Anita Isaacs and Rachel Schwartz describe how civil society has faced an uphill battle in its struggle to build a broad-based coalition around TJ in the wake of four decades of brutal armed conflict in Guatemala. They argue that international assistance for TJ has witnessed a number of transformations in the two decades since the signing of the peace agreement. Most notably, shifting donor priorities have led to the decline and reorientation of support. Though donor representatives have flexed their political muscle to back civil society activists pursuing truth, repair, and justice for past human rights abuses, the reconceptualization of TJ as part of a broader “rule of law” agenda has moved critical financial support away from traditional victim-centered TJ activities. Over time, the effects of international assistance on civil society have been mixed. On the one hand, international support has fostered civil society cooperation by building broader networks and facilitating the exchange of information and expertise. More recently, this greater willingness to collaborate has extended to government agencies, building bridges between state and civil society actors. While human rights groups draw a clear link between increased state assistance and their own declining budgets, importantly, international support has opened channels of communication between state and civil society actors, particularly with respect to justice issues. Yet, on the other hand, shifting donor priorities have fostered unequal access to international financial support, favoring the more well-connected and experienced NGOs, which have been better able to adapt their objectives and activities to international community preferences. Meanwhile, the lack of technical capacity keeps smaller, predominantly indigenous, victims’ organizations from receiving much-needed support to attend to local demands and dependent on larger organizations that represent their interests. Further, fierce competition for limited donor resources, alongside longstanding ethnic, class, and ideological divisions, disrupts the capacity of organizations to maintain tight connections between leadership and the grassroots and perpetuates a climate of civil society mistrust and fragmentation. The potential for developing much needed social capital, both bonding and bridging, is accordingly undermined.