17. Sustained funding is crucial for national organisations and regional coalitions to advocate effectively and to maintain visibility and momentum. Across regions, there is still uncertainty of whether there will be funding to support CSO implementing partners to undertake statelessness work in 2026. The cuts also indirectly lead to more competition with organisations knocking on the same donors’ doors within the statelessness field. There is an acute need for diversifying and engaging more donors to lend its focus towards the statelessness field. 18. These disruptions are not simply technical or operational, they are existential. HRDs that have relied on UNHCR grants to maintain staff or office space face the real prospect of closure. Without resources to pay salaries, cover legal aid or support spaces for organising, HRDs in the field are left more vulnerable to harassment, burnout and silencing. In this way, financial insecurity itself becomes a protection risk: it strips HRDs of the minimal safety nets that allow them to continue their advocacy safely and sustainably, leaving the broader movement to end statelessness dangerously weakened. Recent innovations, such as the Global Statelessness Fund and the Global Alliance to End Statelessness online marketplace offer hope but remain insufficient to cover the widening gaps. Protection gaps specific to stateless HRDs 19. The above risks and challenges are exacerbated by the fact that stateless human rights defenders face unique risks, yet existing protection mechanisms often overlook their specific circumstances, leaving critical gaps that compromise their safety, well-being, and ability to continue their work. 20. First, most countries lack specific measures to protect HRDs, and where such measures exist, they typically assume the defender is a citizen or legal resident. Stateless HRDs, by definition, lack secure legal status or documentation; they may be unable or unwilling to seek help from State authorities due to fear of detention or deportation. This means stateless HRDs are often left to seek alternative forms of protection, such as support from community groups, civil society networks, sympathetic diplomats or international organisations. 21. Second, mobility restrictions create a major protection gap. When threats escalate, at-risk HRDs are often advised to temporarily relocate or go into exile. Stateless HRDs, however, cannot simply apply for a visa or asylum as easily as others. Lacking a passport, they depend on receiving countries or UN agencies to provide special travel documents or humanitarian waivers. Programmes like shelter cities, fellowships or emergency visas for HRDs may inadvertently exclude stateless activists because of documentation requirements. This calls for creative solutions such as expedited issuance of emergency travel documents, or greater flexibility by States and the UN to assist stateless HRDs in cross-border travel and resettlement when needed. 22. Third, there is limited inclusion of stateless HRDs in global and regional protection networks. While international civil society has developed mechanisms to support journalists, women human rights defenders, environmental defenders and others, those working on statelessness remain largely invisible. Statelessness is often seen as a niche issue and the defenders addressing it are excluded from broader coalitions. Language barriers, digital divides and lack of visibility mean that they are rarely reached by training, psychosocial support or urgent protection grants. This leaves defenders isolated and unsupported, particularly in times of crisis. 5