Yuyun Lusiyani
The U.S. Department of State, a venerable institution long dedicated to promoting free speech, human rights, and the protection of persecuted minorities across the globe, is currently embroiled in a significant controversy. Reports indicate a profound reorientation of its foreign assistance programs, with the current administration allegedly diverting taxpayer funds from traditional human rights initiatives towards organizations aligned with conservative and anti-immigration movements in Europe, as well as groups advocating for white South Africans. This strategic pivot, characterized by attempts to circumvent established open bidding processes and channel funds to politically congruent entities, has ignited alarm among career staffers, contracting experts, and members of Congress, raising fundamental questions about the integrity, transparency, and overarching purpose of American foreign policy.
For decades, the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL), the State Department unit responsible for these critical grants, operated on a foundation of deep expertise, rigorous evaluation, and a commitment to universal human rights principles. Its seasoned staffers meticulously reviewed extensive information on human rights abuses under the most repressive regimes, subsequently launching open, competitive bidding processes to identify and fund organizations capable of effectively addressing these critical issues. This year, however, the administration has reportedly presented DRL workers with a predetermined list of favored organizations, proposing at least a dozen grants that would bypass the normal, competitive bidding process. This departure from protocol, detailed in interviews and documents reviewed by ProPublica, signifies a dramatic and potentially damaging reorientation of U.S. foreign policy instruments.
A Radical Departure from Established Norms and Universal Principles
The proposed funding initiatives represent a stark ideological and procedural departure from the DRL’s historical mandate. Traditionally, U.S. aid has been directed towards urgent humanitarian causes: assisting torture victims, documenting sexual violence in conflict zones, investigating political violence, and supporting marginalized communities and democracy advocates in oppressive countries. The new proposals, however, include grants to a British free-speech organization that has actively campaigned against bans on "gay conversion therapy"—a widely discredited practice—and an Afrikaner group whose controversial leader has called for self-governance for the white ethnic minority in South Africa. This shift signals a move away from a universalistic understanding of human rights towards a more ideologically selective approach.
Adding to the controversy is a newly established program offering $4.9 million in competitive funding for groups to cultivate "civilizational self-confidence in Europe." This initiative, slated for "research, conferences, cultural engagements, and support for civil society" in wealthy democracies, explicitly states that recipients should "not attempt to reform the legislative processes." This directive, coupled with the focus on Western nations, has prompted experts and lawmakers to express profound concern that the U.S. is seeking to influence domestic politics in allied countries under the guise of cultural engagement. William Allchorn, a senior research fellow at Anglia Ruskin University and an expert on radical-right extremism in the United Kingdom, articulated the gravity of the situation, stating, "I’ve never before seen U.S. government funding for such groups. It’s crossing the Rubicon, isn’t it?" This sentiment underscores the perception that these grants risk legitimizing fringe or extreme ideologies.
Chronology of a Policy Transformation
The trajectory of the DRL and its funding priorities has undergone a significant transformation in recent years, particularly under the current administration. A timeline of key events illustrates this dramatic shift:
- 1977: The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) is established within the State Department, solidifying the U.S. commitment to championing human rights globally. Its initial mandate focused on supporting democratic transitions, protecting fundamental freedoms, and documenting abuses in over 100 countries, often prioritizing regions where human rights were most severely suppressed.
- 2011 onwards: Recognizing evolving global challenges, DRL broadens its focus to specifically address the persecution of individuals based on their sexual orientation or gender identity, as anti-LGBTQ+ laws and violence proliferated worldwide. This reflected a commitment to comprehensive human rights advocacy.
- 2018: Senator Marco Rubio, then a vocal proponent of human rights, publicly urged the president to appoint an assistant secretary to oversee DRL, a critical post that had remained vacant for over a year. He previously championed the safeguarding of freedoms for persecuted gay men in Chechnya, arguing it was in the national interest and a reflection of American values.
- January 2025: Following his appointment as Secretary of State, Marco Rubio’s stance on DRL appears to shift dramatically. Simultaneously, President Trump, in his first week in office, suspends all foreign aid, signaling a broader re-evaluation of U.S. international spending priorities.
- Within months of January 2025: The newly installed Department of Government Efficiency implements drastic cuts to DRL’s budget, reducing it from over $500 million in 2024 to approximately $190 million. Secretary Rubio proceeds to close most of DRL’s offices, severely debilitating the bureau’s operational capacity and signaling a diminished priority for its traditional work.
- April 2025: Secretary Rubio publishes a Substack post critically describing DRL as "a platform for left-wing activists to wage vendettas against ‘anti-woke’ leaders," a stark and public reversal of his earlier support for the bureau’s mission.
- Over the past 18 months (leading up to present): Samuel Samson, a 27-year-old deputy assistant secretary of state, emerges as a pivotal figure in DRL’s reorientation. Having joined as a senior adviser to DRL on the day of President Trump’s second inauguration, Samson, a former fundraiser for an "America First" advocacy group, actively courts far-right leaders in Europe. He articulates a vision of a "common civilizational struggle" shared with the continent, indicating a significant ideological underpinning for the new funding approach, which prioritizes cultural and ideological alignment over traditional human rights metrics.
- March [Current Year]: Samson travels to the U.K., meeting with anti-abortion protesters and Nigel Farage, a prominent anti-immigration politician. In an essay on the State Department’s Substack, Samson criticizes the U.K. for arresting anti-abortion protesters and Germany for labeling the Alternative for Germany party "extremist," drawing parallels to perceived "censorship" against Trump and framing these actions as threats to Western liberty.
- Recent Months: Trump administration officials present DRL staff with a list of favored organizations, proposing at least a dozen grants that bypass open competition, signaling a direct intervention in the bureau’s traditional grant-making autonomy.
- Recent Days/Weeks: Amid congressional pushback during private briefings, plans for a $7 million sole-source grant to the newly formed British American think tank "878" are abandoned, highlighting the political pressure and controversy surrounding these new initiatives.
Key Figures and the Shifting Ideological Landscape
Internal records and interviews consistently point to Samuel Samson as a pivotal figure in this strategic overhaul. A 27-year-old deputy assistant secretary of state, Samson previously worked as a fundraiser for a group dedicated to integrating individuals with an "America First" worldview into government roles. Since his appointment as a senior adviser to DRL on the day of President Trump’s second inauguration, Samson has actively engaged with far-right leaders across Europe, aligning with his stated belief in a "common civilizational struggle" shared with the continent. He has robustly defended the agency’s revised grant-making plans in recent private meetings with lawmakers, articulating a vision of foreign assistance deeply intertwined with ideological and cultural preservation.
The State Department, in its limited official response to ProPublica’s detailed inquiries, stated that "programs are still in active deliberation and receipt of a grant is not guaranteed to any organization that does not meet all requirements and standards for federal grants." A State Department official, speaking anonymously, stressed that the process for awarding grants was ongoing and that multiple offices provide input. They also noted the administration’s "serious concerns about the human rights situation in South Africa that need to be addressed." The agency’s public statement further emphasized that "Our foreign assistance programming is aligned to support our strategic priorities," underscoring a redefinition of those priorities away from the DRL’s historical mission. The official denied any connection between Samson’s personal relationships and the grant proposals, despite clear ties, such as his enrollment at Hillsdale College, where the board chair of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation is a visiting fellow.
Controversial Beneficiaries and Procedural Irregularities
The specific organizations considered for funding highlight the radical shift in priorities and the questionable procedural methods employed.
The Free Speech Union (FSU): This British organization, founded in 2020 to combat "cancel culture," is expected to receive a no-bid grant. The FSU frequently defends individuals accused of transphobia and has actively petitioned against the U.K.’s proposed ban on "gay conversion therapy," a practice widely condemned by medical and psychological associations globally as harmful and ineffective. The proposed $5 million grant, reportedly intended to combat "digital overregulation," support individuals facing "deplatforming," and advocate against "restrictive online safety and hate speech laws," has drawn significant criticism. Scholars, like Allchorn, warn that U.S. government support could lend undue legitimacy to such groups, effectively "intellectualizing or sanitizing radical-right ideas" and amplifying voices that might otherwise lack mainstream credibility. The FSU, whose website claims it is nonpartisan and does not accept government funds, denied applying for or receiving a grant from the U.S. government when questioned by ProPublica.
Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation (VOCMF): 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, VOCMF aims to memorialize victims of communist regimes and advocate for freedom in totalitarian states. This sum dwarfs the organization’s total assets of approximately $12 million, as reported in its 2024 tax forms. Four sources familiar with VOCMF’s past U.S.-funded work have questioned its capacity to manage such a substantial award, raising concerns about fiscal responsibility. The proposed award aims to "amplify the voices of dissidents and political prisoners while educating global audiences about the dangers of communist and authoritarian regimes." The foundation, when asked about the funding, stated it was unaware but 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." The State Department declined to comment on specific awards but affirmed VOCMF’s long-standing relationship with the department, aligning with the administration’s stated commitment to combating communism as "a mortal threat to American liberty."
Lex Libertas (South Africa): Officials also planned to finance research into crime and atrocities against minority populations in South Africa, initially directing DRL staff to award funds to Lex Libertas. This South African organization, founded by a prominent member of the nation’s white Afrikaner movement, claims that white South African farmers are victims of racial discrimination and violence. Lex Libertas is currently fundraising to place 3,000 white crosses on the National Mall in remembrance of attacks on South African farmers. This initiative comes despite extensive research by reputable organizations like the Institute for Security Studies and reports from outlets such as PBS Newshour, which consistently show that white South African farmers are not victims of crime at higher rates than other demographic groups in the country. President Trump, however, has publicly claimed a "genocide" of white South Africans, using these assertions to justify proposed cuts to South Africa’s funding for HIV treatment and research (PEPFAR), a program critical for public health in the region. Former diplomats have criticized this focus, deeming it "laughable to suggest that on the African continent, the prime issue of human rights concern is whites in South Africa," given the immense suffering and human rights challenges faced by other, more vulnerable populations. The proposed award was later widened to allow other invited groups to apply for a $1 million grant, with the State Department declining to confirm Lex Libertas’s inclusion in the competitive process.
878 Think Tank: One of the most controversial sole-source grants, a $7 million award to the newly formed British American think tank "878," was recently abandoned after strong objections from Democratic lawmakers. Created this year, 878’s stated mission is to address "existential threats to Britain, to America, and to our shared Judeo-Christian civilisation" and aimed to advance "Anglo-American values" in the U.K., Europe, and "allied partner countries." The decision to drop this grant followed intense scrutiny during congressional briefings last week, underscoring the political sensitivity and potential for backlash surrounding these new funding priorities.
Bypassing Safeguards: The "Sole-Source" Controversy
A central point of contention is the administration’s alleged circumvention of strict agency rules requiring an open bidding process for grants. This standard procedure is a crucial safeguard against waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer dollars, ensuring transparency and fairness. The State Department is typically only permitted to issue "sole-source" or "limited-source" awards—which are not publicly announced—in rare, exceptional circumstances. These include situations where only one organization possesses the unique capability for a specific project, an emergency necessitates rapid funding, or in highly sensitive countries where open human rights work poses extreme danger to beneficiaries or implementers.
Contracting experts and former DRL staffers consulted by ProPublica unanimously argue that none of these established justifications appear to apply to the proposed ideologically aligned grants. The concerns are further amplified by the fact that Trump officials, rather than a non-partisan panel of government experts evaluating applicants based on experience, qualifications, and proven track records, are reportedly handpicking potential recipients. "It’s not good governance to have political appointees give grants to individuals for unknown reasons," stated one former bureau staffer, highlighting the potential for cronyism and political favoritism. The practice of directing awards to organizations in high-income countries, rather than those with critical human rights needs, is also highly unusual and typically requires an internal waiver—a detail the State Department did not confirm when asked, raising further transparency questions.
Congressional Outcry and Broader Geopolitical Implications
Members of Congress have voiced profound concerns during private briefings regarding both the list of potential recipients and the strategy of awarding no-bid or limited-bid grants. Senator Jeanne Shaheen, a Democrat from New Hampshire and the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, condemned the proposals as "an appalling departure from that practice and an affront to our democratic allies." She emphasized that Congress expects the State Department "to invest resources to advance human rights, democratic institutions, civil society, freedom of expression and worker rights," aligning with long-standing bipartisan foreign policy goals. Shaheen further stated, "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," implying a politicization of foreign aid that could undermine U.S. credibility.
The implications of this policy shift extend far beyond procedural concerns. By funneling funds to groups promoting specific ideological viewpoints, particularly those considered on the radical right in Europe, the U.S. risks undermining its long-standing reputation as an impartial advocate for universal human rights. Such actions could strain relationships with democratic allies who may view this as unwelcome interference in their domestic political landscapes, potentially destabilizing alliances and fostering resentment. Moreover, redirecting resources away from critical humanitarian aid in authoritarian countries, where human rights abuses are rampant, towards ideologically driven initiatives in wealthy nations could significantly diminish America’s global standing and its effectiveness in addressing genuine human rights crises worldwide. The erosion of established processes designed to ensure accountability, transparency, and efficacy also sets a dangerous precedent, potentially inviting further politicization of foreign aid and compromising the U.S.’s credibility on the international stage.
The "skeleton crew" remaining at DRL has reportedly been tasked with removing "trigger words" from documents, such as "human rights defenders." One former employee, requesting anonymity for fear of retribution, lamented, "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." This internal struggle reflects the broader battle over the soul of American foreign policy and its commitment to universal human rights principles. The administration’s defense, that "Our foreign assistance programming is aligned to support our strategic priorities," underscores a fundamental redefinition of those priorities, prioritizing a perceived "civilizational struggle" over the previously established, bipartisan commitment to global human rights and democratic institutions. The current trajectory suggests a significant and potentially irreversible shift in how the United States engages with and supports human rights globally.
Joko Widodo
admin
Nila Kartika Wati
Lina Irawan
Eva Lovia