and founder George Soros, for decades. Now that they are fighting back, some of these narratives and conspiracy theories are arguably so entrenched that it may be difficult for OSF’s response to cut through.
How grant makers can support grantees and partners
Consider power dynamics and risk exposure
Grantmakers hold significantly more power than grantees and are generally not on the frontline. Grantees may be facing all sorts of risks including surveillance, arrest for peaceful activity, online intimidation, or physical threats to staff or clients. Risk management should consider risks to grantees, and how grant makers can shoulder as much of that risk as possible.
Avoid unnecessary barriers to funding
If grant makers are excluding certain types of activity from funding, it’s important to be clear on why. Is the ‘unfundable’ work actually illegal, ethically problematic, or counter to your charitable objects – or is it just controversial and discomfiting? If it is the latter, is that a good enough reason to exclude it? If you are worried about reputational damage from funding certain types of work, which audiences are you concerned about – and are they the most important ones?
Be light on admin where possible
Due diligence is important for movement protection. But asking for highly detailed reporting when grantees are facing significant external-world challenges can risk diverting resources away from campaigning and organising. A proportionate approach to administration and reporting is vital to allow grantees to get on with the core of their work.
Stay with the trouble
Unfortunately, many organisations and grassroots groups have stories of funders who have reduced or rescinded support if a project becomes controversial, or a subject of negative media or regulatory interest. This can be highly damaging and have disproportionate impacts on groups representing marginalised communities. It’s crucial not disavow grantees or programmes of work which come under attack unless they are genuinely ethically problematic, and/or could put other grantees at risk. It may be important and legitimate to support grantees even where they have broken the law. Stand with grantees, find out what they need (money, institutional heft) and be public with support where possible.
Sophie is a campaigner, strategist and charity governance consultant. She was previously Executive Director of health justice charity Medact, and before that worked at Friends of the Earth. She’s currently building Speak Out, a project to protect UK civic space and campaigning rights, hosted at Social Change Nest. She’s also part of grassroots group Na’amod – UK Jews standing up for Palestinian rights and dignity.