Partisan clash erupts over federal grants to 'leftist' nonprofits
WASHINGTON, July 15 (UPIU) -- Republican lawmakers alleged Tuesday that Democratic leaders have funneled hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars to nonprofit organizations run by political allies, advancing what they called a "radical agenda" without public accountability.
Democrats fired back, calling the hearing a partisan distraction aimed at vilifying groups that serve vulnerable communities.
The House Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight's hearing, titled "How Leftist Nonprofit Networks Exploit Federal Tax Dollars to Advance a Radical Agenda," drew sharp partisan lines.
The subcommittee chair, Chair Rep. Jefferson Van Drew, R-N.J., said nonprofits that receive federal funds through agencies like USAID and the Justice Department are enacting policies Americans haven't voted for, accusing Democratic leaders of "abuse of power."
Related Bill would allow charitable nonprofits to endorse candidates
Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, passionately disagreed, arguing the hearing was designed to advance President Donald Trump's political agenda, while ignoring pressing civil rights and public safety issues.
"This committee is spending its time holding a hearing with a title that sounds like it was ripped from a conspiracy law," Crockett said.
Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, echoed the committee chair's concerns, calling several taxpayer-funded initiatives under the Biden administration "stupid," including spending on public broadcasting, diversity, equity and inclusion programs, and federal education grants.
Democrats, however, argued that the hearing lacked substance and accountability. Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., criticized the proceeding as a "waste of time," as it focused on grievances rather than governance, and that the committee did not call a single official from any of the groups allegedly advancing a radical agenda.
"If our motto is going to be finger-pointing for losers, then this hearing is for losers," Raskin said.
Hen added that Republicans have been failing to address systemic challenges like gun violence and climate change, and that none of the groups mentioned has been involved in illegal actions, but instead the Republicans simply do not like what certain groups are doing.
For example, Raskin cited the mass firings of Justice Department attorneys who prosecuted Americans for their involvement in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
"Due process is what separates our freedoms from arbitrary state power," he said.
As the hearing continued, Raskin was the first to bring the Jeffrey Epstein files into the conversation, questioning the Trump administration's sudden lack of commitment to transparency by not releasing the information.
"Remember that they said this would be the most transparent administration in the United States," he said.
Witnesses invited by Republican lawmakers argued that taxpayer dollars are being funneled into politically motivated organizations that push divisive agendas.
Tyler O'Neil, senior editor at The Daily Signal, singled out a $2 million grant to the nonprofit Vera Institute of Justice for immigration-related services, calling it part of a broader "immigration industrial complex."
O'Neill also criticized federal support for the ACLU and the AFL-CIO, arguing that union dues from federal employees were indirectly subsidizing left-leaning political causes.
Insha Rahman, vice president of advocacy and partnerships at the Vera Institute, told UPI, "Today's congressional hearing was a distraction from the honest debate the American public deserves about the solutions that work to prevent crime, respond to crisis, and stop violence.
"The Department of Justice's abrupt and illegal terminations of $820 million in grant funding to hundreds of organizations, including Vera, jeopardizes programs and services across the country -- including in suburban and rural jurisdictions -- that save lives and make communities safer."
Scott Walter, president of the Capital Research Center, attempted to redirect the conversation. He said that while he personally supports conservative organizations, like the Heritage Foundation, he would oppose federal funding for any ideologically driven group -- including those with whom he agrees.
He argued that taxpayer dollars should only go to feeding the hungry and clothing the poor -- actions he associated as biblically related good doings -- but not socially controversial issues.
Mike Gonzalez, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation and contributor to the conservative blueprint Project 2025, testified in a personal capacity and criticized USAID's funding decisions under Ambassador Samantha Power, suggesting it began the pathway for the agency to prioritize progressive global initiatives over national interest.
Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., and Gonzalez got into an escalated exchange when Gonzalez confronted Democrats about so-called "dark money" -- where the source is not disclosed to the public -- for groups tied to liberal causes.
Johnson fired back, pointing to the Heritage Foundation's own opaque funding sources and ties to conservative megadonors like billionaire Charles Koch.
A last minute addition to the witness list was Luis CdeBaca, a former U.S. ambassador and anti-trafficking expert. CdeBaca defended the work of civil society organizations, arguing that they provide critical services to vulnerable populations -- often filling gaps left by under-resourced government programs.
He warned against politicizing federal grantmaking, which he said should be based on impact, not ideology.
Rahman reacted similarly to Vera's work, defending that "The DOJ grants Vera received supported our evidence-based work with correctional staff across the country to improve prison operations, training, and culture for both officers and people incarcerated; expand access to counseling and treatment for people in mental health crisis; and support police and law enforcement to better serve deaf survivors of domestic violence."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
24 minutes ago
- Axios
Thune stuck between Trump's demands, members' recess plans
Senate Majority Leader John Thune is stuck between the public, painful demands from President Trump to cancel the August recess and the pleas of members to let them go home. Why it matters: For senators, the summer recess is next to holy. For the president, confirming his nominees is simply more important. "We're thinking about it," Thune told Axios on Monday about Trump's call to cancel all — or part — of the August break. "We want to get as many noms through the pipeline as we can," he said. But still, August is August. "People are accustomed to going back," Thune said. "This is the time of year when they go back and interact with their constituents and talk about some of the things that we've gotten done." "I do not believe we need to cancel the August recess," Sen. Shelley Moore Capito ( said Monday. "Please wipe that suggestion off of your DNA." Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) vehemently defended the extended break: "You get us for the rest of the year back here, but there's got to be some time when we can actually be addressing the needs of our constituents back home." Driving the news: After Trump's weekend post on Truth Social, leadership has made clear to senators that fiddling with the August recess is on the table. Thune has talked to Trump about the president's goals and told reporters he met with the president on Monday. The intrigue: If Thune moves forward with August votes, there is always the risk of attendance challenges. The Senate requires a minimum of 51 senators for a quorum— and it only takes one Democrat to force a quorum call. With just a three-seat margin, Republicans are "only as strong as our four weakest links," as one senior aide put it. What we're hearing: The Senate is buzzing about what Thune will do, according to conversations with senators and staffers. Senators are likely to put on a brave face and say publicly that they are willing to do whatever it takes to accomplish Trump's agenda. But trust us, both sides want to go home. It's more than a vacation from D.C.: Many pack their schedules with official international travel and fundraisers. They also know they need to sell Trump's "big, beautiful bill" to constituents who aren't convinced of its merits. Zoom in: The Senate's schedule has already been relatively brutal — fewer and shorter recess weeks than usual, late-night votes, occasional working Fridays, four all-nighter vote-a-ramas, and 94 confirmed administration officials. With Republicans relying on party-line votes to move forward, Democrats' only leverage has been to make progress as miserable as possible. Trump is "the first president in history that hasn't had a nom adopted by this point in his presidency either by unanimous consent or voice — not a single one," Thune told reporters on Monday. What we're watching: A threat of canceling August recess could also be a negotiation tool to convince Democrats to give them a break on lower-level nominees who ordinarily would have an easier time getting confirmed.
Axios
24 minutes ago
- Axios
"I hate it": Redistricting arms race gives lawmakers heartburn
House members are watching with growing discomfort as Democrats in California and other blue states consider joining Texas Republicans in pursuing mid-decade redistricting to gain an advantage in the 2026 midterms. Why it matters: It threatens, as one Democratic lawmaker put it, a "race to the bottom" that will encourage both sides to test the limits of gerrymandering and further fan the partisan flames engulfing the country. But with President Trump bearing down on Texas Republicans to change their maps and California Democrats wanting to respond in political self-defense, members of both parties feel they have little choice. Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) told Axios of his state's possible redistricting: "How I feel is terribly conflicted. I hate it. I really worry about a race to the bottom on something that I consider pretty despicable." "But I understand why the governor and others are considering it. The only reason it would even be possible is what Texas and others are doing just stinks so badly that it's pissing people in California off." State of play: Texas Republicans began a special session Monday, which Gov. Greg Abbott said would include an attempt to redraw the state's U.S. House districts. Redistricting is normally only done after the decennial census — most recently in 2020 — or in response to a court order. However, Trump has put pressure on Republicans to undertake the unusual effort in the hopes of creating as many as five new GOP-leaning seats. Republicans in Ohio are also looking to redraw districts to try to unseat several Democrats. In response, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, has threatened to try to revisit his state's districts to create more Democratic-leaning seats. What we're hearing: Democrats may not stop at California, and are eyeing other blue states, including New York, New Jersey, Minnesota and Washington, senior House Democrats told Axios. Democrats are "definitely looking into what's going on and trying to level the playing field," said one House Democrat. "It's crazy what's happening in Texas." House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) told reporters Thursday: "It's all options on the table at this moment." Even though California has a constitutionally mandated independent redistricting commission, several House Democrats from the state told Axios they are confident Newsom could find a legal pathway. What they're saying: While lawmakers have largely stuck by their parties' plans as a necessary evil in an increasingly existential political environment, others expressed trepidation at the escalating brinksmanship. "We're only supposed to be redistricting every 10 years," said Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.). "At some point, the partisanship gets too much. ... I just think it goes too far." A House Democrat from California, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told Axios: "It's a difficult conversation, because we're literally doing it to gerrymander — everything that we stood against, and the reason we created the independent redistricting commission." "If we do it," the lawmaker added, "let's be very upfront and transparent about it. Don't leave it to an independent commission. Everybody knows what we're doing." Yes, but: Other relative moderates in both parties said they are more than comfortable with mid-decade redistricting, pointing to the other side's actions as justification. "It's not only Texas," Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-Texas), whose own seat could be threatened by the redistricting plan, said, noting Newsom's comments. Gonzales added that Trump is a "political genius" and that "if we can pull off squeezing five more seats out of Texas, that's a game changer." Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.) said if Republicans are "going to stoop to midterm redistricting to politically advantage the party, I think it's certainly something that should be on the table." The bottom line: Even Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine), an arch-centrist who represents the reddest district of any House Democrat, declined to condemn potential redistricting in California — but he did warn Republicans against what is known as a dummymander.
Axios
24 minutes ago
- Axios
Senate Democrats face crossroads in anti-Trump strategy
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) will consult with his caucus Tuesday before deciding whether Democrats will go scorched earth against their Republican colleagues during this year's appropriations process. Why it matters: Top Democrats have hinted the party may not play ball with the GOP on the funding proceedings, risking a government shutdown at the end of September. It would be a defiant act of revenge for a minority party that's seething with anger over everything from reconciliation to rescissions. But Democrats have been reluctant to play the shutdown card in the past — and many are on record saying it's irresponsible. Zoom out: This week will present an early test case for this fall's appropriations showdown. GOP leaders plan to bring the MilCon-VA funding bill to the floor for a vote. They'll need Democratic support to move forward and at least seven Democratic votes to break a filibuster. The bill passed committee 26-3, and Schumer said Monday it has "significant reversals to DOGE's horrible cuts." The Senate version of the bill is a higher spending level than the House version, a plus for Democrats. It's possible Democrats support a procedural vote for the measure, under the pretense they aren't guaranteed to support its passage or further appropriations bills. Zoom in: Schumer didn't tip his hand during a speech on the Senate floor Monday. Instead, he unloaded on Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) and Republicans as being "obedient" to President Trump. "If Leader Thune wants to talk about bipartisanship, he should focus on keeping his side of the street clean first," Schumer said. Schumer last week warned Thune against pursuing additional rescission packages, saying the GOP would be risking a government shutdown. What we're hearing: Clear hints from the White House — and outright promises from House leadership — that they are planning more rescissions are further inflaming Senate Democrats. Trump's Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought raised the temperature last week when he suggested the government funding process should be "less bipartisan." Democrats were outraged by those comments and the attitude behind them — and they put their GOP colleagues on notice. "My Republican colleagues should understand that Russ Vought does not respect their constitutional power over federal spending," Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, said last week. The bottom line: Democrats are angry with how Trump and Thune have rolled them all year.
