This article is not a checklist, and it is not a call for resilience-as-heroism. It focuses on practical adjustments—small changes in how you explain your work, plan your budgets, and choose funding opportunities—that can make fundraising from exile more manageable and less exhausting.
Why fundraising feels harder in exile (even with supportive donors)
Most grant mechanisms still assume:
- a single country of registration
- stable teams
- predictable costs
- and audiences that are visible, measurable, and local
Exile disrupts all of that at once. Governance may span jurisdictions. Staff may relocate repeatedly. Audiences may be anonymous by necessity. None of this reflects weak capacity – but it does require fundraising narratives that explain complexity without overdramatising it.
The challenge for many exile media is not convincing donors that the journalism matters. It’s helping them understand what sustainability looks like when “normal operations” no longer exist.
Four adjustments that make a real difference
1. Explain exile clearly — without turning every proposal into an emergency appeal
Many exiled newsrooms struggle with how much to foreground risk. Some underplay exile to appear “normal.” Others lean heavily into emergency language long after the immediate crisis has passed.
The most effective framing tends to be matter-of-fact:
- Exile is presented as a structural condition, not a constant emergency
- Safety risks are acknowledged without dominating the narrative
- Editorial strategy, audience reach, and organisational goals remain central
In practice, many exiled newsrooms are shifting how they frame exile in funding proposals – treating it as the context in which they operate, rather than the primary justification for support. Safety considerations are addressed clearly, but without overshadowing editorial goals or long-term strategy.
This helps funders understand that supporting exile media is not only about protection – it’s about continuity.
2. Budget for instability – even when it feels risky
Exile creates costs that rarely fit standard budget templates:
- legal advice across multiple jurisdictions
- relocation and re-relocation
- parallel registrations or fiscal sponsorships
- short-term contracts used to manage risk
- staff burnout and turnover
The instinct is often to minimise these lines, fearing they will look messy or inefficient. In practice, under-budgeting instability almost always creates bigger problems later – including rushed emergency requests or unplanned staff losses.
In practice, some exiled organisations have found it helpful to:
- name instability as a cost driver upfront
- explain why flexibility matters more than efficiency
- frame these expenses as risk mitigation, not overhead
Reality check: A “clean” budget that ignores exile realities is rarely more credible — it’s just harder to sustain.
If your organisation is still dealing with recurring shocks, the MediaDev Fundraising Guide’s Crisis & Emergencies section brings together funding mechanisms and support resources that may remain relevant beyond the first phase of displacement – particularly for organisations navigating repeated or prolonged crises.
3. Rethink impact when your audience can’t be measured
For exile media, impact is often real – but hard to measure.
Audiences may:
- access content via VPNs or mirrors
- avoid likes, comments, and subscriptions for safety reasons
- consume journalism indirectly through re-publication or citation
This does not mean impact is weak. It means traditional indicators are incomplete.
More effective approaches include:
- tracking where your reporting is republished or cited
- documenting references in policy debates, legal cases, or advocacy
- capturing qualitative feedback from diaspora audiences
- explaining why anonymity is itself a measure of trust
Several organisations now include a short paragraph in proposals explicitly explaining why certain metrics are absent – and what alternative signals of relevance exist instead. Funders are often receptive, particularly when this is explained early.
4. Be selective – knowing when not to apply is a fundraising skill
One of the hardest adjustments in exile is learning when not to pursue funding.
Some calls are simply incompatible with exile realities:
- rigid country eligibility rules
- fixed staffing assumptions
- reporting requirements that increase risk
- timelines that don’t account for operational volatility
Chasing every opportunity can drain limited capacity and reinforce a sense of failure when applications are rejected for structural reasons.
Exiled organisations that are most stable over time tend to:
- prioritise fewer, better-aligned funders
- prioritise calls that allow flexibility in geography and governance
- build relationships with intermediaries who understand exile contexts
This kind of restraint is strategic – not a sign of limited ambition.
A final note on sustainability
Even well-funded exile media often remain fragile. That fragility is not primarily about management, professionalism, or commitment. It reflects a funding ecosystem that still treats exile as temporary, exceptional, or peripheral – rather than as a long-term condition shaping modern journalism.
Until funding instruments catch up, the burden of adaptation will continue to fall on newsrooms themselves. The adjustments above won’t solve that imbalance – but they can make fundraising more survivable, more honest, and more aligned with reality.
For further practical guidance, including dedicated sections on emergency funding, crisis response, and organisational resilience, the MediaDev Fundraising Guide remains a living resource – designed precisely for organisations operating under pressure.
Looking beyond core funding: trackers, calls, and complementary support
Global open-call trackers & related opportunities
(via the Journalism in Exile Network)
The Journalism in Exile platform, associated with the JX Fund, maintains rolling listings of open calls and funding opportunities relevant to exiled and independent media.
These opportunities are not always exile-specific, but can support freelance or newsroom projects that fit the criteria — particularly when used to supplement core or operational funding.
Best suited for: organisations looking to layer project-based support onto existing funding.
Additional opportunities to flag for context
(not exile-specific, but sometimes relevant)
- EU Creative Europe calls
Collaborative, cross-border journalism and media innovation grants. Eligibility varies, but some calls support pluralism, collaboration, and innovation in ways that exile media may be able to leverage if the criteria align. - Hostwriter and similar networks
Not funders themselves, but platforms that facilitate international collaboration, peer support, and partnerships — often a precursor to joint funding applications. - Media Development Investment Fund (MDIF)
Impact investment for independent news businesses. Not designed specifically for exile contexts, but sometimes relevant for organisations with revenue models and growth ambitions.
A few practical reminders when exploring opportunities
- Track rolling calls carefully.
The JX Fund and the Journalism in Exile opportunity listings are dynamic. In some cases, the most effective entry point is an initial conversation rather than a fixed deadline. - Match eligibility to your current capacity.
Some programmes target specific regions, organisational stages, or business models. Clarifying fit early can save significant time and effort. - Combine funding with other forms of support.
Legal assistance, professional development, relocation support, or safety resources – such as those offered through initiatives like ECPMF – can meaningfully complement financial support, particularly in exile contexts.