Although Donald Trump announced and initiated a kind of showdown with the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), attempting to cut off government funding to this pseudo–non-governmental organization, he did not succeed. By court decision, NED received funds for the 2025 fiscal year, and the funds obtained — totaling 5.5 million dollars — were used for the purpose of undermining President Nicolás Maduro, whom the United States ultimately abducted illegally and by force.
MADURO WAS UNDERMINED BY 42 ORGANIZATIONS
NED itself claims that the mentioned sum of money was allocated for the work of 42 organizations in Venezuela, combining the expertise of NED’s four main institutes (IRI, NDI, CIPE, and the “Solidarity Center”) with direct grants awarded to local civic groups. In addition, NED claims that the organizations on its payroll uncovered alleged connections between Nicolás Maduro’s regime and transnational criminal networks. All of this was revealed by NED itself—though discreetly, since this kind of disclosure and admission barely drew attention at the end of last year. Although NED released this information before the United States illegally and forcibly abducted Maduro, no one engaged with these findings, neither before nor after the kidnapping.
NOTHING WITHOUT HEZBOLLAH: NED’S PATH TO TRUMP
The report concerning NED’s presence in Venezuela was further spiced up with claims that the mentioned “civic” organizations on NED’s—meaning the U.S. government’s—payroll allegedly uncovered not only drug-trafficking routes and supposed financial operations, but also that these alleged financial operations of Maduro’s regime involved organizations such as Hezbollah and armed groups from Colombia. It is at this point—where Hezbollah, the narco-mafia, and Colombia are introduced—that NED, surprisingly for the naïve, intersected with Trump’s interests. What followed in Venezuela—namely, the kidnapping of Maduro—indirectly but emphatically confirms this. And not only that.
NED WAS INVOLVED IN VENEZUELAN ELECTIONS
NED itself generously admits that it was involved in the Venezuelan elections, in the section of its report describing the information network of “independent” media established in Venezuela.
“During the July 2024 elections, this independent information ecosystem proved invaluable. NED-supported media reached more than 50 million users worldwide—including around 20 million inside Venezuela—helping citizens orient themselves at a time when internet connections were disrupted and narratives manipulated,” NED stated, emphasizing that this coordination, carried out under NED’s direction, played a key role in democratic opposition agreements in 2023.
“By creating shared spaces to exchange strategies and information, NED partners helped democratic actors articulate common goals, align approaches, and sustain cooperation throughout the 2024 presidential election period,”
NED acknowledges.
“TO STRIKE OR EVEN DISBAND”
But how did NED remain so active under Donald Trump, whose team insisted that NED was an “instrument” that needed to be struck down or even dissolved?
Since Trump’s return to the White House, in January of last year, the issue of NED funding has become one of the most controversial topics in U.S. domestic and foreign policy. Since its founding in 1983, NED has been one of the key instruments of America’s “promotion” of democracy abroad—an institutionalized form of support for supposedly independent media, NGOs abroad that eagerly accepted U.S. government money through NED, and “human rights activists” in various regions of the world who effectively served as foot soldiers of U.S. interests.
NED IS A GONGO ORGANIZATION
Although formally presented as an independent, non-profit organization, NED is entirely dependent on government funds approved by the U.S. Congress within the foreign “aid” budget. Therefore, NED’s operations are no different from programs normally conducted through the federal budget and U.S. international “assistance.” This fact has been repeatedly stated in NED’s own annual reports and other documents regarding this American—de facto—government organization. Yet its beneficiaries around the world continue to present themselves as supposedly “independent” and “democratic” organizations and media outlets. Before Trump’s return to the White House, NED had a budget of 286 million dollars in fiscal year 2024, which enabled this de facto government organization to finance activities in more than 90 countries.
NED AS A CONTINUOUS FINANCIAL BOILER FOR THE U.S. GOVERNMENT
Like a continuous-flow financial boiler, NED distributed U.S. government money to thousands of “independent” and “democratic” partners. The adjectives “independent” and “democratic,” of course, serve to mask the simple fact of paid allegiance, since behind all the rhetoric of “independence,” “democracy,” “human rights,” and “professional media” lies— and continues to lie—the execution of U.S. interests, not those of local populations. The aforementioned enormous funds were allocated for grants to “independent” media, election-monitoring organizations, human-rights or environmental groups, “democratic” initiatives, and countless other actors. Up until early 2025, both Republican and Democratic leaders in the U.S. wholeheartedly supported NED as a surgical instrument of American interest-projection.
NED WON THE COURT BATTLE “AGAINST” TRUMP
However, already in the first weeks after Trump’s inauguration in January 2025, the new administration announced that it planned to “reassess” funding for “democracy” and “human rights” abroad, emphasizing that this kind of support does not bring tangible (measurable) benefits to the American people. Although Congress, in a technical sense, did not withdraw the funds already approved for NED for fiscal year 2025, the executive branch began delaying the disbursement of those funds through administrative measures, which effectively meant that NED was left without a usable portion of its annual budget.
THEY SOUGHT SALVATION EVEN FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION
In March of last year, media outlets reported that NED had been forced to suspend or postpone funding for around two thousand partner organizations worldwide, something unprecedented in its history. The news was welcomed with relief by those who understand the basic mechanisms of American influence and the true role of NED and the “non-governmental” sector. Editorial offices of “independent” media and supposedly non-governmental organizations—which are, in reality, long-standing instruments of American influence and the interests of the U.S. government—fell into panic. Many attempted to seek money, without which they could not otherwise trade in “democracy” and “human rights,” from the bureaucracy of the European Union.
THE QUESTION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT
But in American public discourse, the problem NED faced was not only a matter of funding but also of law enforcement. The key question was: can the executive branch withhold or delay payment of funds that Congress has already approved? Under the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, the presidential administration has no right to unilaterally withhold approved funds except under strictly defined circumstances. Based on that law, in August of last year, the court ruled that the Trump administration had unlawfully delayed payments to NED, ordering that such practices stop and that the approved money be disbursed for the most part—returning NED to the game, despite the intentions of Trump’s team, and enabling it to distribute the aforementioned $5.5 million to its “democratic” foot soldiers in Venezuela.
WILL NED SURVIVE?
Despite this court ruling, political debate over the role of NED in the United States continued. In the proposed budget for fiscal year 2026, the Trump administration suggested either drastically reducing or completely eliminating NED funding. NED itself warned in its informational materials that adoption of such a proposal would essentially spell the end of its global activities and that many long-funded programs would have to be discontinued unless other funds were secured. The Trump administration has so far failed to remove NED from the geopolitical and budgetary stage, although panic within “independent” media and supposedly non-governmental organizations trading in “democracy” and “human rights” has not subsided. Simply put, promoters of American interests cannot survive without government grants, but the question remains whether Trump can easily carry out operations such as the kidnapping of President Maduro without the “soft power” that NED provided.
WHAT ARE THE UNITED STATES IN THE WORLD?
Analysts note that the NED case is not just a technical dispute about the U.S. federal budget but reflects a matter of fundamental importance: what does America today see as its role in the global system? Will funding for “independent” media, “civil” movements, and organizations that “deal with” human rights remain part of America’s political identity, or will it be reduced to a marginal program within increasingly polarized politics? As the beginning of 2026 approached, uncertainty regarding future NED funding only grew. The organization continued to operate, but on a reduced scale, monitoring administrative and political signals from the White House and Congress. International agencies reported in autumn that every new NED initiative depended on whether, and when, the federal administration would approve access to the funds already allocated. This once again encouraged those who understand how U.S. foreign policy operates to hope that the NED scourge might finally be eliminated once and for all.
TRUMP WANTS TO KILL TWO BIRDS WITH ONE STONE, BUT…
The position of Trump and his associates—that a radical reassessment of foreign democracy-assistance spending is necessary—stems from their effort to kill two birds with one stone: to achieve budget savings measured in hundreds of millions, potentially billions of dollars, while simultaneously undermining the media and supposedly non-governmental influence networks deeply opposed to Trump’s vision of restoring American power. In public comments, some administration officials described NED as an instrument that, instead of promoting democratic values, often supports organizations with clear political agendas that do not align with the (new) interests of the United States.
THE DEEP STATE STILL HAS A SAY
One should not be naïve and believe that the American deep state will easily give up an organization like NED. Media coverage of NED’s legal efforts to counter Trump’s attempts to cut its funding was extensive. This indicates that NED still has strong footholds in powerful sectors of American society that view Trump as an aberration and hope for the return of “woke” ideology. For this reason, pseudo-liberal media and supposedly independent think tanks argue that reducing or eliminating funding for NED could have a potentially destructive effect on global “democracy.” On the other hand, media close to conservative circles and the Trump administration emphasize that NED is an instrument used for foreign-policy influence and that there is no adequate mechanism of cost and performance oversight relative to American interests. By early 2026, the situation in American society was best described as “uncertain stability”: NED continued functioning despite Trump, but every new NED program was subject to political approval. NED’s financial and institutional stability can no longer be taken for granted, but neither is NED stepping back from its activities.
