U.S. State Department Accused of Radical Shift in Human Rights Funding, Prioritizing Conservative and Nationalist Agendas

Washington D.C. – A dramatic and controversial shift is underway within the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL), traditionally a global champion of human rights and democratic values. Under the Trump administration, the bureau stands accused of reorienting its grantmaking priorities, bypassing established competitive processes, and funneling taxpayer dollars to organizations aligned with conservative, anti-immigration, and nationalist movements in Europe, as well as advocates for white South Africans. This alleged redirection marks a stark departure from decades of U.S. foreign policy focused on supporting torture victims, documenting abuses in authoritarian regimes, and protecting persecuted minorities worldwide.

Sources including current and former State Department employees, congressional officials, and internal documents reviewed by ProPublica paint a picture of a bureau in crisis, where political appointees are overriding expert recommendations and traditional safeguards against waste and abuse. The proposed grants, some of which bypass the standard open bidding process, have triggered alarm bells among lawmakers, foreign policy experts, and human rights advocates, who warn of profound implications for U.S. credibility and global democratic norms.

I. Main Facts: A Dramatic Departure from Decades of Policy

For decades, the DRL bureau has been a cornerstone of American foreign policy, providing critical financial support to groups dedicated to protecting free speech, advancing human rights, and aiding persecuted minorities in some of the world’s most repressive and impoverished nations. The process was historically meticulous: staffers with deep expertise would pore over extensive information on human rights abuses and conduct open competitions to identify and fund organizations best equipped to address these critical issues.

This established system, however, appears to have been significantly undermined. This year, Trump administration officials reportedly presented DRL workers with a pre-selected list of organizations for funding, proposing at least a dozen grants that would circumvent the normal open bidding process. These proposals include giving taxpayer funds to groups aligned with conservative and anti-immigration movements in Europe and organizations advocating for white South Africans – a demographic that extensive research indicates is not subject to disproportionately high crime rates.

Among the organizations under consideration for funding are a British free-speech organization known for its opposition to bans on "gay conversion therapy" and an Afrikaner group whose controversial leader has called for self-governance for the white ethnic minority in South Africa. Such allocations, according to over a dozen former State Department employees, would represent a radical departure from the traditional aid paradigm that focused on documenting atrocities like rapes and political violence, and assisting torture victims in oppressive countries.

Adding to the controversy is a new program offering $4.9 million in competitive funding for groups to develop "civilizational self-confidence in Europe." While the call for proposals mentions "research, conferences, cultural engagements, and support for civil society," it explicitly states that recipients should "not attempt to reform the legislative processes." This directive has led experts and lawmakers to express concern that the U.S. is seeking to influence politics in allied, wealthy democracies – a role traditionally eschewed by the DRL bureau.

William Allchorn, a senior research fellow at Anglia Ruskin University and an expert on radical-right extremism in the United Kingdom, encapsulated 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?" While some proposed grants are directed toward more traditional human rights purposes, even these have generated concerns both within and outside the State Department.

The established agency rules mandate an open bidding process whenever feasible to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse. Direct awards to a single entity (sole-source) or a small group (limited-source) are typically reserved for rare circumstances, such as when only one organization possesses the unique capability for a task, or an emergency necessitates rapid funding. These exceptions have also been used in highly sensitive countries where public engagement in human rights work could be dangerous. However, contracting experts and former staffers consulted by ProPublica argue that none of these justifications appear to apply to the current proposals. The situation is further complicated by the fact that Trump officials, rather than a panel of government experts, are reportedly handpicking potential recipients based on criteria that appear to diverge significantly from established experience and qualifications.

"It’s not good governance to have political appointees give grants to individuals for unknown reasons," one former bureau staffer commented, highlighting the potential for undue influence and lack of accountability. Furthermore, directing awards to organizations in high-income countries is so unusual that it typically requires an internal waiver, a detail the State Department declined to confirm when asked by ProPublica.

II. Chronology of Disruption: How the Shift Unfolded

The current turmoil within the DRL bureau did not materialize overnight but is the culmination of a series of actions and ideological shifts under the Trump administration, particularly following the appointment of Secretary of State Marco Rubio in January 2025.

The Traditional DRL Mandate

For nearly five decades since its creation in 1977, the DRL bureau has been a beacon for human rights and democracy across more than 100 countries. Its awards have historically focused on critical interventions: documenting and investigating rapes during political violence in Burma, preventing torture in Tunisia, rehabilitating torture survivors in Syria, and combating pervasive sexual violence in Mauritania. Since 2011, recognizing growing global challenges, the bureau expanded its focus to specifically include people persecuted for their sexual orientation or gender identity, establishing initiatives like the Global LGBTQI+ Inclusive Democracy and Empowerment (GLIDE) Fund.

Throughout most of its existence, DRL enjoyed robust bipartisan support. Democrats championed its work on international labor standards and marginalized communities, while Republicans lauded its defense of democratic freedoms in China, North Korea, Cuba, and other communist countries. Senator Marco Rubio, prior to his appointment as Secretary of State, was a vocal advocate for the bureau and human rights broadly. He once passionately argued on the Senate floor that safeguarding the freedoms of persecuted gay men in Chechnya – and indeed all people – was squarely in the national interest. In 2018, he even urged then-President Trump to appoint an Assistant Secretary to oversee DRL, a crucial post that had been left vacant for over a year.

The Administration’s Intervention and Rubio’s Reversal

The landscape changed dramatically with the arrival of the Trump administration’s second term. In his first week in office, President Trump suspended all foreign aid, signaling an immediate shift in priorities. Within months, cuts enacted by Trump’s newly installed Department of Government Efficiency decimated DRL’s budget, shrinking it from over $500 million in 2024 to approximately $190 million. Secretary Rubio, once a staunch supporter, executed a dramatic ideological reversal. In April 2025, he published a Substack post that controversially smeared the bureau he once championed, labeling it "a platform for left-wing activists to wage vendettas against ‘anti-woke’ leaders" and closed most of its offices.

The Rise of Samuel Samson and New Directives

A key figure in this transformation is Samuel Samson, a 27-year-old Deputy Assistant Secretary of State within DRL. Samson, whose background includes fundraising for a group aiming to bring "America First" worldview adherents into government, began his tenure as a senior adviser to DRL on the day of President Trump’s second inauguration.

Over the past 18 months, Samson has actively cultivated relationships with far-right leaders in Europe, articulating a belief that the U.S. shares a "common civilizational struggle" with the continent. He has been a vocal defender of the agency’s controversial grant-making plans in private meetings with lawmakers. In March, Samson traveled to the U.K., engaging with an anti-abortion protester and the prominent anti-immigration politician Nigel Farage. In an essay published on the State Department’s Substack, Samson provocatively criticized the U.K. for arresting anti-abortion protesters and Germany for labeling its hard-right Alternative for Germany party as "extremist," drawing parallels to the "censorship, demonization, and bureaucratic weaponization" allegedly used against Trump.

These external ideological shifts had direct internal repercussions. DRL’s remaining "skeleton crew" found themselves tasked with an unusual mandate: removing "trigger words" from official documents and talking points. "We would try to talk about human rights defenders in talking points, only to have them struck," recalled one former bureau employee, requesting anonymity due to fear of retribution. The former employee further 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."

The bureau, now operating with a severely reduced budget, is tasked with implementing these new priorities, which a State Department official told ProPublica are simply "implementing the agenda of the president as we’ve been directed through the national security strategy and the White House."

III. Supporting Data: Specific Grants and Controversies

The proposed grants reveal a clear pattern of prioritizing specific ideological viewpoints, often at odds with DRL’s historical mission and operational guidelines.

The Free Speech Union (UK)

One organization expected to receive a no-bid grant is the Free Speech Union (FSU), a British organization founded in 2020 to combat "cancel culture." The FSU frequently defends individuals accused of transphobia and has actively campaigned against the U.K.’s proposed ban on discredited "gay conversion therapy" practices. While it remains unclear if the grant would target the British-based organization or its international offshoot, a $5 million award is earmarked to combat "digital overregulation," support individuals facing "deplatforming," and advocate against "restrictive online safety and hate speech laws," according to a document reviewed by ProPublica. Politico previously reported that Trump officials met with the group during a European tour late last year.

Scholars like William Allchorn express concern that U.S. government support could lend an unwarranted layer of legitimacy to such groups. "We see them as intellectualizing or sanitizing radical-right ideas that are then taken up by the parties in power," Allchorn noted. Despite its website claiming to be nonpartisan and not accepting government funds, FSU founder Toby Young, in response to ProPublica’s inquiries, stated, "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 address the criticisms regarding the potential award or his organization’s stances.

Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation

The largest proposed award this year, a staggering $40 million, is designated 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 those killed by communist regimes and advocate for freedom for those still living under totalitarian rule.

This proposed sum has raised eyebrows among those familiar with State Department allocation practices, as it would significantly dwarf the organization’s current budget. Its most recent publicly available tax forms from 2024 show total assets of approximately $12 million. Four sources familiar with the foundation’s previous U.S.-funded work have questioned its capacity to effectively manage an award of this magnitude.

Further complicating this grant is Samuel Samson’s personal connection to the organization. The foundation’s board chair, Elizabeth Spalding, is a visiting fellow at a graduate school branch of Hillsdale College in Washington, D.C., where Samson was enrolled as recently as this year. Spalding’s husband, Matthew, is the dean of that graduate school, and Samson has reportedly taken classes with one or both of them, according to a State Department official. The official, however, stated that Samson’s relationship with the Spaldings had no bearing on the grant. 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 by ProPublica, stated it was unaware of the proposed funding 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."

Lex Libertas (South Africa)

Trump officials are also reportedly planning to finance at least one organization to research crime and atrocities against minority populations in South Africa. Initially, DRL staff were directed to begin the process of awarding funds to Lex Libertas, a South African organization founded by a prominent member of the nation’s white Afrikaner movement. This group asserts that white South African farmers are victims of racial discrimination and violence, and it is actively fundraising for a "White Cross Project" to place 3,000 white crosses on the National Mall in remembrance of alleged attacks on these farmers.

However, extensive research from organizations like the Institute for Security Studies and reports from outlets like PBS Newshour consistently show that white South African farmers are not victims of crime at higher rates than other groups. Despite this, President Trump has repeatedly claimed a "genocide" of white South Africans, using these unsubstantiated claims to justify actions such as cutting off South Africa’s funding for HIV treatment and research (PEPFAR). Former diplomats interviewed by ProPublica expressed dismay, with one stating, "It’s laughable to suggest that on the African continent, the prime issue of human rights concern is whites in South Africa," given the enormous suffering elsewhere in the region. The proposed award for South African crime research was later broadened to allow other invited groups to apply for a $1 million grant, though the State Department declined to confirm if Lex Libertas would be among those invited. Lex Libertas did not respond to questions.

The 878 Think Tank (Dropped)

One of the most controversial grants initially singled out for funds was recently dropped, a State Department official confirmed. This decision came after Democratic lawmakers raised objections during private briefings about the months-old organization and its agenda. The grant was intended for 878, a British American think tank created this year with a stated focus on "existential threats to Britain, to America, and to our shared Judeo-Christian civilisation." The sole-source $7 million grant aimed to advance "Anglo-American values" in the U.K., Europe, and "allied partner countries." 878 did not respond to questions. The retraction of this grant suggests that congressional scrutiny can still influence the administration’s grant-making decisions.

IV. Official Responses and Congressional Scrutiny

The State Department’s official responses to these allegations have been largely circumspect, reflecting the sensitivity of the ongoing internal deliberations and the political nature of the funding decisions. In response to a detailed list of questions from ProPublica, the department issued a short written statement: "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." A State Department official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, emphasized that the grant awarding process was still in progress and that multiple offices provide input. This official also stressed that the administration holds "serious concerns about the human rights situation in South Africa that need to be addressed."

The State Department notably declined to answer whether it had sought waivers for grants directed to high-income countries, a practice that is considered unusual and typically requires specific justification. They also declined to comment on specific awards still in process, citing ongoing deliberations. However, they did reiterate that the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation has a long-standing working relationship with the department. The agency’s statement underscored the administration’s broader strategic priorities, saying: "As President Trump has said, communism is a mortal threat to American liberty – and as Secretary Rubio has repeatedly emphasized, America will not allow radical extremists to undermine our sovereignty and national security. Our foreign assistance programming is aligned to support our strategic priorities."

Meanwhile, members of Congress have not remained silent. During private briefings this month, lawmakers expressed significant concern over both the list of potential recipients and the administration’s plan to award no-bid or limited-bid grants, according to officials familiar with the closed-door meetings. Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, issued a strong rebuke. She asserted that Congress expects the State Department "to invest resources to advance human rights, democratic institutions, civil society, freedom of expression and worker rights" and unequivocally labeled the proposals as "an appalling departure from that practice and an affront to our democratic allies." Senator Shaheen concluded by directly accusing the administration: "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."

V. Implications: Eroding Trust, Undermining Diplomacy, and Reshaping U.S. Global Role

The alleged redirection of State Department human rights funding carries profound implications that extend far beyond the specific grants in question. This shift risks eroding trust in American foreign policy, undermining diplomatic efforts, and fundamentally reshaping the United States’ role as a global advocate for universal human rights.

Firstly, the impact on traditional human rights advocacy is severe. By diverting substantial resources from critical areas of need – such as supporting victims of torture, documenting atrocities in oppressive regimes, and protecting marginalized communities – the administration is effectively weakening the global human rights infrastructure. Organizations that have relied on U.S. funding for decades to perform vital, often dangerous, work may find themselves without support, leaving vulnerable populations even more exposed to abuses.

Secondly, the accusations of prioritizing political ideology over established expertise and universal principles could severely damage U.S. credibility on the international stage. When the U.S. is perceived as supporting controversial, nationalist, or anti-democratic groups, especially in allied countries, it undermines its moral authority to criticize human rights abuses elsewhere. This could be seen as an abandonment of its long-standing commitment to human rights, reducing its influence and making it harder to rally international support for genuine human rights causes.

Thirdly, weakening democratic norms and processes within the State Department sets a dangerous precedent. Bypassing established open bidding procedures and expert review panels, as alleged, increases the risk of waste, fraud, and abuse. It substitutes transparent, merit-based decision-making with opaque political appointments, inviting cronyism and undermining the integrity of federal grant programs. As one former staffer noted, such practices constitute "not good governance," signaling a decline in accountability and transparency.

Fourthly, these actions could lead to strained international relations, particularly with democratic allies in Europe. The U.S. funding of groups perceived as divisive or extremist, or efforts to influence legislative processes in allied nations, could be seen as unwelcome interference in sovereign affairs. This could foster resentment, complicate diplomatic cooperation on other critical issues, and create a perception that the U.S. is seeking to destabilize rather than strengthen its alliances.

Internally, the changes have had a palpable effect on State Department morale. The "skeleton crew" left within DRL, tasked with removing "trigger words" and feeling pressured to serve a political agenda rather than universal principles, experiences a profound sense of disillusionment. This erosion of professional integrity and purpose could lead to a brain drain of experienced diplomats and human rights experts, further weakening the bureau’s capacity to fulfill its traditional mandate.

Finally, the shift raises fundamental questions about the future of DRL and America’s geopolitical role. If the bureau’s mission is fundamentally reoriented towards promoting specific cultural or political ideologies rather than universal human rights, it signals a broader retreat from multilateralism and a move towards a more nationalistic, ideologically driven foreign policy. This could isolate the U.S. from its traditional partners and diminish its capacity to act as a global leader in advocating for human dignity and democratic governance. The current administration’s actions within the DRL bureau suggest a concerted effort to align foreign assistance programming with its strategic priorities, which appear to include combating perceived "cancel culture," promoting a "Judeo-Christian civilization" narrative, and addressing highly politicized, often unsubstantiated, claims of persecution against specific demographics. This represents a significant and potentially lasting redefinition of American engagement with global human rights.