How Democrats Leveraged NGOs to Bypass Voters and Undermine Democracy

I often find dark humor in the absurdities of language: “Jumbo shrimp,” “government ethics,” and “unbiased news media.”

One of the most significant examples of deceptive nomenclature in our society is “Non-governmental organizations.” Many people have long viewed these entities as noble, global counterparts to domestic charities.

We envisioned them as altruistic organizations founded by individuals genuinely invested in positive causes—be it environmental preservation, aiding the impoverished, supporting children, or advocating for freedom.

We imagined these NGOs raising funds, assisting those in need, issuing press releases, and engaging in various private initiatives to advance their missions.

We assumed these organizations weren’t government entities—the very name indicates otherwise—believing them to be a type of private charity whose good intentions warranted our trust.

Perhaps a few NGOs do function as intended.

However, recent findings, prompted in part by investigations from the Department of Government Efficiency, have revealed that many so-called “non-governmental” groups actually serve as fronts for governmental actions that would be controversial if implemented directly by Washington.

For instance, the border crisis in America was significantly funded by Joe Biden’s administration, which allocated substantial sums as grants to various NGOs that taught migrants how to reach the United States and claim asylum upon their arrival.

These NGOs assisted illegal immigrants with expenses during their journey and offered over $22 billion in support, including funds for vehicles, housing loans, and business startups once they arrived.

This utilized US taxpayer money, channeled through “independent” organizations that promoted objectives contrary to US law but aligned with the Biden administration’s policy aims.

During Donald Trump’s presidency, this financial aid ceased, and, predictably, the influx of illegal immigrants also declined.

Furthermore, the rather sudden global enthusiasm for “trans rights” and fresh concepts regarding gender appears to have been mainly funded by the US government via USAID grants.

Federally funded NGOs invested millions in initiatives ranging from a transgender opera in Colombia to a campaign supporting “LGBTQ identity in the Caribbean,” and even an LGBTQ community center in Bratislava, Slovakia.

As data analyst Jennica Pounds (“DataRepublican” on X) stated, “In recent months, we’ve come to a realization that should have hit home harder: NGOs weren’t merely adjuncts to the government.”

They were instruments of government, described by Pounds as “a parallel government,” engaging in actions that bureaucrats in Washington knew they couldn’t easily pursue themselves.

It’s surprising that we are so astonished by this ongoing situation.

The absence of accountability has rendered NGOs an ideal vehicle for transferring funds to Washington insiders.

It has proven to be a lucrative cycle: Politicians allocate funding to agencies; these agencies distribute grants to NGOs; and NGOs hire politicians’ spouses and family members—sometimes even the politicians themselves after their terms end.

For instance, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) approved $14.2 million for Ocean Conservancy since 2008, as reported by Fox News, while this NGO earmarked $2.7 million for consulting work for his wife, Sandra Whitehouse, and her firm.

It’s no surprise that the Washington establishment reacted strongly when Trump and DOGE began to cut off such funding.

Moreover, it was noteworthy to witness how many NGOs quickly wound down their operations when Trump shuttered USAID’s

An NGO reliant on government funding is hardly “non-governmental.”

This trend is part of a global pattern.

Most developed nations, at least nominally, are democracies—but nearly all have found ways to ensure that voters remain largely uninformed and without substantial influence over how their money is utilized.

The bureaucracy, described as a “headless fourth branch of government” since the 1930s, operates independently of any real political oversight, making most critical decisions.

Taxpayer funds are distributed through extensive omnibus bills that obscure scrutiny and hinder genuine control over expenditures.

Additionally, much of the money goes to NGOs and domestic nonprofits that utilize it in opaque and often untraceable manners, preventing voters from understanding or objecting to the use of their contributions.

The ongoing federal spending investigation by DOGE has unveiled these issues.

However, addressing these matters will require significant political resolve.

Implementing substantial cuts to federal spending in general is an essential first measure: Republicans currently negotiating a budget bill in Congress must adhere firmly to that commitment.

Moreover, they should strive to drastically limit—if not entirely prohibit—federal grants to private entities, at the very least necessitating stringent audits of each grant made.

Given our newfound understanding of how our funds have been mismanaged, business as usual is no longer acceptable.

Glenn Harlan Reynolds is a professor of law at the University of Tennessee and the founder of the InstaPundit.com blog.