Trump’s federal grant freeze aimed at stopping foreign, domestic ‘dark money’ in policy, politics

For a decade, progressives have complained about “dark money” and the influence it gives a small number of wealthy people in controlling electoral politics.

But research developed by The Lion…

For a decade, progressives have complained about “dark money” and the influence it gives a small number of wealthy people in controlling electoral politics.

But research developed by The Lion shows that progressives have used the federal government as one of the largest ‘dark money’ pools, funding progressive causes through taxpayer-funded grants and donations at home and abroad.

The aim of these federal grants and donations is not to influence elections directly, but to influence the public perception of American (and foreign) citizens on issues ranging from censorship, COVID-19, climate change, diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) to wealth redistribution, gun control, trade and illegal immigration. 

Stopping that improper financial influence on politics was the impetus behind the freeze of federal grant funding ordered by Trump last week, an order subsequently suspended to make more surgical cuts of federal spending on grants. 

Previously, The Lion reported on the subversion of well-known non-profit names such as the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) by billionaire progressives who have tried to push the organizations farther to the left to control public perceptions. 

The latest research shows, however, that money is also pushed out to social welfare organizations – not just by individual billionaires, but also by the trillionaire federal government – in order to control public opinion for the benefit of progressives. 

In 2023, for example, the Atlantic Council received more than $1 million in grant funding from U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and U.S. Department of State (State) along with lesser amounts from the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE), and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). 

With such money, the Council sponsored programs that “drove the conversations at major climate conferences throughout the year, including New York Climate Week, CERAWeek, London Climate Action Week, and the COP29 climate change conference in Baku, Azerbaijan,” according to the Council’s website highlighting its top projects of the year. 

Other projects of the Council include DEI initiatives, a “disinformation” center, which includes calls for tight controls on social media, and even election pointers to Democrats about how to beat Trump in 2020. 

“With this level of middle-class angst,” wrote two Atlantic Council experts in February 2020, “Democrats should be able to take Trump to the cleaners, debunking his claim of a better life for everyone, while avoiding to scare [sic] off moderates and independents with budget-busting solutions.”  

(Note: State, the DoE, the U.S. Marine Corps, the U.S. Mission to NATO, and NATO Defense College Foundation each made contributions to the Atlantic Council in 2019, which helped support articles such as the one just cited.) 

However, the Atlantic Council’s website reveals it is not a bipartisan player on policy or politics.     

Indeed, as the fracas last week over USAID shows, the grant-making of the Biden White House never aimed at being bipartisan.  

The administration sent over $38 billion to foreign organizations to support political objectives that most Americans voted against in November, such as DEI, social justice, abortion access and climate change.  

“Unfortunately, U.S. foreign aid has become an appendage of one political party seeking to advance its radical global agenda of ideological indoctrination while simultaneously expanding a domestic political patronage system,” wrote Max Primorac and James Roberts, both foreign policy experts at Heritage. “That is the definition of corruption.” 

The problems are domestic, too. 

During the Biden administration, for example, an Obama-era law, Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), was used to pay for grants to introduce progressive education reform rather than its intended purpose, to help failing schools. 

The federal money was used to reduce merit-based grading, introduce progressive curricula online (including materials from SPLC and Human Rights Watch) to K-12 schools, support critical race theory in elementary schools, along with the establishment of social, emotional learning. 

Progressive curriculum providers, such as Newsela, even instructed schools on how to apply for ESSA grants to introduce more progressive materials. 

In 2022, ESSA grants hit $17 billion for ostensibly “disadvantaged” students, even as poorer kids’ test scores continued their nationwide plunge from which they have yet to recover. 

Partisan grants aren’t just limited to K-12 education.  

The Lion recently reported on DEI efforts at Missouri State University and noted that two of its DEI experts are funded by federal grants, one grant by the Department of Homeland Security and another grant from the Department of Justice. 

Some federal grants also go to organizations that support liberal political candidates. 

Fox News reported in 2017 that at least $5 million in USAID money went to progressive billionaire George Soros’ Open Society Foundations. 

Indeed, records from the White House also show that Samantha Power, current administrator for USAID met with “Soros’ Open Society Foundations, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and other groups that typically donate to liberal candidates and causes,” said the Washington Examiner.  

Soros is one of the largest donors, if not the largest donor, to the Sixteen Thirty Fund, which spent $400 million to topple Trump in 2020, according to NBC News.   

Its 2023 990 IRS form lists 18 secret donors with contributions over $1 million, with the top donor pitching in $50.45 million. 

It also has a list of over 200 grants that Sixteen Thirty made to progressive social welfare and advocacy groups, such as “The Black Male Voter Project,” “Climate Power,” and “Fair Share Action.” 

For decades Soros has openly partnered with the federal government in social welfare donations despite the fact he has been one of the biggest political donors to leftist candidates during that period. 

“This organization operates within an ‘aid industrial complex’ that encourages a pay-to-play system, diverting much-needed resources from the needy to instead serve as a vehicle for implementing their radical social policies or propping up oppressive regimes,” Rep. Michael Cloud, R-Texas, told the National Review about USAID in June 2024. 

Today, his comments could apply to a broad range of federal grants issued during the Biden administration, both foreign and domestic.