12 Sep 2025 | Asia and Pacific, Nepal, News
On Monday 8 September I drove into Bouddha on the north eastern corner of Kathmandu from my home in Besigaun. It was just like any other day at this time of year with the streets crowded with cars and scooters and local buses stopping at every junction, their conductors with the doors swung open, shouting out their lists of destinations, cramming passengers into every available space for a 20 rupee bus ride into town. I was on my way to Yaks recording studio around lunchtime to continue work on an audio project and once settled into the soundproof room on the 5th floor of the building began my session reading from the script. Less than two hours into the recording I took off my headphones, surprised by the noises filtering through the walls and into the mic rendering the session useless. That’s not normal. I waited a few minutes, and then, rather than making a complaint to the management, I decided I had done enough for the day and packed up. As I left, I noticed the workstations in the design studio all vacant. Something is not right.
It wasn’t until I arrived home around 4pm that the news of the shooting and killing of Gen-Z protesters outside the parliament buildings became apparent. The shock of the tragedy was starting to reveal itself on social media. It was only then that I connected the commotion outside the recording studio with the protest taking place in other parts of the city and I began to realise the gravity of the situation. The videos of protesters in what appeared to be quite harmless situations being shot and killed by the Nepal Police was something I had never expected to see in Nepal, or anywhere else for that matter. It wasn’t until I woke the following morning to the angry sounds of demonstrators in our neighbourhood that I realised that the Nepal I had known as my second home for the last 13 years would never be the same again. I was overwhelmed with sadness for this country and its people who have bravely worked hard and suffered so long to lift themselves out of poverty despite the setbacks caused by natural disasters, economic hardship and political incompetence.
So what was it that brought Gen Z out onto the streets to protest that fateful Monday morning in September? On the Thursday before, the government announced that they were blocking 26 social media apps—ostensibly because those companies were not registered in Nepal, and until they registered and paid their dues, they would be banned from conducting their business in Nepal. That, in principle, seemed fair enough to me. Businesses should be registered, but why had the government waited more than 15 years to implement the ruling? This was not a step-by-step plan which would have caused mild irritation to most Nepalis. It was a serious threat to millions who depend on social media as vital sales channels through which they conduct their small businesses. A blanket ban, instantly executed, wreaked instant economic hardship on a significant proportion of the entrepreneurial sector of the population and sent them into panic mode overnight. Added to that, the younger generation understands the value of social media as their main avenue of expression through which they can express their grievances and frustrations with the current situation in Nepal. The older generation in government positions were largely ignorant of the importance of social media to the younger generation and dismissed them out of hand. They misjudged the situation and ignored the signals coming from the young to their peril. By Tuesday morning the ban on social media had been lifted, but the damage had already been done.
To understand better just how dependent Nepalis are on social media, one should be aware that Nepal’s economy depends to a large extent on remittances from family members working abroad—mostly in the Middle East, Japan, Korea and Malaysia. These families, split families, through no fault of their own, are torn apart because of a lack of well paid jobs in their own country. They rely heavily on social media to keep connected—to keep the fragile thread of family alive—and to dream of a life where they can live in the same house as their loved ones, instead of decades in forced exile just to survive. The children of these migrant workers are using the savings of their parents and leaving the country by the million every year to study abroad and take jobs in a variety of professions in the developed world, with never the intention to return. Nepal is haemorrhaging its young blood faster than it can ever replace it and the cost to the nation is literally a question of life or death.
This blocking of social media was the spark that ignited the flame of discontent that motivated Gen Z to get out on the streets of Kathmandu and protest their dissatisfaction to the government. But the protest was not about the blocking of social media – that was the straw that broke the camel’s back. The protest was about the rampant corruption in government, cronyism and nepotism and lack of transparency in a government hopelessly entrenched in its ways—turning a blind eye to the chronic needs of its people. The evidence of corruption became even more apparent when the social media profiles of the grown-up children of members of the government and other political parties showed them living in lavish apartments around the world, having expensive holidays and sporting Rolex watches and Gucci handbags and driving cars worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, while their fathers were apparently only earning a measly 400 USD a month in Nepal.
So where did all that money come from to furnish these people with such lavish lifestyles? To my mind you don’t have to look further than the half-completed infrastructure projects littering the countryside. Projects lying unfinished for five years or more – disintegrating before my eyes, washed away by a monsoon of diverted funds. But what do I really know about the inner workings of the governing of this country? Very little. I don’t have the evidence. I just see unfinished projects everywhere and a population whose patience has run out. Add to that the pictures allegedly showing the children of government officials living lifestyles abroad well beyond the reach of many middle class Europeans and you have a powder keg of emotional dynamite ready to blow up the Houses of Parliament. That is what happened.
On the day after the Gen Z protest, the public took to the streets in anger and frustration at the government’s lack of empathy for the loss of life of their children. There were no apologies—no statements of regret. No taking responsibility for this act of aggression. For every child murdered by the Nepal Police there were thousands who came out into the streets. What followed became one of the blackest days in Nepal’s history—a day of utter devastation with historic government buildings, hotels, police stations and businesses set on fire and routes for fire engines blocked by the mobs to prevent any access to the properties by the emergency services. Ministers were tracked down and subjected to mob violence, their houses ransacked and burned to the ground—the stashes of their ill-gotten wealth reduced to flames, floating into the smoke-filled sky.
This morning I ventured out into a city reeling from the shock of the events of the previous three days. With no interim government yet established, the army has taken control of the city, imposing a curfew with twice daily access to shops and essential services amounting to five daylight hours split between early morning and late afternoon. I set off with my camera and international press card to take a few shots of what I had only witnessed on social media. It was a heartbreaking reconnaissance. The streets were littered with burned out carcasses of cars and trucks. The local police headquarters was a blackened skeleton of brick and concrete. The army stopped me the second I parked my scooter outside the burned-out shell of the local superstore, ignored my press card and told me in no uncertain terms to leave the area immediately. I left.
But the feeling on the street was not one of fear or trepidation. People were going about their business shopping at the small local stalls and supermarkets with only the slightest sense of anxiety to get home before the 10am curfew. Electricians were busy repairing cables damaged by the rioting and local groups were clearing the streets of the flotsam and jetsam of the days before. On social media there was progress being made by representatives of the Gen Z generation–the young hopefuls on whose shoulders the future of Nepal now rests. And they have a strong contender to take responsibility for an interim cabinet who has the advantage of age and experience to guide them. Former Chief Justice of Nepal Sushila Karki is perceived by most of my close friends as good news for the country. She is smart, honest, and a woman with a commendable track record. And she knows the law. There is a lot of work to be done to undo the decades of corruption and poor governance, but I get the feeling that the will of the Nepalese is strong enough to endure the years it will take to achieve a more fair and balanced society that will turn this tragedy into a solid and lasting period of prosperity not only for Gen Z but for future generations to come.
—
Index asked Gary to speak to Nepalis about their hopes and fears following the violence of the last few days.
The author and translator Viplob Pratik said, “I have a clear understanding of the Gen Z movement, and I deeply admire their courage. This movement did not emerge overnight; it took shape after a long period of simmering dissatisfaction and suffocation among the youth regarding the government system of Nepal. Consequently, this Gen Z resistance is a reaction to prolonged repression — thoughts and emotions subdued by a ruling party that has consistently neglected the desires, needs, and interests of young people. The government’s tendency to take the youth’s voice for granted, to ignore them, and to underestimate their capacity for mature decision-making, played a significant role in igniting the current situation. As a result, Nepal witnessed the pivotal events of 8 September 2025.”
He added, “We do not need to teach Gen Z; they know what they are doing. However, now that the initial wave of the movement has calmed and it is evolving, I am disheartened to see various entities—whether from the old political parties, insiders, or outsiders—trying to capitalise on the moment. They are essentially attempting to exploit the loopholes for their own gain. Witnessing such a scenario fills me with profound concern. I strongly believe that if the outcome of this movement is not guided onto the right path by fair and deserving hands, it will be a tragedy that history will mourn.”
Rajan Ghimire, a humanitarian, development and rights activist, recounted his own thoughts on the past three days.
“Day 1: The morning began with optimism, but by the afternoon I felt deep anger at the government’s brutal response toward the youth.
Day 2: I started the day still angry, but by midday that anger gave way to fear. In the evening I felt a growing sense of hopelessness. Near my home, there is a gas station with a garage attached. After hearing that people had set fire to Bhatbhateni in Koteshwor, I was alarmed to learn that someone set a vehicle on fire in the garage near the gas station. We feared the gas station might explode. Thankfully, the fire was contained, but none of us could sleep that night.
Day 3: The day passed under a cloud of uncertainty, not knowing what would happen next.”
He added, “Thankfully no major infrastructure damage was reported but we lost human lives. It feels as if our country has been pushed back by years, even decades. I hold on to hope that we can rise from the ashes and rebuild but I remain confused about how.”
Suraj Ghimire said, “Right now, leaders from different parties are trying to break the unity of the protesters, taking advantage of divisions and pushing their own agendas online. They think this will help them regain power, but the people have spoken, the ones that were out on the streets don’t want them back. What they want is simple and clear: the president’s resignation and the dissolution of the current parliament.”
Medical student Nabin Poudel said, “The ongoing Gen Z movement is undeniably legitimate, embodying years of accumulated frustration over systemic corruption and decades of ineffective leadership. Yet, the prolonged indecision regarding the dissolution of the lower house and the formation of an interim government threatens to deepen political instability rather than resolve it.”
The winter 2025 edition of Index on Censorship magazine will look at both the silencing of Gen Z around the world and how influencers like Charlie Kirk, who was murdered in September, became important voices for this demographic.
3 Sep 2025 | News, United Kingdom
There have been two stories this past week which could be read as incitement to hitting men in the bollocks. One of the perpetrators was met with five armed officers at Heathrow Airport, the other was lauded as a have-a-go hero. One involved the comedian Graham Linehan, and the other involved the Queen. Only one of them actually carried out the act (admittedly several decades ago), but she wasn’t the one who found herself in a police cell.
The story about a teenage Camilla Shand who, in her own words “whacked a man in the nuts” when he groped her on a train, is told in a new biography of the Queen. It has been used to explain why the Queen became an advocate for women’s rights in later life. Linehan, the creator of the acclaimed series Father Ted, The IT Crowd and Black Books is also a campaigner. As the introduction to his articles on the blogging platform Substack states: “I write about the current all-out assault on woman’s rights.” While Camilla’s campaigning has only served to burnish her reputation, Linehan was cancelled after his gender-critical views brought him into direct conflict with the trans rights movement.
In December he announced he was moving to Arizona as a result of this cancellation. But on Sunday he returned to the UK, only to be arrested, held in a prison cell for hours and questioned about his posts, as he documents in his Substack. While the Met police have not named Linehan, they have confirmed his account of events.
Which brings us to the offending posts. According to Linehan, they are as follows. One, posted on 19 April, shows an image of a trans-rights protest with the comment “A photo you can smell”. This is followed up with “I hate them. Misogynists and homophobes. Fuck em”. These are indeed offensive and intended to be so. But it is difficult to see how they could be interpreted as incitement to violence. The third tweet posted the next day is more problematic. But only the second half has been quoted in most of the media coverage of the arrest. The whole tweet reads: “If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls.”
Whether or not you agree with his definition of an abusive act he is making precisely the same argument as the cheerleaders for the young Camilla, although she whacked her groper in the nuts before she called the cops.
This is not Graham Linehan’s first run-in with the police over his anti-trans stance. On Thursday he will appear at Westminster magistrates court accused of the online harassment of 18-year-old transgender activist Sophia Brooks and damaging her phone at a public event last year. He denies all charges.
Linehan’s arrest is further evidence of a faultline in the free speech landscape where the trans debate is concerned. As Helen Lewis writes in The Atlantic, there have been several instances of trans allies calling openly for violence against those whose views they disagree with and who have not been dealt with in this way. A genuinely pluralistic society cannot have two-tier justice in this area.
Linehan’s case raises serious questions about how we police speech online. We know there are consequences when posts go viral and incitement to violence is a reality. But in many cases there are no consequences except to the author of the posts. We may not approve of Linehan’s call to vigilante action against abuse of women’s spaces, if that is what it was. But the suppression of his free expression rights may be more damaging in the long run.
Index on Censorship was founded as a response to the repression of writers and academics behind the Iron Curtain. Advocacy for dissidents remains the priority of the organisation. Some would argue that Linehan is a dissident. It is questionable whether it is ever possible to be a dissident in a country where freedom of speech has genuine legal protections – it is a strange kind of police state where ministers intervene to suggest officers have been too heavy-handed. The real concern is whether Linehan’s arrest is evidence of the erosion of those protections. JK Rowling condemned the action as “totalitarian”, while commentator Piers Morgan said “Britain’s turning into North Korea.” Although this is perhaps overstating it, what happened to Linehan at Heathrow airport this week certainly looks like police overreach. It also seems odd that Linehan has been instructed not to post on X while on bail, surely an unnecessary restriction of his rights.
It is tempting to see this as a comedy arrest by bumbling cops. But a genuinely open society does not police speech with the tactics of an authoritarian state.
29 Aug 2025 | Americas, Europe and Central Asia, Iran, Israel, Middle East and North Africa, News, Palestine, United Kingdom, United States
Bombarded with news from all angles every day, important stories can easily pass us by. To help you cut through the noise, every Friday Index publishes a weekly news roundup of some of the key stories covering censorship and free expression. This week, we look at the Israeli “double-tap” strike on a hospital that killed 20 people, and the sexual misconduct libel case of actor Noel Clarke.
In public interest: Actor Noel Clarke loses libel case against The Guardian
Prominent English actor Noel Clarke has lost a lengthy sexual misconduct libel case in High Court against The Guardian in which 26 witnesses testified against him.
The landmark case was based on a series of articles and a podcast published by the Guardian between April 2021 and March 2022 in which more than 20 women accused Clarke of sexual misconduct, with allegations ranging from unwanted sexual contact to taking and sharing explicit pictures without consent. The actor claimed that these allegations were false, bringing libel charges against the Guardian over what he believed was an unlawful conspiracy, reportedly seeking £70 million in damages if his case was successful.
Mrs Justice Steyn, ruling on the case, gave the verdict that the Guardian succeeded in defending themselves against the legal action on truth and public interest grounds, with Steyn stating that Clarke “was not a credible or reliable witness”, and that his claims of conspiracy were “born of necessity” due to the sheer number of witnesses testifying against him. In a summary of the findings, she ruled that the allegations made were “substantially true.”
The UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition, headed by Index on Censorship, have stated that while this is a crucial ruling, the case “exerted a significant toll on The Guardian and its journalists”, and that a universal anti-SLAPP law is necessary to avoid similar situations from occurring. Index also stated that “public interest journalism needs greater protections”. Katharine Viner, editor-in-chief of the Guardian, wrote this was a landmark ruling for investigative journalism and for the women involved. During proceedings, the court heard that one woman had been threatened with prosecution by Clarke’s lawyers in what was described by the lawyer acting for the Guardian as an attempt at witness intimidation.
Back–to–back strikes: more journalists killed in “double tap” attack on Gaza hospital
An Israeli attack in which two missiles hit back-to-back on the same Gaza hospital has killed at least 20 people, including four health workers and five journalists.
The attack struck Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis, southern Gaza Strip, at approximately 10am on Monday 26 August. An initial missile hit the hospital, killing at least one person – then approximately ten minutes later, when rescue workers and journalists had flooded the scene, a second strike hit the hospital. This second attack was broadcast live on Al Ghad TV, and showed a direct hit on aid workers and reporters,. The nature of the attack has led to it being dubbed a “double-tap”, a military tactic in which an initial strike on a target is followed up shortly after with a second strike, which targets those who rush to the scene.. The IDF have released an initial inquiry into the attack, and are further investigating “several gaps” in how this incident came to pass.
The five media workers killed were Reuters journalist Hussam al-Masri who died in the initial strike, and Mohammad Salama of Al-Jazeera, Mariam Dagga of Associated Press, Ahmed Abu Aziz of Middle East Eye, and independent journalist Moaz Abu Taha killed subsequently. The attack follows a targeted Israeli strike on 10 August that left four Al-Jazeera journalists and three media workers dead. The Committee to Protect Journalists have documented that at least 189 Palestinian journalists have been killed by Israeli attacks in Gaza since the start of the war.
Putting out fires: Trump attempts to ban the burning of American flags
Donald Trump is moving to ban the burning of United States flags – an act that has been protected under a Supreme Court ruling since 1989.
Stating that burning the flag “incites riots at levels we’ve never seen before,” Trump signed an executive order that calls for Attorney General Pam Bondi to challenge a court ruling that categorises flag burning as legitimate political expression under the constitution. He outlined how anyone caught committing the offence would be subject to one year in jail – a statement that will be tested soo. Mere hours after signing the order a 20-year-old man was arrested for burning an American flag just outside the White House.
The White House published a fact sheet that described desecrating the American flag as “uniquely and inherently offensive and provocative”, and referenced the burning of the flag at the 2025 Los Angeles protests alongside conduct “threatening public safety”. They argue that despite the 1989 ruling, the Supreme Court did not intend for flag burning that is “likely to incite imminent lawless action” or serve as a form of “fighting words’” to be constitutionally protected.
The crime of online activism: Iranian activist sentenced to prison over social media activism
Iranian student activist Hasti Amiri has been sentenced in absentia to three years in prison for her social media advocacy for women’s rights and against the death penalty.
Amiri, who previously served 7 months in a Tehran prison in 2022 over her anti-death penalty stance, has been sentenced by a Revolutionary Court in Iran to three years imprisonment and a 500 million Iranian rial fine for “spreading falsehoods” and “propaganda against the state”, as well as a 30.3 million rial fine for appearing without a hijab in public.
Amiri reported all of the charges against her in a post on Instagram, writing that “When simply opposing the death penalty is considered propaganda against the state, then execution itself is a political tool of intimidation”. She is the latest human rights activist to face criminal charges in Iran – Sharifeh Mohammadi was recently sentenced to death for “rebelling against the just Islamic ruler(s)”, and student activist Motahareh Goonei was this week sentenced to 21 months in prison for the same crime of “propaganda against the state”.
Reforming local government: Reform UK bans local press access in Nottinghamshire
Journalists from the Nottingham Post have been banned from speaking to Reform UK members of Nottinghamshire County Council in what has been called a “massive attack on local democracy.”
Mick Barton, Reform’s council leader in Nottinghamshire reportedly took issue with the paper following an alleged dispute over an article covering a disagreement between councillors. The decision has been condemned by three former county council leaders, and has drawn scrutiny from national groups such as the National Union of Journalists and the Society of Editors.
The ban also covers reporters at the Nottingham Post from the BBC-funded Local Democracy Reporting Service which shares stories with media outlets across the country. The newspaper has also found out that press officers at the council have been told to take reporters off media distribution lists, meaning they won’t get press releases or be invited to council events. Leader of the opposition and former council leader Sam Smith criticised the ban: “The free press play a key role in keeping residents informed of actions being taken by decision makers and in return the press express the views of residents to the politicians and public in publishing balanced articles.”
Reform MP for Ashfield Lee Anderson, who has a history of disagreements with the Nottingham Post, has announced that he will also be joining the boycott. This follows social media posts from the MP accusing journalists of having a negative bias towards the party.
18 Aug 2025 | Americas, Europe and Central Asia, News, Russia, Ukraine, United States, Volume 54.02 Summer 2025
This article first appeared in Volume 54, Issue 2 of our print edition of Index on Censorship, titled Land of the Free?: Trump’s war on speech at home and abroad, published on 21 July 2025. Read more about the issue here.
In April 2022, two months after the invasion of Ukraine, a bill designating the USA as “the main enemy of the Russian Federation” was submitted by several deputies of the Russian Duma (the lower house of the Russian parliament). It was political scientist Ekaterina Schulmann – deemed to be a foreign agent by the Russian authorities – who told Index about this “strange bill”, as she described it. It was meant to amend the law on countermeasures in response to hostile acts by foreign states, which was passed in 2018.
In July 2024 – four months prior to US president Donald Trump’s election victory – six of the seven deputies who had submitted the bill withdrew their signatures.
“Usually this happens when [legislators] realise that their initiative is not going to pass, or that the timing is bad – or that it is politically risky,” Schulmann said.
It seems that the deputies got wind that “the outcome of the election would be such that the US would no longer be [Russia’s] foe – but a friend, if not the best friend”, she added.
In April 2025, the Council of the Duma, an organisational body within parliament, suggested dismissing the bill.
“The political situation changed – and the [bill’s] initiators were nowhere to be found,” said Schulmann.
Trump and the Russian narrative
The re-election of Trump was also pivotal in shaping the Kremlin’s rhetoric. In July 2022, Dmitry Kiselyov, host of Russian political show Vesti Nedeli (News of the Week), dedicated a whole segment to then US president Joe Biden’s poor health, speaking of his “cognitive problems”, according to independent news outlet Verstka.
And in February 2025, the host praised the new US president, saying: “Putin perceives in Trump his own quality – restraint.”
Vladimir Putin himself called Trump a “courageous man” after his victory. As for Trump, he publicly refused to call the Russian president a dictator (he had said Putin was “genius” and “savvy” on other occasions).
What’s more, Trump seems to be repeating the Kremlin’s claims about Ukraine’s responsibility for the aggression. “You don’t start a war against someone 20 times your size and then hope that people give you some missiles,” he said in April.
And when he called Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelenskyy a “dictator without elections” in February, he was echoing rhetoric from the Kremlin.
Trump’s criticism of the Ukrainian government is, in turn, used in Russian propaganda, which brainwashes people into supporting Putin’s politics. For example, in February, Kiselyov called Zelenskyy “a mediocre comedian”, according to Verstka, which mirrored Trump’s words about him being “a modestly successful comedian”. Kiselyov reportedly said that Trump “tolerated Zelenskyy for a long time, but now his disgust is obvious”.
Not only does Trump give credit to Putin’s official narrative but, since he took office, the White House has been debating lifting sanctions on Russian organisations and oligarchs, according to Reuters.
In an interview with the independent media outlet Zhivoy Gvozd in April, 83-year-old dissident-in-exile Lev Ponomaryov said that if the sanctions on the Kremlin’s officials were lifted during peace talks, it would allow for the “semi-fascist” regime to remain in place after the war ended. In fact, he is worried that the repression “will only become more severe” when the war is over, because Putin will need to reinforce his position domestically.
An end to Russia’s pariah status?
Talking to Index from Russia, independent politician Dmitriy Kisiev said that, for him, “it’s hard to imagine things getting worse” than they are today. He was the head of the team which stood behind the campaign of Boris Nadezhdin, the pro-peace candidate barred from running in the presidential election in March 2024.
According to Kisiev – and he admitted this might sound surprising – Trump’s presidency could ultimately benefit Russian civil society. He argued that Trump established “some sort of dialogue” with the Kremlin, which could eventually result in Russia becoming more integrated with the rest of the world. In that case, its civil society would be “freer and more protected”. He is concerned about Russia potentially “heading in the wrong direction”, like North Korea, which he described as “a very closed country and a totalitarian state”.
He used the example of Western companies, the majority of which left Russia at the beginning of the war. Their presence acted “as a kind of limiting factor” on the government and helped to deter the creation of overly harsh laws or regulations. This also applied to student exchange programmes and international tourism, which are no longer there either, he said.
Kisiev added that when Trump began talking about peace, speaking about it became safer in Russia. Whereas previously “peace politics” were supported by less than half the population, “today it feels as though more people are for peace”.
In a recent survey by the independent Levada Centre, more than half the respondents said they were in favour of peace talks. The number of people who believed peace negotiations “should definitely begin” (30%) has never been higher. The survey was conducted with 1,617 adults across Russia.
Kisiev underlined that Trump brought hope for peace to people in the face of despair. The pro-peace stance being voiced by more people, he said, could eventually lead to the end of the “special military operation” in Ukraine. When that happens, he believes Russia could evolve in a more “humanistic direction”.
“Some laws would be revised as there would be no more need for such harsh punishments,” he said, referring to legislation passed when the war began – the censorship law which criminalises “discreditation” of the Russian armed forces.
He tries to remain optimistic, saying that if he didn’t believe things could change for the better then he wouldn’t be taking the risk of being an opposition politician in Russia today.
When asked whether Russia’s repressive legislation could be amended or even abolished if the war ends, political scientist Schulmann said the Russian state system was “flexible”, which is “one of the main features of modern autocracies, [making] them different from the totalitarian systems of the 20th century”.
“They are the ones setting the norms,” she said. “A change in the political context can result in changes in the legislation … even though I don’t think that the system would want to get rid of such a convenient instrument as the war censorship law.”
Faint hopes for peace
An independent parliamentary deputy from Moscow, who requested anonymity, spoke to Index about the “faint hope” for peace raised by Trump, echoing Kisiev. But, alluding to the difficult peace negotiations, he said it was “hope which rises and falls, again and again”.
He highlighted that it was not only the public and the opposition in Russia who were fatigued by the war but also deputies from the Kremlin’s United Russia party.
He hopes that a peace agreement would allow his country to “go back in time to a more democratic era”.
But he said that repression remained as severe as it was at the beginning of the war and pro-democracy movements were still being crushed.
One recent example was the request by the Ministry of Justice to liquidate opposition party Grazhdanskaya Initsiativa (Civic Initiative) in May.
The same month, Grigory Melkonyants, co-founder of the election watchdog Golos (Voice), was sentenced to five years in prison after he was found guilty of working for an “undesirable organisation”.
Meanwhile, Trump’s politics continue to affect Russian refugees and opposition movements abroad.
Index spoke to LGBTQ+ activist Nadezhda Shchetinina, who fled Russia for the USA after the LGBTQ+ movement was labelled extremist in November 2023. “Since Trump took office, the [Customs and Border Protection] programme that allowed me to get to the United States safely is no longer operating,” she said.
Trump’s war on immigration and international aid
The second Trump administration has implemented harsh anti-immigration policies. One of its executive orders states that admitting refugees is now considered “detrimental” to US national interests.
Shchetinina said that Russians arriving in the USA have not been welcomed, especially since the invasion of Ukraine. And with Trump as president, “there is less hope that this situation will improve”.
“Everything is being done to prevent Russian political refugees from getting here, even though we have every right to [seek political refuge],” she said.
Many Russian immigrants – including those who have fled to the USA for political reasons – are kept in detention centres, she added. People are deported back to Russia despite the risks of being arrested as soon as they cross the border.
On top of this, the Trump administration has tried to dismantle multiple pro-democratic media outlets through funding cuts, such as Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, which are funded by the federal government. These outlets historically broadcast to countries behind the Iron Curtain during the Cold War. Since then, they have continued reaching and covering authoritarian states, including Russia, countering state propaganda. Although some funding for these media outlets has been restored, their future is bleak under Trump amid his administration’s attacks, cuts to services and the resulting mass staff layoffs.
The president’s shuttering of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) also severely affects campaign groups, NGOs and independent media that oppose Putin abroad. Those impacted include Kovcheg (The Ark), which supports Russians who have fled because of their anti-war position; international human rights organisation Memorial; and also Golos, whose co-founder was jailed in May.
The human rights non-profit Free Russia Foundation has also had its funding heavily impacted, according to independent media outlet Meduza. Founded in the USA in 2014, FRF supports Russian political prisoners, refugees and civil society.
In 2024, it was labelled an “extremist organisation” by the Russian government. Its vice-president – dissident and former political prisoner Vladimir Kara-Murza – was released in the prisoner swap between Russia and the West in 2024. He became one of the key figures of Russian opposition abroad. In his speech in April at the opening of an exhibition in Paris dedicated to Russian political prisoners, Faces of Russian Resistance, he stressed that discussions between Trump and Putin had centred on economic issues rather than human rights.
“We hear [Trump and Putin] talk about minerals, [frozen] assets; American businesses coming back to Russia; direct flights – anything but the people,” he said.
He stressed the importance of releasing hostages of war, including children kidnapped in occupied Ukraine, and Russian political prisoners. “The only reason they [political prisoners] are imprisoned is that they spoke against this criminal war,” he said.
Olga Romanova, director of civil rights organisation Russia Behind Bars, recently said in an interview that Trump was not concerned about Russian political prisoners – including minors.
Dozens of teenagers have been imprisoned for their anti-war actions or words, such as 16-year-old Arseny Turbin, who was sentenced to five years in a correctional colony for “participation in a terrorist organisation”.
In May, Ukraine and Russia exchanged 1,000 prisoners of war each. But Russia’s commissioner for human rights, Tatyana Moskalkova – a key interlocutor in the swaps – does not work with independent human rights defenders, few of whom are still in Russia, Ponomaryov told Zhivoy Gvozd.
Moskalkova has also promoted the Kremlin’s narratives – including that the Russian armed forces are “successfully fighting neo-Nazism” – and has rejected the term “political prisoners”.
The USA on the global stage
Ponomaryov and other members of the Council of Russian Human Rights Defenders wrote an appeal in April, highlighting that human rights are not being prioritised in the current peace talks. Recognising human rights as “the necessary condition” for world peace and security was an important breakthrough of the post-World War II era, the appeal reads, referring to the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The statement acknowledges how the USA has played a key role in this “movement towards progress”. But today, Ponomaryov says, “the US no longer sets an example for democracy, human rights and so on – and that is a catastrophe for the entire world”.
The Trump administration has created chaos for Russians opposing Putin abroad and reinforced the Russian leader’s position at home. At the same time, Trump’s relationship with Putin has raised a faint hope for peace.
But, even if the war ends it might not lead to the loosening of the Kremlin’s iron grip. As the human rights defenders’ appeal stresses, an unjust peace would “give a green light” to further aggression – and to even more repression in Russia.
In the face of this new reality, where the US president aligns with Putin rather than acting as a counterpower to him, there is a need for global unification. As Ponomaryov says, rights defenders across the world must come together around the issue of human rights and “start influencing what’s happening in the world arena”.
