As head of the European Parliamentary Forum for Sexual and Reproductive Rights (EPF), Neil Datta has been monitoring the rise of anti-rights networks for more than twenty years. His new report, The Next Wave (2025), presents a stark warning: in just five years, these movements have raised USD 1.18 billion in Europe — compared to USD 707 million over the entire previous decade. More organized, more strategic, and now firmly embedded in the political sphere, they are advancing a clear agenda: to reshape laws and institutions in order to roll back fundamental rights, particularly those of women, and to weaken European democracies.
In 2021, you published The Tip of the Iceberg, a report revealing that USD 707.2 million had been allocated to funding anti-gender movements between 2009 and 2018. In 2025, your second study, The Next Wave, shows that this amount rose to USD 1.18 billion between 2019 and 2023. Moreover, you point out that these movements now benefit from unprecedented international coordination. In your opinion, what explains this rapid rise and structuring, particularly in Europe?
What explains this rapid structuring and rise in power is, above all, that the anti‑gender and anti‑rights movement now sees itself as a genuine political movement.
We have moved from actions carried out by conservative religious groups rooted in certain faith communities to a fully assumed political project.
It is no longer just conservative civil society mobilizing occasionally to influence a specific law — for example on abortion or sex education. Today, the movement operates with a direct foothold in certain political parties, and in several countries, it has achieved real success. This political anchoring allows it to access public funding, create think tanks and other idea‑producing institutions, and develop an anti‑rights, far‑right intellectual corpus. The goal is no longer merely to influence certain policies but to establish itself as a political force in its own right.
Historically, the movement emerged in the late 1990s and early 2000s within religious communities, particularly Catholic ones, that viewed social developments with deep suspicion. The 1995 Beijing World Conference, which for the first time internationally recognized women’s rights to control their own bodies and to make free decisions on reproduction and sexuality, was seen by some as a major defeat. In response to this loss of influence, these actors reflected on the causes of their decline and popularized the expression “gender ideology.” Coined by Catholic thinkers, it referred to all the societal changes they rejected — divorce, contraception, abortion, LGBT+ rights, euthanasia, gender equality, and so on.
From there, the idea spread from religious institutions (the Vatican, bishops’ conferences) to civil society, first through former pro-life movements that “rebranded” themselves and broadened their fight beyond abortion to include opposition to LGBT+ rights. In France, we observed the transition from anti-abortion associations to La Manif pour Tous, and then their integration into a wider range of actions against what they call “gender ideology.”
Gradually, these actors entered the political arena, first through Christian right-wing parties, then through far‑right parties deemed more aggressive on the issue. This can be seen, for example, with Vox in Spain and the AfD in Germany. Once in power in certain countries, this evolution has enabled the movement to promote national anti‑rights policies and even an international diplomacy aligned with these positions.
In the space of 25 years, this movement has thus evolved from a conservative religious network into a structured, transnational political actor with strategic alliances, increased financial resources — rising from USD 707.2 million (2009–2018) to USD 1.18 billion (2019–2023) — and unprecedented international coordination.
According to your report, these movements are not limited to a “culture war” but represent a genuine strategy to seize political power. What concrete risks does this pose for democracy and fundamental rights, especially women’s rights in Europe?
In my view, the risks are numerous if these movements come to power. In a coalition system like Belgium’s, even a small anti‑rights movement can wield considerable influence: it can tell its coalition partners that in exchange for adopting its demands, it will support the rest of their program.
Such demands very often aim to challenge rights or perspectives related to reproduction, sexuality, and connected issues. For example, instead of directly seeking to repeal abortion laws, they might call for a referendum, revise time limits, or cut funding for sex education.
In countries where these groups have come to power, we see corresponding policies. In Italy, Giorgia Meloni’s government sent anti‑abortion activists into family planning centers to dissuade women from seeking abortions. When in power long enough, these movements can also reshape state institutions. This has been observed in the United States and Poland, where the appointment of conservative judges to the Supreme Court enabled more restrictive interpretations of fundamental rights and, consequently, the rollback of women’s abortion rights.
The threat extends to democracy itself: in Poland, for instance, an anti‑gender party with authoritarian tendencies was voted out through free elections, yet a representative of the same party recently returned as the newly elected president. Elsewhere, as in Hungary — a European Union member — it is hard to imagine how such parties could be removed from power once established. In the U.S., deeply entrenched and troubling authoritarian tendencies are also evident.
The dangers are therefore clear: first, the blocking of further rights progress; second, the regression of rights once thought secure; and third, institutional changes designed to entrench this erosion of rights and democracy.
Importantly, there won’t be a “Big Bang” moment when we suddenly wake up under authoritarian rule — the shift happens gradually, as rights are eroded step by step until people no longer realize how much of their democratic foundation has been lost.
Could you explain how these anti‑rights movements use their funding? How do they operate, and what concrete impact do their strategies have on women’s and gender minorities’ rights in Europe?
The funding comes from three main sources. The first is the United States, where private funds often originate from billionaires close to the conservative Christian right, such as members of the Trump‑aligned MAGA1 circle. These billionaires create foundations that fund American organizations, which then establish offices and carry out actions in Europe. Their specialty is to pursue litigation before European courts, exporting an American legal strategy in which many progressive rights have been won or lost through judicial decisions — notably those of the Supreme Court. This more combative approach to legal battles is relatively new in the European context.
The second major source is Russia, which primarily funds far‑right parties across Europe — as seen with Marine Le Pen in France — and supports “anti‑gender services” that develop alternatives to progressive policies. For instance, where feminist movements promote access to contraception and abortion, these groups set up “family planning” centers to dissuade women from having abortions and spread misinformation. They also promote abstinence‑only education until heterosexual marriage, as an alternative to comprehensive sex education. These activities are often led by Catholic or Kremlin‑aligned groups.
Finally, the third — and largest — source, representing over 80 percent of funding, is Europe itself. These resources come from European actors, including very wealthy individuals and sometimes public funds. This money finances a whole constellation of anti‑rights organizations now active in nearly every European country — including the Nordic countries and the Balkans, where they were virtually absent a few years ago. With growing financial capacity, they can now expand their influence.
A significant novelty is the creation of well‑funded think tanks employing professionals who produce reports and “ideas” reflecting anti‑rights and anti‑gender positions. These think tanks often have ties with far‑right parties, such as Vox in Spain or AfD in Germany, or receive support from certain governments, like that of Viktor Orbán in Hungary. Their objective is to shape political debates at the European level, especially around the European Union’s multi‑annual budget — for example, by advocating the elimination of funding for civil society, human rights, environmental protection, or independent media.
These financial flows therefore reinforce a dense network of anti‑rights and anti‑gender movements across Europe, which build alternatives to existing rights, influence politics through think tanks, and act in a coordinated manner to challenge women’s and gender minorities’ rights.
In the face of this offensive, what roles can civil society, committed foundations, and advocacy actors play in defending and strengthening sexual and reproductive rights over the long term?
First of all, we must understand what kind of game we are playing: this is no longer a small compromise with a few religious communities — it is a structured, authoritarian political project and a complex power struggle akin to a chess match.
In this context, civil society and engaged foundations play an essential role: becoming aware of what is happening, understanding the nature of the project on the other side, and especially raising awareness among political actors — because that is where this confrontation will ultimately be decided.
Practically, I have identified five key levers of action — the five “D’s” — that many actors can use:
Discover: Stay informed, investigate anti‑rights movements, their funding, and their networks, while also tracking the evolution of concrete political projects, such as the “Périclès project” uncovered in France, which plans massive financing to help a far‑right party win power in 2027.
Disarm: Identify their strengths and methods — social media campaigns, legal actions, lobbying — in order to counter them effectively.
Dislocate: Prevent them from gaining proximity to centers of power. Learn to recognize organizations with harmless‑sounding names but anti‑rights agendas, and keep them away from elected officials, ministers, and the media.
Demonetize: Cut their financial flows, whether public or private. This requires vigilance in granting subsidies and targeted efforts to investigate foundations or intermediaries that serve as their conduits.
Defend: On two levels — protect activists on the front lines, and legally entrench essential rights such as abortion, contraception, and marriage equality, ideally even in constitutional law, so they can withstand future attacks.
The overarching goal is anticipation: ensuring that our rights and public policies are already firmly anchored — legally and politically — so that, in the event of a political shift, they cannot be dismantled overnight.
1MAGA = Make America Great Again
Interview by Sabrina Foyen, Communications Officer at the RAJA-Danièle Marcovici Foundation.
