The U.S. State Department is also undergoing a seismic shift. Specifically, it is looking at recommendations to eliminate or deeply reduce all of the last remaining grants from the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL). Samuel Samson, a senior adviser to the bureau, wrote a white paper that inspired this action. That it would be able to affect up to $1.3 billion in discretionary grants is even more concerning. The recommendations come as the Trump administration evaluates the efficacy of foreign assistance programs, particularly those focused on promoting democracy and human rights.
Since joining the Trump administration, Senator Marco Rubio has been a primary architect of DRL programming cuts. This has been reflected in past reviews he’s overseen that have gutted dozens of programs within the bureau. As of now, of the 391 active grants under the management of DRL, just two have been advised to stay whole. The suggested cuts would effectively terminate approximately 80% of all U.S. government foreign assistance related to democracy programming at the State Department.
From its earliest programming, the DRL has focused on the most pressing issues. It fights censorship of the internet, promotes media literacy, defends human rights, and prevents atrocities. It funds programming that helps run fair and secure elections. It addresses the transnational repression perpetrated by authoritarian regimes like those of China, Cuba, Yemen, and Venezuela against their dissidents.
In a recent development, ten Democratic senators urged Senator Rubio to preserve the DRL, emphasizing the bureau’s critical role in supporting civil society in repressive countries. They warned that these unnecessary cuts would imperil millions. One senator noted that “millions of people around the world who live in societies dominated by fear and oppression look to the United States of America to champion their cause to fully exercise their God-given rights.”
The internal debate within the Trump administration reflects broader ideological divides between foreign policy hawks like Rubio and hardline conservatives such as Russell Vought. It’s too soon to say how this conflict will shape funding priorities on democracy programs in the future as these discussions continue.
Samson’s outlandish recommendations range from using foreign assistance funds to pay for the administration’s pet infrastructure projects. This approach has faced deserved condemnation from all sides. One source remarked, “If you cut all the programs in DRL, then, why would you need to keep the staff if they’re not doing any work?” This sentiment crystallizes the fears over the possible gutting of several administratively crucial initiatives to promote democratic values abroad.
The impact of these proposed cuts would be huge. If achieved, they would deeply limit U.S. involvement in the defense and promotion of democracy around the world. Programs designed to support civil society and democratic governance could face an uncertain future, depriving many nations of essential resources. As one individual noted, these programs “provide a lifeline to organizers and civil society doing the work to try to bring democratic values to these countries,” specifically referencing regions like Cuba and Venezuela.
That review of DRL’s funding is a reflection of what we are hearing from senior state department officials. They reiterated that any foreign assistance should be clearly tied to advancing U.S. security and prosperity. “The provision of any foreign assistance, including for democracy programming, will be guided by whether it makes America safer, stronger, and more prosperous,” stated one official familiar with the ongoing discussions.
As the situation develops, various stakeholders are closely monitoring the outcome of this review and its potential impact on U.S. foreign policy. The struggle between promoting democratic values abroad while testifying to national interests is still an internal debate within the current administration.