Polarization and Political Risks

The social and political spheres in the United States have become increasingly polarized over the past few decades, but that trend has been catalyzed over the past four years. Polarization impacts the way both citizens and governments approach the world as each side progressively views the other as morally bad. What that means is that governments will approach policy and funding for NGOs differently as well, and the differences are likely to be more extreme as polarization expands. This report looks at the data of polarization and how that will likely impact NGOs within the context of the United States. Importantly, though, that kind of polarized decision making is expanding beyond the US and impacting the rest of the world.

Polarization

The data shows that polarization is becoming worse in the United States, which will have negative implications for NGOs as being associated with a particular political position could threaten funding and security. In 2022, Pew Research Center survey on American political sentiment reveals deepening partisan divisions and negative perceptions between Republicans and Democrats. Both parties increasingly view each other not just unfavorably but as morally and intellectually inferior compared to other Americans. A significant shift has occurred since 2016, with a majority in each party now believing that members of the opposing party are more closed-minded, dishonest, immoral, and unintelligent.

The most dramatic change is in perceptions of morality: 72% of Republicans now see Democrats as more immoral, up from 47% in 2016, while 63% of Democrats perceive Republicans as more immoral, compared to 35% previously. Similar trends exist regarding perceptions of dishonesty and closed-mindedness, with substantial majorities in both parties holding negative views of the other. Republicans are notably more likely to label Democrats as "lazy" (62%), a view held by only a quarter of Democrats about Republicans. Despite these negative perceptions, both parties are driven to their affiliations largely by a belief that the opposing party's policies are harmful to the country. This sentiment is equally strong among Republicans and Democrats, alongside positive perceptions of their own party's policies.

The most recent data demonstrates the continued trend of polarization. The latest Vanderbilt Unity Index from the Vanderbilt Project on Unity and American Democracy indicates a continued trend towards increased polarization in the country, with a nearly three-point decline throughout 2023. The index measures national unity by analyzing various data points, including public ideological commitments, congressional polarization, and presidential disapproval. The fourth-quarter 2023 VUI score was 46.48 on a 100-point scale, reflecting ongoing conflicts such as the Israel-Hamas war, multiple trials of former President Donald Trump, and the beginning of the 2024 presidential election season. This decline in the VUI was primarily influenced by two key factors: an uptick in the number of Americans identifying as extremely liberal or extremely conservative, and a rise in strong disapproval of President Joe Biden. Additionally, the fourth quarter of 2023 highlighted the increased polarization of the 118th Congress compared to previous periods.

Right-Wing Populism

Oxfam has specifically argued that there are evolving challenges for rights-based NGOs, particularly in light of the growing influence of right-wing populism in Western democracies. Economic globalization and global shocks such as the Middle East refugee crisis and terrorism have exacerbated economic hardships and cultural alienation among the lower and middle classes. These groups, feeling marginalized and disenfranchised, are increasingly susceptible to populist rhetoric that blames external forces for their plight. This rise of populist sentiments poses a direct threat to the values and missions of international NGOs like Oxfam. These organizations advocate for human rights, economic justice, and social equality globally, but face resistance from populist leaders who exploit anti-establishment sentiments tendencies to gain political power. Such leaders often undermine efforts to address critical issues like refugee rights, climate change mitigation, gender equality, and LGBT rights. Oxfam underscores the importance for NGOs to deepen their understanding of the interconnected factors driving populist movements at global, regional, and national levels.

However, right-wing populists believe they are defending the liberties and interests of their community, and in the post-Trump era, they are more willing to utilize the levers of government to target NGOs that they feel are violating those liberties and interests. For example, coalition of twelve Republican-led states, led by Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, sent a letter to Bank of America demanding clarification regarding allegations that the bank has unfairly terminated accounts of Christian and conservative organizations. The letter criticizes Bank of America for allegedly discriminating against clients based on their political or religious beliefs. It calls for transparency in the bank's account cancellation policies and urges updates to ensure non-discrimination. This is an example of how polarization can lead governments to target organizations based on politics, and that could credibly lead companies like banks to not work with apparently left-wing organizations.

Example: Mexico City Policy

The Mexico City Policy (MCP), a US. government policy intermittently in effect since 1984, mandates that foreign NGOs must certify they will not support abortion as family planning using any funds (including non-US sources) to receive US global family planning aid. MCP was initially announced by the Reagan administration at the 1984 International Conference on Population in Mexico City, and it is only under effect during Republican administrations. This policy, also dubbed the "Global Gag Rule" by critics, prohibits NGOs from providing abortion-related information or advocating for abortion rights. Under the Trump administration, it was renamed "Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance" (PLGHA) and expanded to cover most U.S. bilateral global health assistance, including HIV programs, maternal and child health, malaria, and nutrition, potentially impacting billions in funding. Proposed expansions, such as "Protecting Life in Foreign Assistance,” aim to extend MCP to all US foreign aid, including humanitarian sectors, multilateral organizations, and contracts, marking its broadest application to date. As the Kaiser Family Foundation notes, “The Mexico City Policy has been in effect for 21 of the past 36 years, primarily through executive action, and has been instated, rescinded, and reinstated by presidential administrations along party lines.” That is precisely why the MCP is a prime example of how partisanship can directly impact approaches to NGO funding. While this is about a singular issue (reproduction), NGOs should expect that to expand depending on the administration.

Forecast and Implications

If President Trump is re-elected, then he is likely to implement several policies found with Project 2025 as many of the authors in the project are likely to be part of his administration. The authors of Project 2025 want to promote their version of the “national interest” in which the United States will stop funding/supporting liberal, left-wing, and humanitarian causes. Former Director of Policy Planning Dr. Kiron Skinner’s chapter deals with many of these issues and offers the best insight for how an anti-liberal agenda will take hold in foreign policy. For example, Skinner wants to eliminate the support of agencies like USAID that they do not believe serve American interests. Project 2025 opposes “radical gender ideology,” DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion), critical race theory, preferred pronouns, etc. Cultural issues like these are incorporated into chapters ranging from the State Department to the Education Department. Therefore, NGOs should expect a Trump government to take an aggressive approach to funding organizations that promote ideas with which they disagree.

Furthermore, government aid organizations will likely need to shift their focus. Conservative scholars Max Primorac and James Roberts argued that the Biden administration politicized foreign aid through promoting a left-wing agenda, and another Trump administration will adhere to similar policies as the first. As Primorac and Roberts note, “Under the Administration of President Donald Trump, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) pursued an agenda based on traditional American values that avoided injecting divisive socio-political issues into its humanitarian, global health, and development responses.” They specifically want Congress to direct USAID to avoid any left-wing causes in their funding and support.

Right-wing populism and policies like MCP by Republican governments are well known examples of partisanship impacting approaches to NGOs, but Democrats are highly likely to take a similar approach with conservative and religious-based organizations. For example, North Carolina Democrats have sought to investigate religious NGOs and accused them of corruption. Democrats in Oklahoma also attempted to prevent religious non-profits from receiving state funding indeterminate of how the money was spent. At the federal level, Democrats in the House encouraged the IRS to investigate religious organizations and remove the tax exempt status of conservative churches.

The United States is not the only place where governments are likely to turn against NGOs due to polarization of beliefs. Over the past 15 years, 11 African countries have implemented legislation or policies that restrict NGOs, particularly those focused on human rights and governance. Seven additional countries are considering or moving towards similar measures. Many of these measures violate global and regional human rights commitments, specifically freedoms of association, assembly, and expression. Despite some successful resistance by NGOs, the trend reflects a broader global challenge to democracy, with African regimes sometimes drawing inspiration from each other or from global illiberal forces. Other parts of the world are also turning against NGOs, and promotion of LGBTQ rights will likely contribute to further restrictions. E.g., Georgia recently passed a “foreign agent law” meant to curb Western NGOs from promoting their values in the country. Other countries that have imposed or sought to impose restrictions include Tunisia, Venezuela, Guatemala, Kyrgyzstan, Slovakia, and Myanmar.

Approaching Polarization

NGOs need to recognize that this polarization is taking place and that it will directly impact their operations and funding. They will need consistent political risk assessments to determine which policies are likely to impact their operations, and they will need to track elections to understand these risks. In addition, NGOs need to establish political risk appetites. That is to say, if they want to advocate for certain policies beyond their core functions, then they need to understand the risks and what political risks they are willing to accept. Riley Risk experts can help NGOs by providing insight into elections, policies, and political risks and understanding an appropriate risk appetite.