Nana Wu
For decades, the U.S. Department of State has been a cornerstone in the global fight for human rights and democratic freedoms, allocating funds to organizations dedicated to protecting free speech, advocating for persecuted minorities, and documenting abuses in authoritarian regimes. However, recent revelations suggest a significant departure from these long-standing traditions, with concerns mounting over the Trump administration’s redirection of taxpayer dollars towards groups aligned with conservative and anti-immigration movements, particularly in Europe and South Africa, bypassing established competitive bidding processes and sparking alarm among lawmakers and former State Department officials.
The traditional model for State Department funding involved a rigorous, open competition where expert staffers would meticulously review information on human rights abuses in repressive countries. This process ensured that grants were awarded to organizations with demonstrated expertise and a proven track record in addressing critical human rights issues, such as aiding torture victims or documenting political violence. This year, however, a starkly different approach has emerged. Trump administration officials have reportedly presented State Department employees with pre-selected lists of organizations slated for funding, circumventing the usual open bidding process for at least a dozen grants. This shift has generated considerable shock and concern among those familiar with the department’s operations.
A Dramatic Departure from Traditional Aid
The nature of the proposed grants marks a significant divergence from the State Department’s historical role. Instead of focusing on victims of torture, political violence, and other egregious human rights violations in some of the world’s most oppressive nations, the administration has explored funding organizations with a different agenda. Among the entities reportedly under consideration are a British free-speech organization that has actively opposed bans on "gay conversion therapy" and an Afrikaner group in South Africa led by a figure who has advocated for the self-governance of the white ethnic minority.
One particularly scrutinized program, with $4.9 million in competitive funding, aims to develop "civilizational self-confidence in Europe." The call for proposals outlines activities such as "research, conferences, cultural engagements, and support for civil society" within wealthy democracies, with a specific stipulation that recipients "not attempt to reform the legislative processes." However, experts and lawmakers have voiced apprehension that this initiative could be used to influence the political landscape of allied nations. This emphasis on Western nations was further highlighted by a proposed grant to a nascent British-American think tank focused on "renewing our Judeo-Christian culture and civilisational mission." While this particular grant was reportedly abandoned after congressional pushback, it underscored the administration’s evolving funding priorities.
William Allchorn, a senior research fellow at Anglia Ruskin University and an expert on radical-right extremism in the United Kingdom, commented on the implications of such funding, stating, "I’ve never before seen U.S. government funding for such groups. It’s crossing the Rubicon, isn’t it?"
Circumventing Established Procedures: Concerns Over Sole-Source Awards
A core element of the controversy revolves around the proposed use of "sole-source" or "limited-source" awards, which bypass the standard open bidding process. Agency rules have long mandated open competition to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse, with exceptions typically reserved for situations where only one organization possesses the necessary expertise, an emergency necessitates swift action, or the sensitive nature of work in certain countries requires discretion.
Contracting experts and former staffers consulted by ProPublica indicated that these justifications do not appear to apply to the current grant proposals. The situation is compounded by the fact that political appointees, rather than a panel of government experts, are reportedly making these funding decisions. This departure from the established practice of evaluating applicants based on their experience and qualifications has raised significant governance concerns. "It’s not good governance to have political appointees give grants to individuals for unknown reasons," one former bureau staffer commented.
Furthermore, directing awards to organizations in high-income countries is highly unusual and typically requires an internal waiver. When questioned on whether such waivers were sought for grants to these nations, the State Department did not provide a direct answer.
Congressional Scrutiny and Official Responses
Members of Congress have expressed significant concerns regarding both the selection of potential recipients and the move towards no-bid or limited-bid grants. During private briefings, officials familiar with the closed-door meetings confirmed that lawmakers raised objections.
In response to a detailed inquiry, the State Department issued a brief written statement asserting that "programs are still in active deliberation and receipt of a grant is not guaranteed to any organization that does not meet all requirement and standards for federal grants." An unnamed State Department official emphasized that the grant awarding process is ongoing, with multiple offices providing input, and highlighted the administration’s serious concerns regarding the human rights situation in South Africa.
Senator Jeanne Shaheen, the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, voiced strong disapproval. She stated that Congress expects the State Department "to invest resources to advance human rights, democratic institutions, civil society, freedom of expression and worker rights" and characterized the proposals as "an appalling departure from that practice and an affront to our democratic allies." Senator Shaheen further elaborated, "These awards suggest that the Department intends to select awardees for federal funding based on their political ideology, not in the interest of American taxpayers or national security."
Key Figures and Controversial Selections
Internal records and interviews point to Samuel Samson, a 27-year-old deputy assistant secretary of state, as a central figure in these grant-making initiatives. Samson, who previously worked as a fundraiser for a group promoting an "America First" worldview in government, joined the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL) as a senior adviser shortly after President Trump’s second inauguration. Over the past 18 months, he has reportedly engaged with far-right leaders in Europe, with whom he believes the U.S. shares a "common civilizational struggle."
One organization expected to receive a no-bid grant is the Free Speech Union, a British group established in 2020 to counter "cancel culture." The organization has a history of defending individuals accused of transphobia and has actively petitioned against the UK’s proposed ban on discredited "conversion therapy" practices. A $5 million grant is reportedly earmarked for this group to combat "digital overregulation," support individuals facing "deplatforming," and advocate against "restrictive online safety and hate speech laws." Trump administration officials met with the Free Speech Union during a European tour late last year, according to Politico. Scholars argue that U.S. government support for such groups can lend them an undeserved layer of legitimacy.
Toby Young, founder of the Free Speech Union, stated to ProPublica, "We have neither applied for nor been awarded a grant from the US State Department or any other branch of the US Government." He did not respond to criticisms regarding the potential award or his organization’s activities.
The largest proposed award, a staggering $40 million, is earmarked for the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. Established by Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton, the foundation’s mission is to memorialize victims of communist regimes and advocate for those living under totalitarian rule. This proposed sum is exceptionally large, potentially dwarfing the organization’s existing budget, and sources familiar with the foundation’s previous U.S.-funded work have raised questions about its capacity to manage such a substantial grant.
Samuel Samson has a personal connection to the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. Elizabeth Spalding, the foundation’s board chair, is a visiting fellow at a graduate school branch of Hillsdale College, where Samson was a student. Spalding’s husband, Matthew, serves as the dean of that graduate school. While a State Department official denied any connection between Samson’s relationships and the grant, the proximity of these associations has drawn attention. The foundation stated it was unaware of the proposed funding but expressed hope that "if true, the 100 million victims murdered by communism in the past, and another 1.5 billion men, women, and children still enduring communism today will rejoice."
Focus on South Africa and Controversial Claims
The administration is also reportedly planning to finance research into crime and atrocities against minority populations in South Africa. Initially, DRL staff were directed to begin awarding funds to Lex Libertas, a South African organization founded by a prominent member of the white Afrikaner movement. This group asserts that white South African farmers are victims of racial discrimination and violence, and is fundraising for a project to place 3,000 white crosses on the National Mall in remembrance of attacks on these farmers. While the proposed award for research was later broadened to allow other invited groups to apply for a $1 million grant, it remains unclear if Lex Libertas will be among them.
Extensive research contradicts the group’s claims, showing that white South African farmers do not experience higher rates of crime than other demographic groups. Despite this, President Trump has asserted that a "genocide" of white South Africans is occurring, using such claims to justify cutting off U.S. funding for HIV treatment and research in South Africa. Former diplomats have criticized this focus, arguing that it is misguided given the widespread suffering on the African continent. "It’s laughable to suggest that on the African continent, the prime issue of human rights concern is whites in South Africa," one former agency official stated. Lex Libertas did not respond to inquiries.
Historical Context and Shifting Bipartisan Support
The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL) has a long history of bipartisan support. Since its inception in 1977, it has championed human rights and democracy globally, funding initiatives to document rapes during political violence in Burma, prevent torture in Tunisia, rehabilitate torture survivors in Syria, and combat sexual violence in Mauritania. Since 2011, the bureau has also focused on individuals persecuted for their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Democrats have historically applauded the DRL’s work on international labor standards and marginalized communities, while Republicans have supported its defense of democratic freedoms in countries like China, North Korea, and Cuba. As a senator, Marco Rubio was a vocal proponent of the bureau and human rights, arguing that safeguarding the freedoms of persecuted individuals was in the national interest. However, since becoming Secretary of State in January 2025, Rubio’s stance has dramatically shifted. He has suspended foreign aid, overseen cuts to the bureau, and publicly criticized it as "a platform for left-wing activists to wage vendettas against ‘anti-woke’ leaders."
Samson’s activities have also caused internal ripples. His recent travels to the UK included meetings with an anti-abortion protester and politician Nigel Farage. In an essay published on the State Department’s Substack, Samson criticized the UK for arresting anti-abortion protesters and Germany for labeling its hard-right Alternative for Germany party as "extremist," drawing parallels to censorship and bureaucratic weaponization used against Trump.
Meanwhile, the DRL has operated with a significantly reduced budget, approximately $190 million compared to over $500 million in 2024. The bureau’s remaining staff have reportedly been tasked with removing "trigger words" from documents, indicating a broader effort to reshape the narrative and priorities of the agency. "We would try to talk about human rights defenders in talking points, only to have them struck," lamented one former employee, who requested anonymity due to fear of reprisal. "We went from having a real, dynamic appreciation for individuals and their human rights and fundamental freedoms to erasing that, especially if individuals were part of an underrepresented group or marginalized community."
The administration maintains that these actions are in line with the president’s agenda and national security strategy. "We’re just implementing the agenda of the president as we’ve been directed through the national security strategy and the White House," the State Department official told ProPublica. This strategic redirection of human rights funding represents a significant policy shift, the long-term implications of which remain to be seen.
admin
Nila Kartika Wati
Lina Irawan
Yuyun Lusiyani
Eva Lovia
Joko Widodo