If you ever wondered how unelected bureaucrats, ex-government officials, a mostly out-to-lunch Congress, and globalist corporate elites keep running U.S. foreign policy long after voters throw them out, look no further than the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), USAID, and the constellation of taxpayer-funded non-profits masquerading as independent civil society groups.
These organizations don’t just promote democracy; they run a shadow foreign policy machine, pushing political agendas beyond the reach of voters while bankrolling themselves with billions of taxpayer dollars. There is no clearer example of government capture than what has been exposed over the last few years.
The Poblete Dispatches is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
The so-called human rights industrial complex is currently an ecosystem of elected officials, non-profits, quasi-governmental organizations, and international bureaucracies, all feeding off the U.S. taxpayer’s trough. These groups operate as an unelected government inside our government, answering to no one except their self-perpetuating networks of influence. They dictate foreign policy, fund political movements, and even help orchestrate regime changes—all without the direct consent of the American people.
The corruption seems systemic, and if not, Congress must explain to the voters what has been happening in this space for decades. Congress creates some of these organizations, funds them, and then turns a blind eye as they operate with little oversight. Worse, some members of Congress sit on their boards while also controlling their budgets. This is not just a conflict of interest but an outright scandal that should be investigated, exposed, and, in some cases, ultimately dismantled. Just because things have been done this way since the Reagan era does not make them right today or the best way to carry out this mission.
The National Endowment for Democracy, for example, was established in 1983 under the Reagan administration and a Democrat-controlled Congress as a soft-power tool to mainly help counter Soviet influence. Rather than using direct CIA funding or overt State Department intervention, the general idea was that the NED would serve as a buffer, financing pro-democracy movements, civil society organizations, and opposition groups in countries vulnerable to communist expansion.
What began as a well-intentioned Cold War initiative has since metastasized into a multi-billion-dollar globalist operation that no longer serves American interests. Originally designed to promote democracy, it has far exceeded its congressional mandate, evolving into a foreign policy beachhead for U.S. government programs that erode American national sovereignty and the rule of law.
Some of these organizations seem to have also systematically targeted conservative and center-right governments, using soft power to undermine traditional values, attack the sanctity of life from conception to natural death, distort religious freedom, and chip away at private property rights—all under the guise of “democracy promotion” and, ironically, anti-corruption. There is a unique program right here in the Western Hemisphere in Guatemala that is the poster child of what these people were up to while some in Congress ignored the warning signs. Here are two posts on CICIG that you may want to read for context,
Rule of Law in Guatemala and the Constitutional Crisis (Jun. 24, 2020)
Judicial Crisis: Guatemalan Constitutional Crisis Part 2 (Sep. 29. 2020)
NED’s four main subgroups—the International Republican Institute (IRI), the National Democratic Institute (NDI), the Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE), and the Solidarity Center—act as channels for U.S. foreign aid, particularly for political and ideological projects. While IRI is supposed to represent conservative, pro-market values and NDI is associated with left-leaning international democracy movements, in practice, both organizations have become instruments of globalist interventionism, pushing regime change and social engineering under the pretense of promoting democracy.
These entities do not operate in isolation; they are deeply embedded within the foreign policy establishment, sustained by funding from the State Department, USAID, and other U.S. government sources. Yet, this taxpayer money does not return to the U.S. economy, nor does it produce tangible benefits for American citizens. Instead, it is funneled into overseas projects—training activists, financing opposition parties, and providing grants to media organizations aligning with Washington's globalist elite's preferred ideological and political narratives.
While some programs may yield political returns that can be leveraged in diplomatic negotiations or private enterprise, many do not. Yet, bureaucrats and policymakers continue to justify this unchecked spending by cloaking it in business-speak and technocratic jargon—ROI, impact indicators, and program benchmarks.
These buzzwords obscure the actual political utility of these initiatives, which often amount to little more than ideological activism disguised as diplomacy. When taxpayers hear about U.S.-funded condom exports, Sesame Street programming abroad, or the blatant cultural imperialism of promoting abortion in Christian-majority nations, the ROI argument collapses under the weight of its absurdity. No metric can justify policies prioritizing global social engineering over the interests and values of the American people.
Or worse, if the allegations turn out to be true, that this money and programming have been used to fuel a global migration crisis that has directly weakened U.S. national security and borders, resulting in the deaths of American citizens, then the situation escalates beyond mere government waste—it becomes a matter of national security and potential criminality.
Some of this sounds criminal, and if it is found that these entities were complicit in facilitating what amounts to human trafficking, the Department of Justice must launch a full investigation, prosecute those responsible, and hold bad actors to account. Congress must demand transparency, and if these taxpayer-funded NGOs are enabling the mass migration machine, they must be shut down immediately.
While NED, IRI, and NDI serve as the activist arms of the human rights industrial complex, there are two more entities that Congress needs to take a look at, including the U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP) and the Wilson Center, which function as its intellectual and policy justifications. These institutions are not independent research centers but extensions of the interventionist class. If you think this sounds like work that the State Department should be doing, your instincts would be correct, but I will touch on this topic another day.
N.B., these entities have started to change the splash screen on their websites. Look at these photos of the Wilson Center website in November after the election, and look at today’s front page. They are in survival mode. Congress needs to dig deep throughout the constellation.
Despite its name, USIP has actively justified and legitimized U.S. interventions, providing intellectual cover for endless foreign conflicts. Like NED, it is fully funded by the U.S. government and operates with a budget exceeding $50 million annually. Instead of promoting peace, USIP has backed failed nation-building efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Ukraine while pushing narratives that keep America entangled in foreign conflicts. Again, if you are a conservative or an America First Republican or Democrat, your views will be smothered in a place like USIP, and the same for the Wilson Center, a Cold War-era institution.
The Wilson Center, established in 1968, operates under the guise of scholarship but serves the same purpose. Its board includes former diplomats, globalist corporate executives, and think tank operatives who advocate for permanent U.S. engagement abroad, no matter the cost to American taxpayers.
By the way, it is also a “safe space” for failed political activists who we backed but failed to accomplish their tasks. The Wilson Center’s Latin America program is deeply involved in regime-change narratives, constantly advocating for intervention in Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua. And to what end? Cuba has been Communist since 1959, Venezuela has also been out of control since 2002, and Nicaragua is currently becoming another Cuba. These institutions work hand in hand with the NED and USAID machine, ensuring that interventionist policies remain entrenched regardless of who is elected to office.
What comes next? That’s the right question, and the answer is: a lot needs to be done. Congress must take a serious, hard look at this system—not just surface-level hearings or symbolic gestures, but real scrutiny that leads to real change. That means consulting independent experts and those with firsthand knowledge of how these programs operate, not former agency officials whose main priority is preserving the status quo or offering cosmetic “reforms” that allow the contracts to keep flowing. The time for half-measures is over. This system must be exposed, dismantled, and rebuilt to serve American interests—not the globalist agenda.
One of the most urgent and overlooked national security threats tied to the human rights industrial complex is how foreign governments manipulate U.S. policy through non-profits—especially in the areas of hostage diplomacy, human rights advocacy, and strategic influence. Certain regimes, particularly in the Middle East and China, have mastered the art of using American non-profits to launder their reputations and gain political leverage inside the United States.
Foreign governments must not be allowed to politically launder their reputations by using America’s non-profit system. Any 501(c)(3) non-profit receiving money from foreign governments should be strictly barred from engaging in political, legislative, or foreign policy advocacy. A 501(c)(3) non-profit should not engage in lobbying, and there are limits in law on how much lobbying they can do, but they lobby. In the case of NED, IRI, and NDI, current and former members of the House and Senate are sitting on their boards. How is that not a conflict?
Any U.S. non-profit receiving funding from a foreign government must disclose those funds publicly in real-time—not buried in tax filings but through a centralized, searchable database that allows oversight and scrutiny. This should include direct funding, grants, in-kind donations, and indirect financial support funneled through corporate or foundation intermediaries.
It is insane that U.S. taxpayers are effectively subsidizing foreign-funded organizations through tax-exempt status. If a non-profit receives foreign government money, it should lose its 501(c)(3) tax exemption and be reclassified as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). This may require law-making, but at a bare minimum, the Trump administration and Congress must explore foreign influence and money in these organizations.
Other potential action items that come to mind:
NED, IRI, and NDI should be defunded and operate as private organizations, not solely government-funded entities. Some of their funding must come from private sources, not just the federal government.
Frankly, at this juncture, I am skeptical these organizations are ready for change, and NED should be on the chopping block, but perhaps I can still be convinced there is a better way forward. The same goes for the others.
Explore moving as much as possible to the Department of State and auditing all State Department programs involved in foreign assistance and democracy building. Find an expert in that bureaucracy, identify what is redundant at that agency, and fix it so these programs fit better into that system.
Active members of Congress should be prohibited from serving on the boards of taxpayer-funded non-profit organizations that receive U.S. government funds. The boards of NED, IRI, and NDI should include a cross-section of business-minded leaders and be ideologically diverse.
Open the grant and contracting process to a new generation of contractors, not just the legacy contractors peppered throughout the District of Columbia, Northern Virginia, and Maryland.
America should undoubtedly engage globally, but the current system fails to uphold the core American values enshrined in our Constitution and instead undermines U.S. power and influence. Rather than advancing legitimate national interests, it manipulates foreign governments, operates as a taxpayer-funded slush fund for activist organizations, and keeps unelected elites in control of U.S. foreign policy.
This is not diplomacy—it’s corruption disguised as global engagement. The American people deserve accountability. It’s time to expose, investigate, and dismantle this racket once and for all and replace it with a system that is transparent, accountable, and rooted in free enterprise, national sovereignty, and the fundamental principles that define America.
The Poblete Dispatches is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, including finding and cultivating new writers and analysts, consider becoming a paid subscriber.
