Anticipatory silence.
Those words are written on a sticky note on the desk of Thomas Weiss, a professor of international relations and global governance at the Graduate Center at the City University of New York.
Weiss came up with the phrase as many international aid groups saw their budgets cut dramatically by the Trump administration with accusations of being wasteful yet did not speak up to defend the programs that came to a halt. Programs that prevent HIV from spreading. Programs that provide clean water. Programs that feed malnourished children.
"Anticipatory silence," says Weiss, "describes behaving in a way the administration wants you to behave" — only without any specific demands to do so.
Weiss says the term is a close cousin of "anticipatory obedience," a phrase popularized by Holocaust historian Timothy Snyder to describe those who went along with the Nazi agenda, hoping their actions would protect them, without being ordered to do so.
Anticipatory obedience, writes Snyder, is when "individuals think ahead about what a more repressive government will want, and then offer themselves without being asked. A citizen who adapts in this way is teaching power what it can do."
Adapting can be a "dangerous slippery slope" to authoritarianism, according to Weiss.
"The more people who get on this anticipatory obedience and anticipatory silence, the more dangerous it is," he says.
And why are a number of aid groups opting for silence instead of decrying funding cuts and advocating for their programs to be restored? The answer lies in a mix of motives.
The leaders of aid groups who opt for silence may be afraid that if they do speak out the administration will further target them and cut additional programs, Weiss explains. Or they may be negotiating behind the scenes to get funding back and fear that a public outcry would torpedo such efforts.
NPR reached out to the White House for comment but did not receive a response.
This strategy of public silence is controversial in the world of charities — and it's been the subject of intense ongoing debate behind closed doors in conference rooms and private text chats. The issue first surfaced in the wake of efforts to dismantle foreign aid by the Trump administration that started on inauguration night and continue today. The question: Is keeping quiet the most effective way to respond to aid cuts?
A debate that no one wants to talk about
In ordinary times, charities and aid groups generally love to talk to the media. They send out press releases about their work and ask for coverage. But since the inauguration, many groups have done an about-face, agreeing to talk to NPR reporters covering foreign aid cuts only if no one is quoted by name and no details are included that could identify their organization.
Nonprofits are "concerned about the increased weaponization of government against nonprofit groups who may disagree with the sitting administration's agenda," says Caitlin Legacki, spokesperson for Americans Against Government Censorship, a coalition of nonprofit organizations and charities.
"A number of groups have taken a step back, both to see how this plays out but also to avoid drawing attention to themselves," she says. "There is a very real dynamic where the tallest blade of grass is the first to get cut."
This approach has frustrated some in the international aid world. "There are lots of times where people [in aid organizations] are throwing their hands up, like, 'Everybody's chicken. Why is the sector so chicken?'" said an official at a large international aid group, who has worked in the field for more than a decade but asked not to be identified because they were not authorized to speak publicly.
Both Legacki and Weiss say there is a simple reason for why some groups are staying quiet. Many of the aid groups are financially dependent on contracts with the U.S. government, which has traditionally been the largest donor to global health and development efforts.
"Some groups are much more reliant on federal dollars than others, and so that's going to affect their risk tolerance – whether it's drawing attention to themselves, advocating for themselves," Legacki says.
But choosing to speak out comes with risks, too.
"The biggest risk of staying silent is that you let someone else define your story and define the work you're doing, whether that's accurate or not," Legacki says. "Letting someone else do that for you is always a tremendous liability."
A new landscape for foreign aid
This debate over whether to stay silent or protest publicly is playing out against a vastly altered foreign aid landscape. Elon Musk, as Trump's adviser in the early months of his administration, boasted that he'd fed USAID foreign aid programs to the woodchipper. Indeed, 83% of those U.S.-funded programs were axed by the administration's efforts to root out "fraud, waste and abuse."
This series of events left those working in foreign aid uncertain how to engage with the media, according to insiders who spoke to NPR.
There are three options, says a senior leader at a mid-sized international aid group: "You die on your feet, die on your knees or die hiding." The staffer requested anonymity because they did not have permission from their employer to speak publicly.
Those advocating for the first approach — die on your feet — want to fight back vocally and vociferously in public statements, to "speak truth to power," the employee says.
The second group wants to respond but in a limited way, only addressing specific criticisms raised by the Trump administration — for example, marshalling evidence to show male circumcision is an effective way to prevent HIV transmission after Trump ridiculed the practice in his address to Congress on March 4.
Then there's the "die hiding" reaction, said the senior leader who was frustrated with the silence approach – the strategy of behind-the-scenes negotiations or simply keeping a low profile lest speaking out leads to further targeting of an aid group's programs.
Others in the aid sector believe that there are low-key ways to advocate for their work. That's the position of Michael Vazquez, founding partner at the Maiden Group, which leads national coalitions of faith organizations, including many that work on global health issues.
He says subtle advocacy efforts can work, pointing to the successful campaign to convince lawmakers not to claw back money previously allocated to PEPFAR, the U.S. HIV/AIDS prevention program.
The message from faith leaders to Republican lawmakers, says Vazquez, was: "You and I — both as Christians, as conservatives — we care deeply about this program. Scripture tells us to care deeply about this program …Taking a more pastoral posture was more successful than taking a more antagonistic one." He says global health leaders have faced criticism for not speaking up more vocally but argues that this kind of quiet diplomacy may be the best way to save programs — and save lives.
An "atmosphere of fear"
Andrew Natsios, former head of the United States Agency for International Development under President George W. Bush, understands why some groups are opting for silence. "It is a general atmosphere of fear – it's a legitimate set of concerns," he says. "Their staff in the developing world are getting arrested and tortured. Some of their staff [in the U.S.], who have green cards, could be deported."
Natsios — who is now a professor at the Bush School of Government at Texas A&M University — says the Trump administration has purposefully sought to discourage groups from speaking out. He cites the release of the audits of one faith-based NGO to religious newspapers. And in a post on X in early February, Elon Musk and other Trump allies implied that Lutheran aid groups had misused funds.
The Trump administration has worked "deliberately to intimidate the NGOs," according to Natsios.
"They used audits as a weapon … to shut [them] up" he says. Natsios believes Trump's team focused on silencing Christian organizations because these faith-based groups, traditionally part of the Republican base, could have lobbied Republican lawmakers to continue their support of international aid.
NPR requested comment from the White House on whether the administration used auditors to intimidate Christian groups into silence on cuts to foreign aid but did not receive a response in time for our deadline for publication.
An issue that doesn't just affect charities
Similar concerns about silence vs. protest are apparent in other sectors of society as well. Private universities are facing the prospect — and sometimes the reality — of loss of federal funding. Businesses fear their profits will shrink because of tariffs.
It's also a debate in the political sector. In April, Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska spoke to a room full of state non-profit leaders about the turmoil caused by the Trump administration's cuts to the federal government.
"We are all afraid," Murkowski said, and after a long pause continued: "We are in a time and a place where I certainly have not been here before. I'll tell you, I'm oftentimes very anxious myself about using my voice, because retaliation is real. And that's not right."
More people are starting to speak out
There are some groups that are defying "anticipatory silence."
One such group is the Center for Victims of Torture, which helps people who have been tortured recover physically and psychologically. The vast majority of their overseas work was canceled or suspended by the Trump administration, forcing the non-profit to furlough or terminate more than 430 employees — 75% of the organization — in multiple countries. The group, along with a few other aid organizations, sued the administration over the foreign aid freeze.
Even as the organization has a number of programs that are still frozen by the Trump administration — and that could be terminated — "we never had any serious consideration of going quiet," says Scott Roehm, director of global policy and advocacy.
He says he respects each organization's risk assessment and decision about when to seek media coverage. But for his organization, he says, the path forward was obvious because of the clients they work with.
"We have client after client who were targeted to be tortured because they walked down a street holding a sign protesting against some of the world's most dangerous authoritarian regimes, dictators," Roehm says. "Continuing to speak up was about the least we could do to honor their courage."
Natsios, who advises more than a dozen aid groups, says he is seeing more groups — particularly faith-based groups — willing to speak up publicly as they "realize what's happening" and see the full scope of the impact. "There's a big effort now in the evangelical church to mobilize, and I think you will see much stronger statements come out," he says.
Still there remains a good deal of frustration among the staff at non-profits that are keeping a low profile. But some say that feeling is misplaced. The official at a large international aid group who requested anonymity put it this way.
"There's anger that leaders aren't more bold," the person said. "But there should be an acknowledgment that the administration is holding hostage every single life we could save in exchange for our silence."
Your turn
Readers, if you have an opinion to share on this topic, please send your thoughts to goatsandsoda@npr.org with the word "silence" in the subject line. We are especially interested in hearing from those who work in the nonprofit sector. Please include your name and the best way to contact you. We may use your comments in a follow-up story.
Copyright 2025 NPR
