Defense ➡️ Offense

Lessons from global anti-authoritarianism movements

I joined my local No Kings Day protest on June 14, just like 4-6 million Americans across the country.

The day was unprecedented in my community of San Rafael, California. I had never seen the energy, size, and creativity of a crowd like that in our city before. I saw my neighbors, like people all over the US, boldly highlighting the contradictions we face and calling out what is wrong with the current course of events. There was resounding clarity on what we need to block and stop.

The day’s events were powerful, but I couldn’t help but walk away feeling like we’re still on the defense because what was left unsaid is what we’re fighting for.

Photo by Saad Ahmad on Unsplash

The Cost of Playing Defense

For years, progressive movements in the US have been locked in a defensive crouch: blocking bad policies, mitigating harm, scrambling to protect the scraps of a social contract that has been shredded. We’ve become experts at resistance—but resistance alone can’t build power at the scale needed to win systems change.

Consider the events of this year so far: intense litigation to block outrageous, unconstitutional executive orders, mass protests against cruel immigration raids, fierce pushback to regressive tax policies, and communities rallying to protect democracy. Necessary? Absolutely. Enough? Not yet, and here’s why: Defense alone cedes the narrative.

When all we do is react, we let our opponents frame the debate and set the terms.

Worse, we leave the door open for autocrats to escalate—because strongmen thrive in vacuums. They don’t offer solutions; their entire playbook is tear down, divide, distract.

So, where is our vision? Where’s the bold, affirmative plan that galvanizes the millions of Americans who are drowning in medical debt, crushed by sky-high rents, and trapped in unemployment or declining wages?

The Moment is Ripe

Ironically, despite repressive forces “flooding the zone”, this might be our best opportunity to go on the offense.

The current administration is flailing. Polls show plummeting approval on immigration, the economy, and foreign policy. Even Fox News’ own data reveals a majority of Americans disapprove of the administration’s handling of inflation, tariffs, and taxes. The public knows what they don’t want—but they’re not being offered a compelling alternative.

I think back to the simplicity and clarity of Bernie’s campaign—healthcare for all, stronger unions, a living wage—and how it electrified crowds and animated communities on the sidelines. Fear and anger will only get us so far… we also need visions of hope and a better future worth fighting for.

Yet today, I see so much of our work—in the philanthropic sector in particular—stuck in a reactive loop. Too often, we’re funding the same fragmented, incremental strategies—allergic to making bold moves.

Lessons from Brazil and Poland: How to Topple Strongmen

So, how do we move from defense to offense?

American exceptionalism can sometimes make it seem like we’re in uncharted waters, but if my previous work with Human Rights Watch taught me anything, it’s that we are late, relative to the rest of the world, in careening down the slippery slope to fascism.

Serious threats to democracies around the world have been effectively challenged in places like Poland and Brazil, and they offer valuable insights from their successes.

The biggest lesson for me, which seems to be so elusive at the moment, is standing on a common platform: specific policies that we can align on that cross current polarizations.

In Brazil, former union-leader turned prime minister, Luiz Inácio “Lula” da Silva didn’t just rally progressives—he found common cause with unlikely allies, including business leaders and centrists who feared democracy’s collapse. The glue? A relentless focus on material gains for everyday Brazilians, like slashing hunger, expanding labor rights, and lifting millions from poverty.

In Poland, opposition parties from urban liberals to rural farmers united under a single pro-democracy Civic Coalition and found common cause. Their shared goals included restoring judicial independence, engagement with the EU, and reversing media crackdowns.

Through years of work and despite many challenges, these strategic alliances allowed progressive forces to build coalitions massive enough to defend their democracies and resilient enough to weather years of setbacks along the way. They’re proof that movements can gain ground when we identify and prioritize shared visions over rhetorical purity.

What Does This Mean For Philanthropy?

The stakes are too high for funders to keep acting like cautious bystanders. We’ve got to make big, bold moves—and quickly—to fuel movements.

The main questions I’m sitting with are: What opportunities can we support to help bridge labor, racial justice, and even disaffected conservatives or pro-democracy center-right forces? What narrative work highlights common struggles and binds sectors together in solidarity? How and where can philanthropy help to uncover and amplify those stories?

What does a progressive version of Project 2029 look like?

Putting These Lessons to Work

This isn’t about importing tactics from Brazil, Poland, or anywhere else, wholesale. It’s about recognizing that authoritarians lose when movements unite around a tangible, hopeful future.

Zohran Mamdani’s win in the Democratic Primary in the New York City Mayor’s race may have proven this point.

Philanthropy can either keep funding scattered defense efforts—or we can help build the offensive strategy that finally tips the scales.

The irony is that although it may not feel like it, our opposition is in a vulnerable moment.

The time is ripe to go on the offense.