The Human Rights and Democracy Fund (HRDF) received a bipartisan appropriation of $205 million for the fiscal year that ends on 30 September. By law, any unspent money must lapse after that date, creating a rush to allocate the resources before the clock runs out. As the deadline approached, officials within the trump administration mobilised to earmark more than $175 million of the fund for a series of projects that align with a distinctly conservative agenda.
Despite a series of congressional holds that warned against using taxpayer dollars for partisan causes, the State Department moved forward and formally obligated the awards just hours before the cutoff. A senior source familiar with the internal negotiations confirmed that the department proceeded in spite of explicit requests from lawmakers to pause the process. When asked, the department declined to comment on whether it had overridden congressional objections.
Last-minute funding maneuver
The package of grants includes a headline-grabbing $40 million anti-communist fund which will be administered by a consortium led by the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. Additional allocations target groups such as a South African organization that advocates for white Afrikaner interests, a campaign aimed at Brazil’s Supreme court, and several European programmes designed to reward allies who champion what officials describe as “western civilizational norms.” Collectively, these awards represent 43 projects totalling $176.9 million, a substantial share of the entire HRDF budget.
Beyond the headline grants, the slate features initiatives focused on counter-acting what the administration calls “gender ideology,” opposing immigration-related regulations, and promoting a “common-good capitalism” index in the United Kingdom. The European component earmarks $2 million for groups in Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and the Balkans that reject what the grant language labels as “ideologically weaponised accounts of human rights.” The S. foreign assistance.
Key recipients and political ties
The largest single award, the $40 million anti-communist grant, goes to the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation (VOC). Though the foundation had previously received modest contracts—just under $97,000 in the 2022 fiscal year—its recent elevation is tied to former Trump aides. Andrew Bremberg, a former White House domestic-policy adviser and U.S. ambassador to the U.N. European office, is listed as a senior leader of VOC. Deputy Assistant Secretary Samuel Samson, who oversees the new grant portfolio, studied at Hillsdale College’s conservative graduate program and has publicly framed the United States and Europe as partners in a “civilizational struggle.”
Other notable recipients include a South African group championing white Afrikaner rights, a Brazilian alliance tasked with “countering lawfare and censorship,” and the UK-based Jobs Foundation, run by former Vote Leave strategist Matthew Elliott. The Jobs Foundation’s $3 million award is labelled “Countering Overregulation to Advance American Investment” and seeks to promote a pro-business “common-good capitalism” index, even praising Brexit for loosening climate regulations. A proposed $5 million grant to the Free Speech Union, founded by Toby Young, was later withdrawn after pushback; the award would have financed opposition to the United Kingdom’s Online Safety Act.
Congressional pushback and legal hurdles
Senator Jeanne Shaheen, the leading Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, warned that the appropriated money was intended to support genuine defenders of freedom and victims of rights violations, not to bankroll far-right organisations in established democracies. Shaheen’s office kept ten holds on $22 million of the grants, targeting projects in Brazil, South Africa, Nigeria, and several European right-wing think-tanks. According to a Democratic aide, Secretary of State Marco Rubio personally signed a memorandum directing staff to disregard those holds and proceed with the obligations.
The episode raises questions about how the United States defines human-rights assistance and the extent to which executive officials can bypass legislative oversight. Critics argue that funneling funds to groups that challenge liberal democratic norms could strain relationships with allies, especially in Europe where many of the grantees operate. The State Department maintains that all programmes will undergo a “standard and rigorous” vetting process and that the awards are meant to bolster allies’ “civilizational self-confidence” against perceived threats.
