A Closer Look at the Congressional Working Group

Long-term Tactics, Challenges, and Advocacy Through the Eyes of Anna Sineva

by Mackenzie Meyer, 2024 Summer Associate

During my time as a Summer Associate with IRF Secretariat, I have had the pleasure of working and interacting with a variety of members from the Roundtable’s fourteen working groups. These groups meet to identify religious freedom violations in their area of focus and take multi-faith action. For me in particular, much of the time I spent at Capitol Hill was with Anna Sineva & Kyle Cristofalo, the individuals who co-chair the congressional working group. Through meetings with government officials, drop-ins, and conferences I have become increasingly interested in understanding the type and rigor of work that must be done to see legislative change in the IRF space. I had the opportunity to interview Anna Sineva, who provided me with key insights into the group’s past accomplishments and future pursuits. By utilizing her experience, this document serves as a way to highlight the congressional working group and the forms of advocacy they engage in.

For the congressional working group, every day is different. A typical day can involve  connecting with group members, determining which government offices to reach out to, and  engaging in collective brainstorming to create a plan for both current and upcoming agenda  items. Amongst the day-to-day tasks, Anna noted that the brainstorming is the most important  part of their work. Through this, ideas can be developed and points of disagreement can be sorted  out to establish a joint strategy. This tactic is vital to any type of advocacy as it prevents a group  from becoming siloed and encourages the need to understand how others view their issues. As  the working group takes on IRF policy initiatives, Anna stated that they always “make a point to  meet and talk amongst the people who have the bandwidth to engage in congressional affairs.” In  doing so, they learn about the types of opposition, different approaches, dynamics on Capitol  Hill, and the specified goals of legislative offices. These tactics help the group avoid becoming  stagnant and provide increased knowledge about the political environment to yield opportunities  for feasible progress. 

When asked about the best part of being a co-chair for the IRF congressional working group, Anna was quick to share that it was “rekindling the belief of mutual trust and people’s ability  to change things.” DC is often underrated in terms of how much of a hub it is for people and  change. She notes that there is so much movement in the working group’s pursuits because people are highly motivated to improve global IRF conditions, even if their work is unpaid. Not  only are individuals passionate in this field, but their work is directly saving lives and changing  the views of people who have the power to make a large-scale impact. In this conversation, Anna  also stated her appreciation of the congressional working group’s ability to provide a space to  “debunk the polarizing narrative and hear people come up with initiatives that are both rewarding  and motivating for the whole.” This environment creates a space for mutual respect, trust, and  encouragement so that advocates across working groups can inspire each other to change lives.  

While the motivation within this working group is strong, financial challenges often pose  significant obstacles. Human rights NGOs are generally underfunded, and while some advocates  receive organizational support, this isn’t the case for everyone. Many in the IRF space and  beyond must volunteer their time due to limited funding, forcing them to seek additional  employment and making it difficult to fully dedicate themselves to advocacy. Anna has seen  many talented advocates abandon their passion for human rights work in favor of higher-paying  jobs. As she noted, “Many people struggle to find funding, which limits their ability to invest  time and resources into this crucial work.” 

Anna considers herself fortunate to have organizational support that enables her to do this work.  However, even for those with such backing, there are limitations. While multifaith advocacy and  public policy work have proven to be both promising and effective, they could be elevated to a  new level with proper funding. Such resources would enable coalitions to travel, host events,  publish reports, and allow individual advocates to pursue academic degrees in relevant fields,  further strengthening their ability to advocate effectively. 

Unfortunately, funding for global advocacy in the field of freedom of religion or belief is  minimal. This reality needs more attention, as many in the human rights space are unable to  sustain their efforts over time and are forced to shift focus to more financially viable work. To  address this disparity, Anna encourages corporations to recognize the value of International 

Religious Freedom advocacy. She suggests creating scholarships, grants, fellowships, and other  funded opportunities that would not only support these advocates but also advance diversity,  equity, and inclusion, fostering stronger connections across a broad spectrum of beliefs and  backgrounds. 

Other prominent obstacles the congressional working group must tackle include navigating the political climate and adapting to changes within Congress. IRF-related issues aside, the country  is more divided than ever and the upcoming primary adds an additional layer of complexity.  Anna highlighted that the working group “must proactively work to bridge the gap between two parties to avoid having an issue go in opposite directions.” This has always been a major goal of this group and they prioritize collaboration with congressional offices across the political  spectrum to acquire bipartisan support. These initiatives have strengthened IRF policy pursuits, but Anna emphasized that appropriations and behind-the-scenes negotiations can sometimes  make congressional advocacy feel like a “hurry up and wait” situation. However, the  congressional working group knows that advocates cannot afford to slow down, and while  waiting for things to develop on The Hill can be discouraging, a major part of being a civil  society advocate is to not give up. 

The congressional working group stays motivated by looking at long-term goals rather than short-term ones. At times, their advocacy might look like a short-term mission, but public policy  is an ongoing process that requires changing the way that things are received over time. Anna  stated that “advocacy is a vehicle for public policy.” This work allows you to change viewpoints  and make Congressmen allies or champions for your issues so that eventually lawmakers are  advised by people who think the same way you do. Similarly, even if a bill doesn’t get passed,  advocacy allows movements to be propelled forward so in some ways, a loss can really be a win.  This is why it is so crucial to not give up on initiatives that have seemingly no movement. For the long-term, Anna also described how it is beneficial to articulate a policy by an “us AND  them” approach. Rather than alienating, this method sends the message that “together, we are  bigger than the problem” and it increases engagement on a topic. 

Among victories and setbacks, the congressional working group functions with the  understanding that no effort is ever lost. Certain legislation might not get passed, yet the process  is the reward. Creating relationships on the Hill, forming alliances, and engaging more people under a united goal all aid in long-term change. The work is not simple, but the congressional  working group will continue to make big strides in the IRF space because, as Anna articulated,  “the only way that this process can fail is if we don’t engage at all and let vested interests drive the narrative in our absence.” 

As a Summer Associate with IRF Secretariat, it has been a pleasure to work alongside such  strong advocates and learn from their experiences. I have gained extensive knowledge on how to  navigate dynamics on Capitol Hill, monitor policy trends, communicate legislative  developments, and make real change. I have no doubt that the congressional working group will  continue to tackle important IRF issues for years to come, and I look forward to hearing about  their future successes.