US to slash nearly all funding for overseas pro-democracy initiatives: Report
The move would cut approximately 80 percent of programmes that sit under the Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labour (DRL), except for two programmes that operate in China and Yemen. The State Department oversees the DRL.
The overhaul was reportedly outlined in a foreign assistance review produced by the Office of Management and Budget and would impact 391 active grants. The review was seen by three State Department officials, who were sourced by The Guardian.
Such programmes fund pro-democracy activists or communities overseas in places like Cuba and Venezuela, with little information on these initiatives available, as the State Department fears it will put involved individuals in danger.
According to the State Department website, DRL was created in 1977 to 'help advance individual liberty and democratic freedoms around the world' and supports people who wish 'to live in freedom and under democratic governments as a means of combating terrorism and the spread of authoritarianism'.
New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch
Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters
The report went on to say that a new senior adviser to DRL recommended using funds earmarked by Congress to cover key administration projects, such as the resettlement of White South African refugees to the US, and to support the legal defence of right-wing French politician Marine Le Pen. It is currently unclear whether DRL will follow the recommendations.
The senior adviser providing the recommendations, as outlined in a DRL white paper, is a recent college graduate named Samuel Samson, according to the report. Samson is one of a number of young people to rise under the Trump administration, and his recommendations reflect a change in how the US is approaching foreign intervention.
Samson recently wrote a controversial post on the State Department's Substack page, titled 'The Need for Civilizational Allies in Europe', in which he criticises Europe for having 'developed into a hotbed of digital censorship, mass migration, restrictions on religious freedom and numerous other assaults on democratic self-governance'.
State Department cuts
In April, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced he was restructuring the State Department by cutting jobs and scaling back human rights offices.
"The Department is bloated, bureaucratic and unable to perform its essential diplomatic mission in this new era of great-power competition," Rubio said in a statement, referring to the US rivalry with China.
Middle East activists unable to relocate and survive after Trump's USAID cuts Read More »
"The sprawling bureaucracy created a system more beholden to radical political ideology than advancing America's core national interests."
One key change will be the elimination of a division in charge of "civilian security, democracy and human rights", the statement went on to say.
It will be replaced by a new office of "coordination for foreign assistance and humanitarian affairs" that will absorb the functions of the US Agency for International Development (USAID). The agency was gutted by the newly minted Department of Government Efficiency at the start of the Trump administration. The cuts at USAID eliminated more than 80 percent of programmes.
The new office will oversee a bureau on democracy, human rights and religious freedom - a shift from the current democracy, human rights and labour bureau, which included advocacy for workers' rights overseas.
In an opinion piece, Rubio aired grievances about previous work within the bureau, including its unsuccessful internal push to restrict weapons sales to Israel on human rights grounds.
"The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor became a platform for left-wing activists to wage vendettas against 'anti-woke' leaders in nations such as Poland, Hungary and Brazil, and to transform their hatred of Israel into concrete policies such as arms embargoes," he wrote in the piece on Substack.
Almost 3,400 employees are set to be laid off at any time now.
Withering US soft power
Since President Donald Trump took office, he has been eroding the traditional pillars of American diplomacy and soft power worldwide.
Middle East Eye reported on the impact of the initial USAID cuts on 1.8 million Sudanese experiencing famine. Food boxes sent by the US were rotting in warehouses because the agency no longer provided the necessary funds for actual distribution.
Since 1946, the Middle East and North Africa have been the biggest recipients of US financial assistance. Between April 2023 and April 2024, Congress appropriated approximately $9bn for the region.
While most of the aid went towards military assistance, a fraction was funnelled into democracy programmes via USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy, a quasi-autonomous agency funded largely by the US Congress.
MEE reported in May that the Trump cuts to USAID have already impacted human rights defenders in the region who were reliant on the small grants to relocate and resettle abroad.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Khaleej Times
an hour ago
- Khaleej Times
Israel military says it approved plan for new attacks in Gaza
The Israeli military said Wednesday it had approved the "framework" for a new offensive in the Gaza Strip, days after the security cabinet called for the seizure of Gaza City. Armed forces chief Lieutenant General Eyal Zamir "approved the main framework for the IDF's operational plan in the Gaza Strip", a statement released by the army said. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government has not provided a precise timetable for when Israeli troops will enter the territory's largest city, where thousands have taken refuge after fleeing previous offensives. Gaza's civil defence agency said Israeli air strikes on Gaza City have intensified in recent days, with the residential neighbourhoods of Zeitoun and Sabra hit "with very heavy air strikes targeting civilian homes, possibly including high-rise buildings". News of the military's approval of the plan comes hours after Hamas said a senior delegation had arrived in Cairo for "preliminary talks" with Egyptian officials on a temporary truce. The Netanyahu government's plans to expand the Gaza war after more than 22 months of fighting have sparked an international outcry as well as domestic opposition. UN-backed experts have warned of widespread famine unfolding in the territory, where Israel has drastically curtailed the amount of humanitarian aid it allows in. Hamas's October 2023 attack which triggered the war resulted in the deaths of 1,219 people, according to an AFP tally based on official figures. Israel's brutal bombardment has killed at least 61,599 Palestinians.
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Israel pressures ceasefire talks with threat to deport Gazans to countries like South Sudan
Israel is pressuring Gaza ceasefire talks by forcing residents to 'leave' and floating the idea of relocating them to African countries such as South Sudan, Palestinian political sources have said. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu repeated that his army would 'allow' Palestinians to leave Gaza. At the same time, AP reported that Israel is in talks with South Sudan to host Gazans. The reports came days after Israel announced plans to reoccupy Gaza, amid renewed efforts to secure a ceasefire in the devastated territory, where Israeli forces have killed more than 61,000 Palestinians since October 2023. 'There are desperate attempts to improve Israel's negotiating terms,' one of the Palestinian political sources told The National on Wednesday. 'What Netanyahu is doing is an attempt to show he is taking action amid his internal crisis: what to do with the Gaza war,' said the official, a former minister. Calls to forcibly resettle Palestinians from Gaza have previously drawn widespread condemnation, especially from Arab countries, who reject the idea of "emptying" Gaza, as previously suggested by US President Donald Trump. Mr Netanyahu told a televised interview that 'Israel will give them the opportunity to leave," adding that he felt he was on a 'historic and spiritual mission,' and was 'very' attached to the vision of a Greater Israel, which includes parts of Jordan and Egypt. Pressure tactic AP previously reported that Israel and the US approached Sudan, Somalia, and the breakaway Somali region of Somaliland with similar resettlement proposals. The status of those talks is unclear. On Wednesday, Israeli media reported that Deputy Foreign Minister Sharren Haskel would hold a series of meetings in South Sudan, the first official visit to the East African country by an Israeli government representative. 'Israel and Netanyahu are in crisis, and global shifts are exerting significant pressure on them. They need desperate measures and desperate propaganda to push their way through,' said a Palestinian source. Last week, Israel's cabinet approved Mr Netanyahu's plans to occupy Gaza city in the north and displace half of the population by forcing them south. Sources told The National that invading the city would mark the start of reoccupying the entire territory, 20 years after Israel's so-called 'disengagement' from Gaza. The Israeli military said on Wednesday it had approved the "framework" for a new assault. Many see this as another pressure tactic in ceasefire negotiations, which Israel wants to avoid tying to an obligation to end the war and withdraw from Gaza, a condition Hamas insists on. 'The Israeli army is present throughout Gaza, and talk of a new offensive is an Israeli pressure tactic. It will cost them many men and much money. The chances of a battle are slim,' the former minister said.
Middle East Eye
an hour ago
- Middle East Eye
Why Muslim charities face disproportionate scrutiny in the UK
Two UK-based charities, the Kasner Charitable Trust and UK Toremet, collectively donated around £5.7 million ($7.7m) between 2017 and 2021 to a religious school in Susya, an Israeli settlement in the occupied West Bank, the Guardian recently revealed. The settlement is considered illegal under international law and the UK's own foreign policy stance. The funding significantly contributed to the expansion of the Bnei Akiva yeshiva high school, increasing student enrolment and establishing it as a core institution in the Susya settlement. This case has drawn considerable criticism from political figures and human rights campaigners, who argue that charitable status should not extend to organisations funnelling money into settlements that might undermine international law. Even more shocking is that this entire controversial process was overseen by the UK charity regulator. The Charity Commission authorised these donations on the grounds that a donation to a school located in the occupied territories would, in principle, qualify as a grant for the advancement of education and therefore be considered a 'legitimate' charitable activity. The regulator clarified that a charity operating within the occupied Palestinian territories does not, in itself, constitute a criminal offence or a breach of charity law. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters These settlements are illegal under international law, and the UK government officially recognises them as such. Yet the charity regulator approved the donations, justifying them on educational grounds - something a legal review could appropriately address. In the meantime, this episode reifies concerns and accusations frequently levelled at the regulator's impartiality, particularly in relation to Muslim charities. Stricter oversight The charity regulator's treatment of the two aforementioned charities stands in stark contrast to its handling of the Islamic Centre of England (Icel), a Shia Muslim centre in West London. The centre is religiously and culturally aligned with the Iranian diaspora living in the Maida Vale district, and attended by Shia from various national backgrounds. The Charity Commission issued a warning to Icel in 2020, after a group of protesters held a vigil for Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, who had been killed in a US drone strike. Soleimani was on the UK's designated sanctions list. In November 2022, the charity regulator launched a formal statutory inquiry into the centre, citing major governance concerns over issues such as the vigil, the charity's online content and trustees' alleged conflicts of interest. The inquiry was formally concluded in May 2025, with the regulator requiring Icel trustees to implement stricter oversight of speakers, religious services, events and online content. There is a general impression among those who followed Icel's activities that it was targeted because of its critical stance on the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands. While the charity regulator did not explicitly acknowledge this, the right-wing media frequently portrays Icel as the Iranian government's 'nerve centre', largely due to its connection with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. This disparity reveals a deeper issue: the Charity Commission's apparent double standards, particularly in its treatment of Muslim organisations A forthcoming academic report titled 'The Islamic Centre of England: Understanding its Role within Muslim Communities across Britain' finds that Icel is financially independent, with no ties to Iranian funding, and plays a positive role in supporting local Muslim communities. The report acknowledges the connection between the resident imam of Icel and Khamenei, but not as a political agent - instead, as a spiritual guide for local Shia communities. The report, by professors Oliver Scharbrodt (Lund University) and Alison Scott-Baumann (Soas), highlights how strict restrictions from the UK charity regulator 'may inadvertently limit the rights of Muslims to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly'. Even if one accepts the Charity Commission's rationale for warning Icel over its commemoration of Soleimani, a key question remains: why is it deemed legitimate to fund projects in illegal settlements - condemned by both the UN and the UK - that ultimately expand and entrench those settlements, an act which the UK government itself opposes and condemns? This disparity reveals a deeper issue: the Charity Commission's apparent double standards, particularly in its treatment of Muslim organisations. Muslim organisations have long alleged that the charity regulator holds a structural bias against them. While pro-Israel charities' funding activities in illegal settlements are approved, Muslim charities are routinely subjected to exceptional levels of scrutiny, often based on vague or politicised concerns. Silencing solidarity Human Aid UK, a British Muslim charity, was the subject of a two-year investigation by the Charity Commission after police detained its staff in 2019 and seized funds. Although the funds were returned months later and no wrongdoing was found, the regulator continued its inquiry, prompting Human Aid UK to accuse it of bias against Muslim charities and of acting as an 'extension of police and security services' harassment policy'. Between April 2012 and November 2014, more than a quarter of the Charity Commission's statutory inquiries - 20 out of 76 - focused on Muslim charities, according to the Guardian, whose analysis included all investigations that remained open at the end of the given timeframe. Many of these probes involved organisations operating mosques, providing humanitarian aid, or working in Syria. A 2017 academic article in the ReOrient journal asserted that the Charity Commission's evolving structure and practices disproportionately affect Muslim charities. The article noted that while Muslim organisations make up only 1.21 percent of the sector, they accounted for 38 percent of all disclosed statutory investigations between January 2013 and April 2014, raising serious concerns about institutionalised bias. Amid pressure from the Charity Commission, Icel administrators often asked organisers to avoid discussing Israel's war on Gaza or openly showing solidarity with Palestinians, fearing that such acts could jeopardise the charity's legal status. The normalising of Islamophobia in UK public life is fuelling hate and violence Read More » Similar concerns have been raised by the Muslim Council of Britain, the country's largest Muslim umbrella body, which alleges that the charity regulator takes a harsh line on Muslim charities that support Palestine. This has fuelled accusations that the Charity Commission is increasingly becoming a tool to silence Muslim charities and prevent them from expressing solidarity with the victims of Israel's war crimes. The charity regulator is meant to be independent and 'free from the influence of others'. But its actions, based on the aforementioned examples, appear to be influenced by government foreign policy. The differential treatment of charities linked to Iran or other Muslim countries, and those connected to Israel, reflects the UK government's geopolitical stance - hostile to one, favourable to the other. This apparent political influence undermines public trust and risks complicity. The Charity Commission cannot claim to uphold charitable integrity while selectively applying its principles, particularly where Muslim charities are involved. In response to questions from Middle East Eye, the Charity Commission stated: 'The Commission rejects any allegation of bias. All concerns are assessed fairly and consistently against the legal framework,' and reiterated that 'we are independent of Government'. The Charity Commission did not address why Muslim charities were disproportionately subjected to its statutory investigations, as highlighted in the ReOrient study. The commission added that it does not 'fetter the freedom of may express views publicly about matters of conscience or religion, including in relation to the conflict in the Middle East, so long as these views advance the charity's purposes and are demonstrably in the charity's best interests.' It noted that speeches, sermons or other communications should not be inflammatory or divisive. With regards to the two charities linked to Israeli settlements, the commission said: 'There is a possibility that, in remitting funds to such organisations, UK Toremet is at risk of committing a criminal offence in England and Wales by breaching the Geneva Convention Act 1957. We issued the charity's trustees with statutory guidance and an action plan, which included specific reference to the importance of compliance with the Geneva Conventions Act 1957.' But if the Charity Commission is to rebuild trust with British Muslim communities and demonstrate that it upholds fairness for all, it must urgently commission an independent review of its practices to ensure genuine equality and impartiality across all faith-based charities. The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.
