FY2027 Budget Request: State Department Adjacent Entities

Good morning. Committee on Foreign Affairs will come to order. I ask everybody to rise. Join me in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God. indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. The purpose of this hearing today is to fulfill this committee's responsibility, providing oversight of the foreign affairs budget. That responsibility is not limited to the Department of State, but also includes so-called related agencies and programs. This hearing is the first in a series to examine the budgets and postures of several organizations that implement US foreign policy with taxpayer funds but do not report to the Secretary of State. And I'm now going to recognize myself for an opening statement. In my opening statement, I'm gonna do it a little bit less traditionally than I would normally do. Uh, Mr. Wilson, Miss Avielle, I'm going to give you each about two minutes of my opening statement time to answer a couple of questions. I've read your roughly eight pages uh of opening statement. I'd love for you to just boil it down much more plainly, much more simply. I'll give you each about two minutes of time. Just answer for me What are you doing with the, for you, Miss Avielle, the twenty-five to fifty billion dollars that's coming in, year to year to year, for you, Mister Wilson, three hundred and fifteen million dollars that's coming in, year after year after year. What are you doing with that money? How does it tangibly and directly impact or help the American people, the American taxpayers, that are paying this into an organization outside of the Department of State? And what happens if the taxpayers stop doing that? Mister Wilson, give you two minutes.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, for that question. It's a, it's an honor to be here to testify and to uh be responsive to the oversight of this committee. The National Endowment for Democracy is a creature of Congress, created by Congress to represent the best of the United States in supporting freedom and democracy around the world and the service of America's long-term interests. And what that means is the endowment is a grant making organization that supports courageous uh actors around the world in their pursuit of their democratic aspirations. This serves the American people uh directly because it it it addresses the issues that underline challenges to the United States, whether it is conflict, whether it is uh illegal trafficking, human or drug trafficking, uh whether it is illegal migration to the United States, The endowments, investments and organizations around the world that are helping those who take the initiative to solve problems in their societies leads to more stable, more prosperous, more reliable partners for the United States. We make investments in organizations that help ensure that American businesses and workers are not undercut by forced labor or unfair competition, uh, overseas, and give people and citizens a stake in their own communities to remain locally. So what this looks like, these are modest investments uh in in each country, but we are a critical infrastructure for support of freedom globally, providing grants in eighty countries around the world with a focus on those most repressive societies. What this translates into is how we'd identify the most remarkable people and give them lift to solve problems, seventeen Nobel Peace Prize winners, But in a bigger sense, it translates into issues like Syria today. W- we don't know when change will happen. When a change in a country like Syria happens, those that we have invested in in a country like Syria are able to help shape a more peaceful, more democratic outcome that serves America interest well. Um, so, uh, representing, I think, three areas primarily in our budget, how we support, take on America's adversaries, support our fundamental freedoms and democratic openings and opportunities that are in the interest of our country.

Javier, again in about two minutes. Just again, very plainly, like you're speaking to a member of Congress, we need plain words. Uh, what are you doing with your money? How does it tangibly benefit the American people? And what if we stop giving it to you?

Thank you. These are important questions and we and we welcome the chance to showcase what we do. We advance US strategic interests by engaging with the communities that are on the front lines of these issues in our hemisphere. When country, when communities in the United States are affected by drug trafficking, that starts south of the border. Same with migration, uh, uh, responding to the influence of China. And so what we are doing is working with those communities that are on the front lines. We give them small grants. The average size is about three hundred and fifty thousand dollars over several years. We engage with them to advance their priorities and ours. And if taxpayers stop funding this, we lose an effective tool in the US toolkit, and I'm happy to go into that more. But I am proud that because of the model that we have, we build self-reliance. So we now have a network of five thousand eight hundred organizations in the region that are making those communities more positively uh inclined towards the United States we've done an independent evaluation and eighty-one percent of those organizations have continued to advance their programs and projects, years after our funding has has stopped. Eighty-six percent have gone on to diversify their their funding sources. It leaves behind positive uh positive opinions of the United States. We do a survey and anon and our grantees uh showed that seventy percent uh improved their opinion of the United States. We leave behind um communities with that are less disrupted by narco-traffickers, less disrupted by uh families migrating, and that makes the communities here stronger.

Thank you. You're still gonna get your opportunity for your opening statements.

Okay.

I just wanted you to boil it down a little bit more plainly, so I appreciate you doing so. Chair now recognizes ranking member from New York, Representative Meeks.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I wanna thank our witnesses, uh, from the, uh, National Endowment of Democracy, of course, and Inter-American Foundation for joining us today and for all that you do to promote democracy and development in support of our national security. And to our former colleague and my good friend, Representative Tom Malinowski. It's always good to see you, Tom. And, uh, you know, and we wanted you here, uh, so that we can draw on your deep experience, uh, on, on these issues that you've done, uh, at the State Department and other areas. And this is something that I personally know when you were a member of this committee, you were able to share with us. And so I think that that, uh, is, uh, is something that I'm very happy for you to be here today. I've been here in Congress for a while and Ned has been around too. Ned has was born in nineteen eighty-three of a bipartisan desire to ensure sustained support to emerging democratic movements around the world. Two people instrumental in Ned's funding, President Ronald Reagan and the for- former chair of this committee, Congressman Dante Fussell, recognize that in Ned's independent, nongovernmental and non-profit model would best help populations around the world chart their own paths out of authoritarianism. On the other hand, cascading challenges in our own hemisphere prompted Congress to establish the IAF in nineteen sixty nine, as an independent government agency to help build the future of freedom, security and economic development in the Western Hemisphere. There's an incredible amount of work the United States could be doing uh to support both Ned and the IAF as they pursue their respective missions that Congress established. Now, unfortunately I see the Trump administration has focused on withholding Ned's funds on the shuttering and on shuttering the IAF as part of a larger slash and burn campaign against US foreign assistance. which it unfairly paints as woke or wasteful. Unfortunately, it seems as though some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have rubber-stamped those efforts and I'm sure we'll hear more uh probably about those claims. So let me just say this from the outset. I agree that Congress must always work to ensure that the funds we appropriate are uh s- are spent with accountability and transparency. That is our job. That is our job. And that's why I look forward to detailed testimony from our witnesses today on the good work that both NED and IAF are doing in difficult places and how it can be strengthened going forward. But I hope we don't get and hear partisan attacks on NED and IAF couched in oversight. Because that only threatens to deprive the United States of critical and cost-effective means of promoting long-term prosperity and stability aboard. It is my belief that weakening independent agencies and organizations like NED and IAF does not strengthen America. It does exactly the opposite. It's self-defeating, undercutting some of the most effective tools we have to defend democ- democratic principles around the globe and help build a safer, more secure, more prosperous future. The American people stand to benefit from a future like that. To be clear, funding these programs offer an extraordinary return on investment for the American people. The combined fiscal year twenty-six budget for NED and IAF was less than three hundred and fifty million dollars to advance core U. S. interest in every region of the world for years to come. Put another way, that's less than what American taxpayers will pay to fund the renovations of Trump's new Air Force One jet gifted to him by Qatar. That's just one fifth of the one point eight billion dollars the administration is stealing from American taxpayers for Trump's new secret slush fund. That's not even half of what Republicans are insisting the American people pay for Trump's White House ballroom. And that's less than one half of the estimated one billion dollars the American people are paying every single day to fund Trump's reckless war choice in Iran. That's where I think there is real ways, fraud and abuse, that we should also be scrutinizing. Meanwhile, uh, I am a former member of Ned's board of directors, I've seen and participated firsthand uh with the effects of its critical work around the world, in an absolutely bipartisan manner, Democrats and Republicans working closely together, you know, uh to, you know, to save the places around the world from dealing a devastating blow. This is what they've done. They dealt a devastating blow to the Soviet Union's efforts to maintain Communist rule in Central Europe, to helping Chile's democratic opposition overcome a dictatorship, to documenting human rights abuses from Russia's abduction of Ukrainian children to the Iranian government's crackdown on the women life freedom movement. IAF has similarly a proud history supporting locally uh led development across Latin America and the Caribbean. That includes scholarships for Central American youth, support for trade associations of small businesses, and promoting inclusive sustainable economic growth. Work that is not charity, but rather promotes regional stability and mitigates the root causes that drive millions of impoverished impoverished uh people to migrate in search for a better life that's not waste that's worthwhile I conclude saying this the United States is built on the fundamental principles of liberty and justice we believe that freedom is innate and Trinity unnatural and while imperfect ourselves this year we celebrate two hundred and fifty years of our own democracy Two hundred and fifty years of champion freedom, democracy and prosperity for all who seek it around the world. And that is why supporting Ned and the IAF and other foreign assistance to advance democracy and opportunity, have long been a bipartisan, strong value that should continue and core bipartisanship is what we should be looking forward to and praising, and both of these organizations have promoted that kind of bipartisanship. And I thank you for it, and I yield back.

Other members of the committee are reminded that opening statements may be submitted for the record. Pleased to have a witness, a distinguished panel of witnesses before us today on this topic. Mister Damon Wilson, President of the National Endowment for Democracy. Thank you for being here. Honorable Sarah Aviel, President and CEO of the Inter-American Foundation. Thank you for being here. And Honorable Tom Malinowski, former member of Congress and former Assistant Secretary of Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor at the US Department of State. This committee recognizes the importance of the issues before us and is grateful to have each of you here to speak with us today your full statements will be made a part of the record and I'll ask each of you to keep your spoken remarks to five minutes in order to allow time for member questions and I'll recognize you, Mister Wilson, for any opening statement that you may have.

Thank you, Chairman Mast, Ranking Member Meeks, members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you. to discuss how the endowment delivers for the American people and American interests. A more democratic world is a more peaceful and prosperous world which is better for America and its citizens. And that's what the National Endowment for Democracy and its core institutes do every day. We help our nation by strengthening the resilience of societies before repression, instability, and corruption, cause far more dangerous, costly problems for our country. Where democratic institutions and free markets fail, Conflict, trafficking, terrorism, refugee flows, and coercive economic practices take root. Where citizens have a say in their future, societies are more stable and better partners for the United States. Our investments help America compete with America uh authoritarian rivals by helping partners build more effective democracies foster free enterprise and protect fundamental freedoms. We exist because of the foresight of President Reagan and the US Congress. More than forty years ago, President Reagan warned that the advance of freedom was not inevitable. Before the British Parliament, he called for the strengthening the infrastructure of democracy, the institutions, the civic groups that allow free societies to flourish. Congress responded, mandating NED as a private foundation with the sole mission to encourage the growth of democracy through private sector initiatives. And this committee played a key role acting on that vision. In nineteen eighty-three, then-Chairman Dante Fussell recognized our nation needed more effective non-military tools to project positive influence. And this committee helped establish NED as an independent institution that could build trusted long-term relationships between Americans and those abroad pursuing democratic aspirations. Our public mandate, bipartisan character, and nongovernmental structure allow us to work in the toughest places, where others cannot. and where local partners may not safely or credibly engage through official channels. It all, it allows us to move flexibly and rapidly and build trust on the ground. We support citizens who take the initiative to defend their vision for freedom in their own societies. And when they succeed, it benefits America. Congress also built in strong oversight through annual appropriations, audits, reporting requirements, and consultation with both Congress and the executive branch. Today our work sits at the intersection of American security and economic interests. Authoritarians use corruption, censorship, and forced labor to control strategic industries, undermine rule of law, and advance their malign influence. The Chinese Communist Party exports surveillance technologies, engages in predatory financing, and pursues critics beyond its borders. Our investments counter this. Ned's supported researchers exposed more than a hundred Chinese overseas police stations operating across fifty-three countries. Others have disrupted Chinese criminal networks, financing scam centers targeting Americans. Critical mineral supply chains are vital for American manufacturing, energy security and advanced technologies. In Bolivia, Ned backed Watch Dogs, disrupted Shady and lithium agreements involving Russian and Chinese agents. In Central Africa, groups we support push for transparency in cobalt and critical mineral extraction. And this work levels the playing field for US companies and workers. Today, May twentieth marks Cuban Independence Day. Yet the Cuban people are not free. Just one example is sixteen year old Jonathan Muir Burgos, the son of a pastor, imprisoned for speaking out against dictatorship and denied medical care. NED backs political prisoners and their families across the island. We also support groups that uncovered how the regime steals from its own people. We back media that reaches millions of Cubans, providing alternatives to propaganda. In Iran, NED partners break through the internet shutdown, helping sustain grassroots networks despite severe repression. Our work in Ukraine underscores that the defense of sovereignty and self-determination remains a defining struggle. For decades, our partners have strengthened free press, civic institutions, and anti-corruption reforms. And today they are vital to Ukrainian resilience against Russian aggression. Mister Chairman, religious freedom and free speech are central to Ned's mission because autocrats fear independent sources of truth organization and moral authority beyond state control. Beijing is waging a renewed campaign against the Christian house church movement, including arresting Pastor Ezra Jinn of Zion Church. Net partners document this prosecution as well as mass detention and forced labor of Uighurs, Tibetans and Falun Gong believers. In Nicaragua, Burma, Nigeria, we defend religious liberty and provide legal support to congregations under threat. To close, Mister Chairman, our nation's two hundred and fiftieth anniversary reminds us that America's strength has always rested on the enduring appeal of the principles at the heart of our founding. Supporting those who advance liberty abroad reflects who we are as Americans. It also advances America's national security, economic security, and leadership in a competitive world. We are proud to stand with those who seek freedom. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to the questions.

Thank you, Mr. Wilson, I now recognize Miss Avielle for any opening statement that you may have.

Thank you, Chairman Mast, Ranking Member Meeks, and members of the committee. Thank you for your steadfast bipartisan support and for the opportunity to highlight the Inter-American Foundation's alignment with the administration's agenda. Congress created the IAF in nineteen sixty-nine to advance US national security interests by catalyzing locally led development across Latin America and the Caribbean. In fact, this very committee sponsored the legislation to create the IAF, precisely because other foreign assistance approaches were not generating the change they expected. And this committee continues to endorse locally-led development as recently as this March stating that it is quote "linked to more efficient and sustainable development outcomes and is vital to building long-term self-reliance." Congress designed us as a nimble vehicle for foreign assistance, directly supporting local organizations, rather than going through DC-based implementers. We know that protecting our borders and protecting our interests requires high-level regional political and enforcement interventions that are beyond our reach as an agency it is not our role to shape foreign policy we make strategies more effective by engaging the communities on the front lines. A small community in Latin America isn't necessarily tracking global spheres of influence but when their livelihoods are threatened by cartels or PRC-backed projects, their interests align with ours. By supporting a Colombian farmers organization that enables families to grow fruit and coffee, we eradicate coca fields. By supporting a faith-based organization in Honduras that empowers youth to build futures at home, we reduce pressures to migrate. By supporting an indigenous organization in the Amazon that actively monitors its territory, we strengthen reporting to law enforcement of illicit PRC-backed incursions. Local communities across the region partner with us because we have common cause. They use their local knowledge and long-standing relationships to deliver results for the United States, standing up for themselves and neutralizing threats before they reach our borders. For over fifty years, the IAF has supported five thousand eight hundred community partners. This direct approach insulates US fri- funds from political capture by foreign governments or ideologues while honoring local religious and traditional values. We work with pragmatic communities whose goals are measured in the number of youth who stay in schools or in kilos of coffee exported to US businesses. We demand that our grantees have skin in the game and more than match what we provide them with their own resources. This builds self-reliance and more than doubles the impact of our appropriations. We award small grants, averaging three hundred and fifty thousand dollars over four years. Our technical assistance strengthens organization's sustainability. In a recent independent evaluation, eighty-one percent of former grantees reported that the IAF built their capacity to continue driving impact for years beyond the end of our grants. We recognize that foreign assistance has shifted. We need to do more to demonstrate benefits to the United States for every dollar. The IF is built for this challenge. We expect and get results. Historically, eighty-five percent of grantees have met or exceeded their performance targets. Furthermore, in an independent and anonymous survey, seventy percent of grantees reported that working with us improved their perceptions of the United States. Our commitment to results, transparency, accountability, and cost-effectiveness has earned the IAF strong bipartisan support across seven Republican and four Democratic administrations. Senators Rubio, Cruz, Cardin, and Kane, along with members of this committee, including Congressman Smith and Sires, cosponsored bipartisan resolutions commending the IAF for exemplary contributions to US foreign policy on our fiftieth anniversary. We have consistently advanced the bipartisan priorities of Congress and successive administrations. We are aligned with this administration and ready to advance its priorities through proactive coordination with State Department colleagues. I was grateful to see the FY twenty-seven House Appropriations Bill authorizing a transfer of funds to the IF from the National Security Investment Programs account and this builds on the strong bipartisan support we received

Thank you, Miss Avielle. And now I recognize you, Thank you.

Thank you.

Mister Malinowski, uh, for an opening statement.

Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Mast, Mister Meeks. Thank you both for for having me here. It's always good and it's always fun to be with you, um, in this room. Um, I'll start with something a little bit personal, as as I think you, you know, I emigrated to America when I was a child from Poland, when it was a communist country. I come from one of those families from behind the iron curtain that idolized the United States that got its news from Radio Free Europe that taught me from an early age to see America as a bee beacon for freedom and democracy for everyone in the world. One my formative experiences when I was fifteen years old, went back for a summer to Poland, and I had this amazing opportunity to go up to the shipyard in Gdańsk, where the Solidarity Labor Union was leading the fight against communism. I got to meet Lech Wałęsa. I was incredibly proud even at that age to know uh, the United States through institutions like NED was helping those heroes, giving them copying machines and and radios and the and the sense that America was behind them. It was the right thing to do and it changed the world. And I think we should all be proud today that this idea of Ronald Reagan's that was given life by Democrats and Republicans in Congress, uh, over the years has given support to over twenty people who went on to win the Nobel Peace Prize, and the countless others who are less famous but equally brave. That work remains so valuable today as we hope for democratic change in countries like Iran and Cuba, and Venezuela, and work to counter the billions of dollars that China spends to promote its authoritarian model around the world. One of America's biggest comparative advantages is that we have allies. Our enemies do not. We have allies in part because we have values that people in other countries want their governments to get behind. Our enemies resent this. And for that reason, they have long hated and tried to discredit institutions like the NED. So it didn't surprise me to see so many of them rejoicing last year when it looked like the NED might be eliminated, the Cuban government, the Taliban, the Chinese Communist Party, Iran. When the Iranian Revolutionary Guards praise the proposed dismantlement of an American institution, that's probably a good argument not to dismantle it. I would, I could rest my case right there. Now, I get that at the Trump administration at least some parts of it may not agree with all of that. And the president, well, some of my Republican friends here say that he he he has uh a a unusual way of speaking sometimes, like last week in China, when he called the Chinese Communist dictator a great leader, while lamenting that Chinese dissidents had caused that leader, quote, a lot of bedlam. That makes me sad personally, but I also recognize he's the president. He's got a prerogative to put his own stamp on American foreign policy, just like presidents Biden and Obama and Bush and Clinton did in their own ways. But this is precisely why Congress has from time to time in our history created institutions that don't radically change depending on who's in the Oval Office. Congress created the NED and um the Inter-American Foundation and other groups like that to reflect what it thought should be a consistent American commitment to freedom and democracy in the world and it made them explicitly bipartisan for that reason. Yes, the State Department controls its own democracy grant programs. I used to administer them, but I'm trying to imagine how the then chairman of this committee, Mister Engel, would have replied if I'd come here and said to him, " Elliot, come on, we're both Democrats, you love President Obama, just give me all the net money to spend myself." I think his response would have been unprintable in the committee record. Um, Congress also understood that These guys do edgy work. The pisses off dictators around the world. And those dictators sometimes pick up the phone, they call the president, and they say, you want our cooperation, you gotta shut down what they're doing. Congress created them to be sm- somewhat independent from the State Department, so the presidents in those moments could say, hey, I don't have direct day-to-day control over what they're doing. Um, so go talk to the Congress. Talk to somebody else. It protects our presidents and their flexibility, as much as it protects the valuable work that they are doing. Now that doesn't mean that they are free agents. What they are are institutions that are accountable to you, to the United States Congress. And the question for you is whether that will continue or whether Congress will cede yet another element of its power and authority to the executive branch, something that not just this president, but future presidents will exploit if you do that to the fullest and to the detriment of the Congress. So I hope you won't let that happen. I hope you will continue to support institutions that consistently, on a bipartisan basis, advocate for American values in the world. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Mr. Malinowski. I'm gonna recognize member for any questions that they may have. I'm going to begin with Representative Self.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um. I think the model has changed since uh NED was uh developed, and it's been changing more uh rapidly more recently uh because Congress has been dealing with uh USAID. Uh we have outsourced our responsibility for decades, congressional responsibility to NGOs, to the agencies, to the departments, uh to write the rules, uh based on very general uh laws that we passed and frankly that's changed recently both from the Supreme Court and from this administration. Um so I want to ask uh coordination is not oversight. Uh so Mister Wilson, how does the State Department execute oversight? Uh because funding, any funding that we give to anyone to include Ned uh needs a Modicum of oversight. So coordination is not oversight. Can you address the oversight that you get from the State Department?

Absolutely. Thank you for that question, Congressman. Um One of the things about the endowment is accountability oversight has built and baked in both to the founding to the practice and to the operation. So we have a pretty extensive process of of cooperation and consultations, both with Congress and the executive branch. When it comes to the State Department, uh, we provide an annual spending plan that comes both to the Congress and to the Department on exactly how we're going to spend these funds against which goals, with programs and activities. We provide reports on how that money was spent.

OK, good enough, reports, uh, in coordination. So then, how did NED fund an organization called the Global Disinformation Index? Uh, we are, we are dealing with um, uh, we are dealing with uh, our own surveillance state uh, here. Uh, but how did you come to fund that if you have this extensive coordination, and you provide reports? How did you come to do that? And how did you figure that that fit into any idea of freedom?

So let me be crystal clear that Ned does not support censorship. of Americans, suppression of lawful speech, demonetization of any US media outlets. The grant that is in question is one that we began originally in supporting uh, foreign efforts uh, authoritarian efforts to manipulate information environments in countries around the world. We had actually supported this organization to look into Chinese narratives that were coming through uh and other platforms m- in countries across Africa, Latin America. What they did related to research in the United States is indefensible. When we found out that they had done a report on the United States, that uh uh identified outlets here, we immediately opened an our own investigation, and within a week, uh, terminated that grant, clawed back those funds. We agreed that that is unacceptable. We, by statute, by mandate, and by all of the requirements in our grants, do not fund any work related, focused on the United States, we did not fund that work. But when we learned that that entity had done that, we acted immediately, reported to Congress and reported to State.

OK. Let me let me ask you about Europe then, more recently, uh, just prior to the uh, to the Trump uh, to uh second administration. Uh, particularly the, I will call it a coup in Romania, I will call it uh, uh uh censorship in Europe in general through uh their election interference. What has Ned done to to fight back against that in Europe recently?

So the endowment doesn't have country specific programs in European Union member states uh these are more advanced competitive electoral environments uh and so we do not have for example programs that focus on on Romania or Romania elections. Our focus in Europe is really more in Europe's east russian influence in places like ukraine, moldova, armenia, or the western balkans. That's where our programming is focused.

So it looks to me in the thirty seconds I've got left, that your core statutory uh statutory mandate to encourage free and democratic institutions to to go on i i is closely approximated by nation building we've learned over the last twenty plus years that we don't build nations well in fact it's been decades that we've learned that lesson. Uh, would you comment briefly, since I'm almost out of time, on how you consider your core mission, uh, in terms of nation building? Because it says to encourage free and democratic institutions. That sounds like nation building to me.

Sir, I would argue that we are the exact opposite of nation building. Our philosophy is that if you have made in Washington plans, then you import those in other societies, it is not likely to succeed and be sustainable. So our philosophy is how to support those who take the initiative in their own countries, to solve problems, share our values, and help them sup- uh, and when they succeed, we have pro-American, pro-freedom partners to work with.

OK, if the chairman will indulge me, the Arab Spring, did you participate in the Arab Spring?

I, I wouldn't say we participate in the Arab Spring. What we did was we have continued to support groups on the ground that are pushing for their governments to be more accountable working in partnership to help ensure the citizens' issues are addressed so that it doesn't lead to conflict, that it doesn't lead to violence.

Thank you and I hope we get a second round, Mister Chairman, I yield back.

I have no opposition to a second round, should uh there be that opportunity. Uh Representative Barra.

Thank you Mister Chairman. Um Mister Wilson, let's um plan this. I appreciate my my colleague um Congressman South's line of questioning, but having um traveled a lot, having visited you know um nascent democracies in Nepal, Sri Lanka, elsewhere. It, let's expand on, this is exactly the opposite of nation building. This is foundational work to help build um, strategic organizations. Could you talk about some of those core programs that, that you support?

Thank you. Thank you, Congressman. You've mentioned Nepal, Sri Lanka, these are good examples of countries that both have challenges with their own democratic processes and institutions and also face influence from China uh a- and others in their in their midst. So the work that we have done, for example, in a place like Nepal in the wake of Gen Z protests that led to a change, that led to a collapse of government, which led was not involved in that. These are these are the actions of Nepalese. We sent a team to work and consult, including with the US embassy, on what investments we could make to help ensure that with this change as they move towards elections, this would succeed in an environment where there was more religious tolerance, there was more freedom of expression, there was more uh opportunity for for students not to protest, but to turn those frustrations into to policy developments. You mentioned Sri Lanka, this is a place where because of NetPartners providing uh sunlight and exposure on Chinese influence it really helped provide oversight to Chinese assets and provided information to the US government about Chinese influence, of reports in Sri Lanka, that information it comes from the investments we make in local actors that want to protect their own, uh, their own nations from outside influence.

Great. Let me switch over to Tom. It's always good to see you. Um, you spent a lot of time in Sri Lanka and, you know, we've talked about this in the past. And in your opening statement, you talked about why it was important not to house these tools within the US government, within state department necessarily. If you could expand on, on some of that and the complement of how you use these tools, perhaps in Sri Lanka, but also, you know, through, you know, having been on the inside.

Yeah. So, to, to be clear, we do house a lot of democracy grant programs in the State Department, and that's fine. And I ran the bureau that administered them. A- and obviously any bureau within the State Department i- is going to be first and foremost focused on the the President's priorities in foreign policy, appropriately so. I, I think Congress created these institutions to have some separation. not independence because they report to you.

Right.

Um, i- i- i- there, I think there are several reasons for that. Number one, because they wanted this to be an enduring commitment, um, for America, representing the American people, for freedom and democracy in the world. So they didn't want this policy to radically shift from administration to administration. Number two, as I mentioned, the, political officials and administrations often come under pressure from foreign governments over the edgy work that these guys do. I had complaints from authoritarian governments constantly. Tom, you gotta shut down Ned. They're they're they're a CIA front. They're um, they're they're they're supporting terrorists. They're doing all these nefarious things, which of course was BS. But occasionally, you know, presidents are negotiating with an Egypt, with a China, with a Saudi Arabia. They come under pressure. And it's good for them to be able to say I do not have direct day-to-day control over these programs. They report to the US Congress, go complain to Chairman Mast, uh, and Ranking Member Meeks, if you have a problem with what they're doing. And then finally, a lot of the dissidents in these countries, i- it can be dangerous to be receiving aid directly from the State Department. You can be arrested, you can be killed for that. And so having, again, a degree of separation where the money is coming through something like the NED or one of its partners, protects those brave people who are trying to help.

Right. Xavier, let's um look at our own hemisphere. Um, obviously we've seen a migrant migration challenge and and folks on our southern border. Part of addressing that is to build institutions that address um the the root cause of this. If you could, you know, just talk a little bit about the work that you do to to help address it.

Absolutely. Thank you for that question. We target much of our funding in high out-migration areas and we have seen dramatic results to ebbing that flow. Uh, we did an independent evaluation on the effects of our grantees' uh intent to migrate and found that seventy-seven percent, uh, a seventy-seven percent reduction in their intent to migrate. We also do a lot of work integrating migrants throughout the region. So of course, Venezuela, we saw millions uh, millions leave the country. Oftentimes people don't migrate directly to the southern border. They're first leaving the country or leaving their rural area to a city by working with communities closer and integrating migrants in those communities, it prevents them from from coming from coming here.

Right. I'm out of time, so I'll yield back.

Thank you, Representative Barra. Representative Perry.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Wilson, um, Ned funded the global dis- disinformation index, which labeled US media outlets like the Federalist and Newsmax as high risk for disinformation. Question is, how did GDI become eligible for NED funds in the first place, and why did it require congressional pressure and media scrutiny before the grant was canceled with the funds clawed back? What are you guys doing over there?

Thank you for the question. This grant originated with the Ned supporting this work about influence and uh authoritarian influence in the global south and Africa and Latin America. When they conducted work on the United States, which Ned did not fund, and we became aware of this report, we did not wait for uh over congressional pressure. We instituted a review the day we became aware of it. Uh, and within a week, had briefed our board in Congress that we had canceled the grant, terminated the relationship, and clawed back those funds because of the work that we thought was indefensible that they did on the United States, which we did not fund. So we regret that that happened. We did not fund that work. We found that work unacceptable.

So, out of curiosity, and I appreciate that, do you, does NED still use the global disinformation index?

Not at all, no.

Do you, did you seek out who, uh, who in your organization promoted the use of the global disinformation index and at some point was responsible for the grant being accepted. You did you seek those uh the that individual or those individuals out?

We did a full review and the way this works is that the organization approaches us to seek support for their work in countries that have nothing to do with the United States, outside our mandate doesn't touch the United States. Our review process takes all grants up through the leadership and to our board for approval. So it's not as if one person can have one particular view on this.

Well then, so, so there's, there's obviously a problem with the, either the chain of custody or your operation structurally there because this grant, uh, uh, until, uh, you know, until the, the end, the final hour, so to speak, was approved by all the folks that you talked about. There's, as usual, look, the American people want somebody to be accountable for the waste of their money. And, and it's, you know, I get that it's like there's a lot of people on the committee, so on and so forth. But at some point somebody's making the decision. So either the responsibility lies at the top, heavy as the head that wears the crown, with you, or somebody, somebody did this, somebody made this decision. And I, I don't know if anybody's been held accountable. It sounds like not, but have you at least reviewed your processes so this doesn't happen again.

Absolutely. What I will say is when that grant was first originally approved, there was not work that GDA had done in the United States. We were supporting work that they were doing in in Nigeria and and Bangladesh and the Philippines other places around the world, particularly looking at foreign influence operations, authoritarian efforts that were undermining American interest in other countries. So what that was, we did not support the US

Uh, I mean, I get that, but But obviously they have a strong political viewpoint, a partisan political viewpoint, and it's my understanding that you're a nonpartisan or a bipartisan organization.

That's right.

Now with ninety-eight percent of your staff's political do- donations going to Democrat candidates or causes, what actual steps has Ned taken to maintain a genuine, not some cursory, you know, we want the appearance of bipartisan, nonpartisan, but a genuine um, bipartisan, nonpartisan mandate. What concrete steps.

Thank you. We take this very seriously. We, first of all

Cuz diversity is our strength, right? Diversity is thought, too, is our

That's right.

Well, I don't believe that, but a lot of people say that around there. I think unity of effort is our strength. We come from different backgrounds, but we all be gotta be focused on the same mission, pulling the s- the oar in the same direction, right? So, so tell me what, tell me what you done and how it's gonna work.

So first of all, we have the focus on freedom only. We do not have, we are not pulling in multiple directions because we have an exclusive focus on only bringing people that support the idea of support for freedom and democracy. We did take in the wake of that effort, we put in safeguards to ensure that we had better visibility and awareness of the work, not funded by NED, that organizations might do with other resources, so that we could determine if it was appropriate or inappropriate to provide funding, in that case, it was inappropriate, we acted on it immediately. We're built on the idea of like plural pluralistic support is what makes democracy work in countries around the world. So our board is built as a balanced, by statute and by practice, as a bipartisan board in which our chairman uh follows the the the party of the the party in power in in the in the White House. A republican is in charge of our board, Peter Roskam, a former member of this body. We have a bipartisan board, evenly balanced, that includes uh four current members uh uh of the US Congress, three former members as well.

Look, that's great.

And then our pers-

My time's expired. Just know this, that's great that the board reflects that, but presidents come and go, parties come and go, at least at, you know, who's representing who. Um, the point is is that the vast majority of your employees are one-sided politically, and that's what has to change as well, and that starts at the top. But it doesn't end at the top. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance. Representative Titus.

Uh, thank you very much. I I find it amazing, Mr. Perry, that you're criticizing Ned's staff. Why don't you take a look at the Justice Department and see how it's dominated these days. Good grief. Um. Anyway, Mr. Chairman, thank you uh the National Endowment for Democracy, I believe, is one of the most cost-effective national security investments that we can make. We had advances democratic resilience abroad, it supports local democracy defenders in dangerous context around the world, and on the front lines there there when uh military intervention would cost us so much more in terms of dollars and in lives. So when you have authoritarian governments like China, Russia, Iran that spend millions of doll- billions of dollars exporting censorship, and corruption, and coercion. We need tools like NED to help strengthen democratic institutions, to support independent media, civil society, all those good things that you do. Now, we've been hearing ad nauseum the rhetoric from some Republicans that NED is not bipartisan. Uh, but we know that it is true. Like you said, it was created under President Ronald Reagan. Uh, you were in the Bush administration. I mean, it's uh, it's It's not a partisan organization. I'm a member of the Demo- House Democracy Partnership. We've seen the work of Ned firsthand. We have worked with you. That is certainly not a partisan organization. You mentioned Mister Roskam, a Republican member of the House, who is now your sixth term chairman. That's not partisan. So let's talk about the many good things that you do to help our national security. So, Mister Wilson, let's just get it on the record one more time. These, my colleagues like to say that it's just led by Democrats and it pursues a liberal bias foreign policy. Put it on the record. Is that the case?

No, ma'am, that is not the case.

Of course not. And uh exactly, we said Ronald Reagan. We said Peter Roskam. We mentioned you. I think that's very clear for the record. Also, we heard earlier that Ned funds the work of organizations that attempt to censor and defund conservative media in the United States. One more time, is that true?

It is not true. We do not fund it gr- any work focused on the United States.

In fact, it's not just a choice, NED is statutorily prohibited from providing grants for work focused on the United States. Is that right?

That's correct.

OK, all right, that's that's good. Now, I realize a lot of the work that you do support to d- support democracies is a bit esoteric, it's a little intangible, a little hard for some of my colleagues to understand. So how about talking about some of the tangible wins that Ned has had. Uh, how about talk about Moldova, some of the democratic gains there, just as one example.

Thank you and thank you for your leadership on the House Democracy Partnership. Moldova is a good example of a place, the fragile democracy, to to russian influence to try to manipulate the outcomes inside that country where endowment investment overtime has helped bolster the democratic institutions, the electoral process, and insure that there is a pro-freedom, a democratic government that is able to work well with the United States in power. But if I answer your question, this is where we actually work quite closely with the administration. If you think about the work that NED partners have done, and first of all documenting Hezbollah's involve involvement in Venezuela and beginning to document how the Maduro government was a crime syndicate. In Cuba, our top partners have exposed how Gaessa, this military conglomerate, has stolen, impoverished the island. Um, we have documented, our partners have documented Russia's shadow fleet meant to avoid sanctions, and have provided information to the US treasury to help with sanctions packages. Our partners have exposed police stations around the world, including one in New York. The DOJ has now investigated and put people behind bars because of extending the long arm of the CCP to intimidate American citizens. Um, across the world, our partners are working on whether it is uh illegal migration routes from from Nicaragua or standing by and supporting political prisoners uh in places that are really important to members of Congress and the administration. Uh, ensuring that those political prisoners know that the American people stand by then in their toughest times. These are the types of things that we that we do that are quite tangible, that we coordinate closely with Congress and the executive.

You do election monitoring too, don't you?

That's correct. We are one of the primary supporters of uh of election work around the world now, through the core institutes of the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute, uh, supporting election observation and election integrity.

Thank you very much, I yield back.

Representative yields back. Representative Kim.

Thank you, Chairman. You know, as I understand, um Inter-American Foundation currently implements nineteen active grants in Peru, and that's as of March of this year, and that totals approximately eight point eight million dollars. Um, Miss Aviel, can you tell me more about the IF's programs in Peru? I ask that because recently i visited peru to see mine that was located about twenty miles south of uh during that trip we heard a lot about the need to work with local partners to establish community support for major international investments so on that trip ranking member and i were there together and uh in response to what we heard we included the provisions in the dominance act that was just uh passed out of the committee recently it's a bipartisan legislation to secure global critical mineral supply chains um we included a provision to create the energy security packs and these are packs that are designed to better coordinate the us investment tools and ensure the success of strategic critical mineral projects so can you talk about and elaborate how the iaf could partner with other us development agencies like DFC, Exim Bank, so we can increase access to resources that support our national security interests.

Thank you so much for that question, for your interest in Peru and also for your leadership on on locally led development. Our work in Peru and throughout the region is very multi-dimensional, um and and I think that that gives demonstrates a real advantage that we have. So for example, one of our grants in Peru was working with local fisheries on sustainable livelihoods. But then, they realized that the construction of the port there was going to negatively impact their livelihoods and they organized to push back on that Chinese investment. That's an example of how working with communities on the front lines can help advance US interests, advance their livelihoods, uh, and make a real difference. A number of our other grantees in Peru, uh, export to the United States and are part of supply chains, whether that's everything from cacao to coffee to alpaca, it helps build sustainable livelihoods in Peru, and helps strengthen American businesses here. With this committee's authorization of the DFC and and conversations that I have had with DFC staff, My understanding is that they are looking increasingly at bigger ticket items and larger investments, and we think we can play a very important role in doing some of that smaller investment, smaller enterprise investment that can reach that last mile and really help communities, and help American businesses as well.

Thank you, thank you. I wanna turn to Mister Wilson. You know, I recall um that shortly after NED was established, there were discussions about making the International Center for Journalists a fifth core institute. But that proposal did not move forward. Uh, instead, in two thousand six, the NED established the Center for International Media Assistance. So, I think you would agree that supporting independent journalism in in close societies where news information are heavily censored is not only complimentary to NED's mission, but it's really critical. Um, so as Congress reconsider ways to realign US international broadcasting efforts, tell me if it makes more sense to have organizations like Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Liberty, Radio Free Asia, the Middle East Broadcasting Networks and Open Technology Fund to have a formal relationship with NED rather than housing them under the State Department.

Thank you for that question. Uh, media is a crucial part of our strategy because citizens without access to information aren't able to think critically, take decisions, be aware of of of how to think about their their own places uh their political society. So about a third of our direct support does go to freedom of expression, free speech, to media. Our focus is really on piercing authoritarian censorship, on supporting independent media in places where media is repressed, and on fostering innovations in this ecosystem where we do work with the Open Technology Fund, for example. So what that manifests is North Korea is a priority for us, as helping Chinese that overcome the firewall. These are efforts that we do consult with the radios, we do consult with OTF. Our focus is on supporting the local entities, the local Tibetan entities, that

Provide little bit more detail on any of these program in North Korea and China, particularly regarding its effectiveness and measurable outcomes.

Sure, we've made over over decades now have made significant investments in ensuring that the North Korean people can have access to independent information, which is strikingly strikes at the foundation of the regime of Kim Jong-un. We have from surveys that we've taken from defectors, have been able to show over time how young North Koreans who used to be in an information vacuum now overwhelmingly have access to outside information exposure to K-pop, if you will. And so when the North Korean regime imprisons for twelve years, two eleven year olds in front of a a stadium of kids watching this because of their access to South Korean films, uh this is a fundamental role that we play in helping to equip them to think critically about their environment. The same in China, that some of our partners play the most important role. There is a sophisticated effort to repress information, as you know. The Great Firewall is significant because of the modest investments that the endowment makes There are millions and millions of Chinese that are able to overcome that great firewall and gain access to information, often accessing some of the information that is provided from the radios, as well as the local entities that we support, Chinese uh uh Chinese dissident operated media provide some of the most effective uh information for for citizens in China today to get independent information, out of state control.

Thank you, I appreciate that. And when my time's up, I'll yield back.

Representative Amal.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, and thank you to our witnesses uh for being here and for the work that you do, uh standing up for democracy around the world. You know, President Trump likes to say, you know, American, America first, America first. But he's gutting democracy programs and trying to shut down organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy and the Inter- uh American Foundation. But here's the thing. Calling that America first is like ripping out your own smoke detector. locking the fire exits, and then acting surprised when the house is ablaze. Here's the reality. Democracies make better partners. They make good trade partners who support American workers, buy American goods, and expand American markets. They work with us on cutting edge research and innovation that helps improve our quality of life. They help stop wars and instability and share our commitment to global health, which keeps Americans safe, and healthy and saves taxpayer dollars. So bottom line, America is safer, stronger, and more prosperous when democracy is stronger around the world. This is something that we widely agree on. And this is not abstract. Programs supported by organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy help expose authoritarian propaganda, support democratic movements in places like Venezuela and Syria, and crack down on scam centers in Southeast Asia that are stealing billions from Americans each year. A big interest of mine is protecting Americans from having their hard-earned dollars being stolen uh by some of these rogue uh ruthless operations around the world. And so as co-chair of the Stop St- Scams caucus here uh in the house, I hear from Rhode Islanders and people across this country who have lost retirement savings, college funds, and their financial futures. These scam compounds, many tied to criminal organizations operating in Cambodia, and Burma stole at least ten billion dollars from Americans in twenty twenty four alone. And I think that's probably an undercount. So, Mister Wilson, uh, could you share a little bit about how the National Endowment for Democracy is working with the National Democratic Institute to expose, uh, and counter these scam centers that are really hurting Americans?

Thank you for the question and thank you for the focus on this issue. This is an area of strong, I think, cooperation with Congress and the executive branch. Um, for our from our pers from our statistics, we according to the FBI, it's we've seen about twelve billion dollars impacted of fraud, uh, alone impacting, uh, American citizens. So we're we work with and support National Democratic Institute and other local actors that have targeted Chinese linked, uh, criminal networks, sometimes shady businesses, that have financed scam centers, uh, very strongly in Southeast Asia, as you said, particularly in Cambodia. And I think the help that we provide with NDI and the others is how to equip local partners that are operating on the ground in Burma on the ground in Cambodia so that they can track the illicit finance they can expose what's happening they can create pressure, let this be addressed by their own governments and uh uh ultimately help protect Americans from uh not being subject to these frauds.

And look, that work is sounds like actually putting America and Americans first. It's uh doing the coordination that's necessary, it's combating uh the crime, it's doing everything we can to protect our people. So, Mister Wilson, the natural extension there is if Republicans slash funding for organizations like yours, what happens to these efforts to stop scams? Uh what happens to that coordination and collaboration uh with law enforcement agencies and will you be able to be effective?

I'd, these programs uh depend on that uh congressional appropriation on that congressional support. So they would uh they would directly be impacted without that type of funding and support. Part of the value of this is that we don't do these, we're very different organization than a government agency or USAID. We use finite resources for strategic effects. So part of our approach is not how to spend multi-million dollar programs on something like scam centers, but how to use more modest grants to support local actors so that they take accountability, they take responsibility, and more sustainable outcomes that actually help both the local communities, but serve the United States well at a fraction of the dollar that might have been, if it were executed from a an American institution, uh, that's operating on a pro- for-profit basis here out of Washington.

Well, to me, it seems pretty clear, the life savings, the retirement savings, the college funds, the financial futures of the people that we work for, it's pretty important. And, uh, I think that's an example of putting America first, uh, that your work carries out. And that's what it should actually look like. So my time's expired and I yield back. Representative Wilson.

Thank you very much, Mister Chairman, and indeed, ladies and gentlemen, uh, I wanna thank, uh, the witnesses for being here. Uh, I am also happy to point out, uh, Mister Wilson, uh, your, uh, shared heritage, along with Gabe Amo, uh, Gabe, um, of uh, a heritage of the Lowcountry of South Carolina. Uh, and so uh, we uh, together, uh, uh, having been born in the holy city of Charleston, um, we uh, just uh, appreciate and uh, and then uh, it, and Greg Meeks even uh, with his uh, his birthplace, Rock Hill, South Carolina. So you, you're in friendly co- company. And then in the best South Carolina tradition, Mister Chairman, if I could, I would claim uh, Damon is a uh, cousin, but we're one step removed. With that in mind, uh I I really you you being here today, something life-changing for me. I am a uh a lifelong supporter of why not victory over communism, supporting Barry Goldwater, supporting Ronald Reagan. Uh a dream come true, I was recommended by Lee Atwater to uh President Reagan uh to be an election observer for the first re-elections in Bulgaria, June ten, nineteen ninety. And uh when I got there it was like stepping back in the nineteen thirties. Uh, and uh, it was just pathetic. The most slavish Soviet satellite, uh, was the, uh, everything I read, uh, that, uh, due to Pan-Slavism and shared Cyrillic alphabet, uh, the people of Bulgaria loved being part of the Soviet empire. They wanted to be not just a satellite, they wanted to be a republic. No, they didn't. And now they're free, a member of NATO, a member of the EU, a dynamic country. Uh, it's so exciting, and much of this is really due to, uh, efforts that you have made. And I wanna thank you, and I'm keenly interested now in what's being done in Venezuela, Iran, and China.

Thank you very much uh for you be, for your being a champion of so many advocates for freedom around the world Congressman. Uh it it resonates uh with many of our partners. You're right uh of the fundamental role that the endowment played in uh helping citizens resist Communist regimes from as Tom said, uh, lex valensis hovel in the in the historic times.

Mm-hmm.

Well, today I would argue that we're supporting the people that are the the lex valensis and the hovels of the futures. Uh, Tom mentioned that part of our track record has been to identify remarkable leaders and give them support uh s over seventeen have now won the Nobel Peace Prize so in Venezuela, Iran and Cuba we've been at the forefront for decades of supporting those who have the courage to stand up to repression to stand up uh to uh, communist regimes. Um, and it fi- and and fight for dignity in their own way, in their, uh, for their own communities in a peaceful way. So it means in Venezuela, over forty organizations, across the island of Cuba, over twenty. Iran is our fastest growing program, it has been for the past few years, where our work has been critical to overcoming the internet, uh, uh, blackout, to supporting these grassroots nationwide networks, and really being able to document the casualties that have come out of the repression that we've seen recently as well.

And indeed, thank you so much. And another area that, um, I wanna thank you for working in and I, the American people need to know is in the South Caucasus region. And it's a critical region, uh, of opportunity, uh, the Trump administration remarkably enough has been able to have a peace agreement between Azerbaijan and Armenia, uh, an incredible president, uh, what a great leader he is, and, uh, Prime Minister Pashin, uh, to be in the Oval Office, two former Soviet republics. uh and to have the trump route for international peace and prosperity. Uh however, uh in the region is the Georgian dream dictatorship, uh and it's so sad to me that the election in Georgia was rigged. Uh it was rigged by world criminal Putin and his puppet uh Ian Vasile. With that in mind, legitimate president of of the Republic of Georgia is Salome George Vasile. How are you working in the region to help all the countries preserve the sovereignty in light of the upcoming Armenian election, where one of the candidates is openly backed and financed by war criminal Putin.

So while we're in, while we're working around Venezuela, Cuba on supporting transitions there and places that you've just mentioned like in the South Caucasus, we're working with uh in Armenia and Georgia in particular, and those that are struggling and and uh democracy is under pressure. So Armenia has elections coming up, uh we have been uh s- critical in helping put together a coalition of donors. We've leveraged modest investments from Ned to get other donors to help support the election integrity election observation process there. We're proud that the Prime Minister of Armenia, when he was released from prison decades ago, was a Ned partner and operated an independent uh uh uh newspaper in uh in Armenia. In Georgia today we've seen backsliding uh dem uh which was a pro-American, democratic, uh struggling transitional

Again, thank you for your success, and it's great that you're working also with Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Thank you. Representative Costa.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members of the uh committee, and our witnesses. We appreciate your appearing before the committee today. Um, I am uh very focused on the concerns uh of a global uh democratic recession, that I think uh uh appears to be occurring around the world, um, where authoritarian regimes uh are at the rise and and and and uh we have a an erosion political rights and civil liberties around the world that i think the national endowment for democracy is is well positioned as well as the inter-american foundation to try to uh portray and focus on smart power of the of uh our country um i i question our american leadership at this moment as to whether or not they're really interested in using all the tools uh to um in state craft to promote democracy and protect freedoms. Um, you know, President Ronald Reagan, um, used to like to talk about America being that, a beacon of light, that city on the shining hill. And I'm wondering today whether or not, uh, President Reagan, uh, would feel comfortable with It clearly is a backsliding from my perspective that we've been witnessing with this administration on that role of being that city on the shining hill um uh for a beacon of democratic nations around the world um so while ned is busy promoting democracy overseas i think we find ourselves in a somewhat um uh position of of uncertainty whether or not the administration fully wants to support those efforts in certain parts of the world uh this hyper partisan agenda by eradicating bipartisan funding organizations such as ned and uh the inter-american foundation i think goes to the heart of this um first it was in usia that was dismantled uh now it's the national endowment of democracy and the inter-american foundation who are here testifying this morning we appreciate your comments but i think uh it it seems to be juxtaposed with this administration's attempt to deal with uh um undermining our institutions of democracy both at home and around the world um and uh i think it undermines our global standing which the president seems to wanna uh uh portray and i think it's a litmus test for those of us in congress as to whether or not congressional authority will continue to be uh bipartisan in its efforts so uh mister wills i would like to start with russia and ukraine Can you outline Ned's program in relationship to these countries and how the United States has supported democracy in the Ukraine to help resist Russia's um, uh the war criminal uh President Putin uh from attempting to uh uh to to deal uh with this war? Um and also, interested in your work in Central Europe um I think the efforts with Hungary were were beneficial in recent elections but uh there's as you noted threats in Armenia and uh Georgia and Moldovia. Uh could you please comment?

Thank you, thank you Congressman for your question. Uh Russia and Ukraine are top priorities for the endowment reflecting uh interest that we've had from Congress. Ukraine is our largest program operating in, if you will, a free country. And it's built on decades of support since nineteen eighty-nine of backing Ukrainian citizens to actually have a say in their future. Over the years, this investment was about dealing with issues of representation and corruption in Ukraine, helping it uh its transition to democracy. What we have seen today is that those investments over time have been part of the story for why Ukraine has been successful in resisting Russian aggression. So our support today I think is vital to the Ukrainian resistance of Russia's assault. Uh, we support efforts to document the the war crimes that are taking place, To help ensure access to the.

And they are war crimes, and it was just as clear today as it was four years ago when bipartisan expression of good versus evil with Russia representing the the the evil nature of their intentions, right?

That's right, and our our work has both helped uh uh folks document that, but also do things about it and worked, for example, uh we've been able to support Russians and Ukrainians to work together return Ukrainian children that had been abducted and taken into Russia.

Yeah, over twenty thousand. Uh, Mister Malinowski, I'd like to uh focus on your experience on organizations like NED playing a role in foreign policy from your uh background and increasingly in authoritarian world. Um, could you please comment on how defunding your organization would influence America's standing in the world? Good to see you, Tom.

Sorry, good to see you. So, yeah, I mean, first of all, there are things that NED can do. that organ, that institutions like this can do that the State Department can't and shouldn't try to do, by itself. Um, having that little bit of separation from the, the executive branch, uh, from a particular president's foreign policy can be very helpful. It's protective of the people, the activists who get the support. Um, it, it, it, it allows, you know, that they have amazing local knowledge and local relationships that, that they can exploit, but it also conveys a message about what America stands for, um, that is absolutely central and essential to our power and authority in the world. And if this were to go away, we know who would be happy, because last year when there was the possibility of Ned going away, it was the dictatorships in China, in Cuba, in Venezuela, in Iran that publicly,

And Russia.

and Russia, that publicly gloated and rejoiced, saying this is a huge win for us to see the destruction of institutions like NED, which thankfully did not happen, and did not happen in part because there is still bipartisan support for the work that they do here in the United States Congress, even as you guys hold them accountable, which is your prerogative and your right in what you should be doing. And I wanna make sure that that's preserved in all of our interest.

Thank you. My time's expired, but more to continue. Representative Smith.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Oh, to welcome my friend and colleague, Tom Ilanowski, back to the committee. Good to see you, Tom.

Chris.

I do have a question for uh, Mr. Wilson. I um, you know, as Secretary of State, Ruben Rubio, I should say, prepares to travel to New Delhi to meet with Indian leaders. Prime Minister Modi's government is poised to pass a draconian new law, anti NGO anti-religious law uh that will seriously impact just about every organization christian or muslim in that country uh we all know that mother teresa's group uh is under serious siege uh by the modi government modi was the only one ever to be told he could not get a visa to come here because what he what he did to the muslims under the international religious freedom act of nineteen eighty eight only one uh head of state ever to be so sanctioned. Uh it was lifted when he became the Prime Minister and then he obviously uh was able to come here. Uh during the upcoming monsoon session from July twenty first to August twelfth, the Indian Parliament is set to consider a bill amending India's foreign contribution regulation act. If adopted, the bill would sharply expand the ability of the Indian state to seize the property and assets of groups that receive foreign funding the vast majority of these being Christian churches charities hospitals and schools it's gonna be the biggest takeover ever the biggest theft ever now i know that ned is not necessarily involved with india now i would hope you would consider uh you know looking to try to engage on this um because again uh i never saw anything like this you know we see it in chinese communist party we expect it from them we don't expect it from modi Any thoughts of getting involved there?

Thank you for bringing this uh to our attention. It is as you said, uh the endowment doesn't operate programs in India, but religious freedom and support is a major priority for the endowment. Uh we support the International Religious Freedom Summit. We've welcomed Ambassador Sam Brown back onto our board because of this work. Uh and you are right in that we see globally that governments often target faith communities because they are independent sources of moral authority, of o of organization. of truth beyond state control. And so while we don't have programs in India, we do support uh groups around the world um that are, we're one of the largest supporters of faith-based groups uh that help empower religious communities as forces for freedom. Um and it's across Christians, Jews, Muslims, Tibetan Buddhists, we're deep uh long-standing relationships with the Uighur cause, Falun Gong practi practitioners. So part of what we do is support the local groups that we can then help connect with and provide a stronger evidence base for the US Commission on International Religious Freedom for the State Department to have a ground truth of how local faith based groups see what's happening whether it's in Nigeria, or Cuba, Nicaragua, and help better inform how the United States then understands what's happening on the ground. So this is a a major priority for us. We will take a look at the that issue.

Yes.

Um there are complicated issues about uh operating in India both scale and legally as you said. Uh, but we take these uh issues quite seriously and they're one of the primary focus uh of our priorities in our current uh planning for our budget.

I do appreciate it. You could get back to us soon on that.

Will do.

Cuz in my opinion, uh this will be a major, I mean when they, when after Mother Teresa's uh sisters, it was like, I mean that's what Daniel Ortega did, that's what others who have dictatorships do. Um, this is supposed to be a democracy. And um, so that law, if it passes, or if it does, if it's a administratively they begin to implement the content of it without even passing a new law uh that will be a serious problem with Indian US relations and and I plan on holding hearings on it on the Tom Lantos commission um and you know not that that will do anything maybe but it might uh we gotta bring a bright light of scrutiny to it and I really appreciate you your willingness to look at it.

OK.

Uh lessons learned from the Uighurs uh and again another horrific human rights abuse by Xi Jinping uh he's committing genocide as we meet

That's right.

uh plus also the Falun Gong and others. Um what has been learned that that we could you know just increase our our focus on?

Well first of all, thank you for your helping to champion these communities, these causes. The Uighur example is a really good example of how the endowment operates, because we've been by the Uighur community sides for uh over uh over two decades. And you might remember at the beginning, most people around the world did not know what a Uighur was, or they took the CCP narrative that these were our Muslim terrorists uh as how a CCP campaign was meant to uh black uh uh scapegoat scapegoat the Uighur community. Ned spent time investing in uh people and relationships and organizations to help them go from being victims of what's happening in the CCP to give them some agency, to give them some voice over their future. So everything we know today about internment of Uighurs in mass detention, about police being put in the homes of Uighurs throughout, uh, we the Uighur region, this is because we have supported over time Uighurs to tell their story, document those abuses, and to begin to lay the groundwork to hold the CCP accountable for that. They're really important lessons learned. This doesn't happen overnight, but over time you see a substantial shift in global understanding of their cause, the genocide designations, and that's real impact done with modest resources.

Thank you so much.

Representative Vochesky.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, thank you to our witnesses. I wanna talk a little bit about civic education today. Uh, I come at this work as a former civics teacher, and I've seen firsthand how civic understanding shapes a society. So I, I believe deeply that civic illiteracy plays a very real role in the erosion of democratic institutions around the world over this past decade. When young people are asked to navigate politics, power, and their life without a basic understanding of how their government works, they become vulnerable to manipulation, division, and despair. In Africa, where more than sixty percent of the population is under twenty-five, and the median age is just nineteen, we know this challenge is especially urgent. Across parts of the continent, where several countries are now under military rule, we're seeing too many people leaving classrooms for conflict. This is especially true when extremist extremist groups like Boko Haram, uh, Al Shabaab, and ISIS affiliates thrive. in environments marked by weak governance and a lack of shared national identity. We see it in the eastern DRC, where schools have become battlefields. We see it in Nigeria, where girls have been kidnapped by Boko Haram and traded like commodities, and where farmers have watched their villages be destroyed by neighbors. We see it in the Sudan, where young men are forced into militias while the country endures a devastating humanitarian crisis. Civic education alone will not change these trajectories, but it does help build a citizen's citizenry that knows how to demand accountability. It teaches that pluralism is not a threat. It gives youth the confidence to actively participate in governance. And it prepares the next generation not just to endure conflict, but to prevent it. We know that at its core, civic education is more than coursework. It's about resilient societies where citizens understand their rights, trust institutions, engage in political processes, and reject violence. That's why, Mister Wilson, I wanna commend the work of the National Endowment for Democracy's work. It taps into that incredible potential that Africa's youth offers for democratic renewal uh to build informed engaged citizens and places where democracy is fragile it is for those citizens who ultimately hold everything together so um I wanna just turn to a few questions on democratic backsliding and Mister Wilson maybe uh Mister Malinowski if you can sorta tell us how civic illiteracy contributes to democratic backsliding, and what patterns you're seeing in regions with large youth populations like Africa. Uh, specifically interested how NED supports young people who are the next generation of political leaders.

Thank you very much for your focus on this issue, your question. Uh, you've identi uh uh appropriately identified the youth of the future, particularly in Africa, as fundamental to the cause of freedom and democracy. We have seen whether it's been across the Sahel from uh, or in Morocco and globally from Madagascar to Nepal, Gen Z protests, frustrations of unmet demands of young populations leading to real political tension and change. We try to make investments that invest in not just their dignity, but the ability to turn their frustrations into articulated views of what types of policies, what kind of approach, how to marry dignity with uh with public with policy. So for us, Africa is our second largest investment uh uh after after Asia with an uh focus on the areas that you identified, particularly across the Sahel where there's a long tradition of youth movements that now are are facing an alternative under uh oppression of military hunters where Russian Wagner troops are not delivering the future that some of the youth were promised we're starting to see that. We're nurturing young groups that are now helping to explain why Russia's presence in their country is not advancing is not an easy solution to the problems they solve. With the civic education, if you think about our work in the eastern uh DRC that you referenced, part of this is to engage gr engage groups and particularly young people to pack the norm so that sexual-based violence that is part of the conflict becomes something not stigmatizing the victims but stigmatizes what's being done, and supporting those and those communities. This has been fundamental in Nigeria where we've seen the Nsars protest, and others led by youth. We've been able to take in a venture capital approach, some bets on promising young leaders that have built pretty remarkable institutions. Two students who formed an organization that now is one of the largest in Nigeria that provides uh accountability election night uh coverage of what's happening, and and elections, one of the most respected civic groups was built on the energy of these youth. So part of what we do is try to channel those frustrations to construct constructive ways to shape outcomes in their communities.

Well, first of all, I'm glad to see that you're holding down the SZ caucus on, uh, on the committee. Ta- taking my seat. Um, l- look, imagine, imagine you're a young man living in a country where, you know, the, the, the police are corrupt, they beat you up, there's no opportunity, the government doesn't represent you. You've got two options, basically. One option is provided by groups like Boko Haram and Al Shabaab. They say, " Here's a gun, we're gonna help you fight, young man." That's not the option that we want them to take. Option number two is provided by institutions like NED. Here is a civic group, here is a political party, here is a protest movement, here is a way where you can peacefully stand up for your dignity and your rights, not as a member of a terrorist group, but as a member of an organization that ultimately can be a great partner for the United States. That's the choice that we have to make.

Thank you very much.

Thanks.

You're back, Mr. Chairman.

Representative Huizenga.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Mr. Wilson, I wanna be uh clear and transparent uh with you, many uh my constituents and people uh that uh um I've heard from have concerns about how the NED, the National Endowment uh for Democracy uh has operated over the years, especially regarding the level of autonomy it exercises as a steward of uh our taxpayer dollars, and about facilitation of the censorship industrial complex uh by funding an organization called the Global Disinformation Index. Uh, I wanna note that the official NED taxpayer funded website denies that GDI was censoring mainstream conservative media platforms here in the US stating that it claim that any claims about NED funding a foundation quote that targeted and blacklisted conservative media is inaccurate. and misleading close quote. Mister Chairman, for the record I'd like to enter enter into the record,

Order.

uh this uh this uh uh response that uh that the NED had put forward uh to the um to the zeroing out of the NED uh uh byline there of of spending from the uh from uh our last uh our last funding. Um, nevertheless, thanks to the investigation by this committee in twenty twenty four, we know that advertisers and tech companies paid GDI to use its dynamic exclusion list to avoid placing ads on the lists of websites deemed as disinformation, effectively cutting off blacklisted companies from advertising revenue. Based on GDI's list, eight of the ten highest risk platforms uh were uh right of center. while nine of the least risk uh platforms are left of center. Um, funny enough, when members of Congress raised those concerns with this grantee, uh, the NED canceled the program in question and clawed back the funds. Uh, specifically on claim three uh you have here, uh, you say the claim is inaccurate and misleading. NED has never funded, supported or authorized any work by the Disinformation Index Foundation or its UK-based affiliate, the Global Disinformation Index. that involved the United States or was directed at US media outlets. Um, the uh the we've heard the singing protestations of Nina Jankowicz in this committee, uh about this uh these claims of uh of censorship that had gone on, uh but uh pretty clearly that uh that this was intended for foreign uh disinformation sources, not domestic, but I'm I'm a little confused. Um, was the claim of funding of GDI itself misinformation that you had to rebut in claim number three? Or was there actually an issue there and that you had concerns, therefore you clawed it back?

Congressman, we agree that what the the work that was done related to the United States is unacceptable. Ned would never support any work, fund any work focused on the United States. It's against our mandate, it's against our culture and ethos or values. So we do not censor, would never censor American suppression of lawful speech. demonetization.

So, so are you saying that claim number three on your website is inaccurate?

We funded GDI originally to do a project focused on media environments and foreign settings in Africa, Latin America.

So you didn't, you, you say you didn't fund them, but you did.

We did not fund this project. We did not fund their work related to the United States. We would never fund work related to the United States.

One, so

When we found out about that, that's when we, we took action, canceled that and briefed Congress on our actions.

My guess is, my guess is because you found out what any member of Congress knows, money is fungible.

That's right. That's right. That we we agree. I mean, we uh, the the we understand this, and so when we when we learned of this, it was indefensible. We did not try to defend that work. In fact, we initiated a review. We came up and briefed first our board, then Congress, and canceled that within a week, clawed back those funds, and put in safeguards to focus on that issue of fungibility, so that we had greater awareness of work that we didn't fund that o- organizations might be doing with other donors.

Well, there's there's there's part of the rub is because um the radical left ideology that has corrupted this taxpayer funded organization, Ned, uh has given initiatives, all of your initiatives frankly, uh I think under your umbrella, really a bad name. And uh as chair of the South and Central uh Asia subcommittee, I've seen the real impact of the State Department funded flagship B five plus one. This is a This is the business side of the C five plus one.

Right.

Uh, that's an initiative with a central uh, Asian uh, countries and, and I think there has been some good positive things that have been done with that. But, what, my time is running out here, but I, you're under a cloud, sir. And I, you and, and your colleagues need to do everything you can to remove that cloud. I think you need to re-examine exactly how you're def- you were defending what, uh, what is, what you just were saying was undefendable. Uh, and uh, and I I just encourage you to take another look at that. So I I've got uh some additional uh additional questions I may uh be providing, Mister Chairman,

Mm.

but my time is up and I yield back.

Preased.

Representative Kamlager-Duff.

Thank you, Mister Chair, and thank you to our witnesses for being here. The administration's budget request zeroes out, IAF and NED, uh, and some of my Republican colleagues have debated folding these agencies into the State Department. Let's be clear about what both these proposals would do. Reduce global influence and minimize oversight of foreign assistance. If these agencies became part of the State Department, this committee would lose all visibility into their activities. Under this administration, the State Department's Office of Foreign Assistance refuses to engage with Congress and has become a total black box. I'm a subcommittee ranking member, and I any specifics from the State Department about the programs that they are funding in my region. Contrast that with NED and IAF who are incredibly responsive because they are not executive branch agencies, and they receive appropriations directly from Congress. That's why they're showing up before this committee today, unlike the Office of Foreign Assistance. Moving them into the State Department would only limit congressional oversight, which might be the goal, if you're letting Donald Trump do your job. Finally, Ned and IAF expand US influence abroad and advance our foreign policy interests in tangible ways. It is curious that the Trump administration would oppose that, especially because these agencies, decade of investments have built up the global goodwill that Trump is spending on tariffs, the Iran war, travel bans, refugee admission caps, boat strikes, visa revocations, and on and on and on. So let's take a look at the strategic successes that the administration apparently wants to get rid of. I have three very quick questions. Mister Wilson, this one is for you. The Center for International Private Enterprise, one of NED's four core institutes, received State Department funding last year to organize the B five plus one form, the business counterpart to the C five plus one summit. Uh, something I learned about actually from Saip, not from the State Department. And Sergio Gore actually flew to Bangkok, I mean I'm sorry, not to Bangkok, flew to Bishkek to participate in the B five plus one forum. So clearly the administration has found value in Ned's work. Mister Wilson, can you share more about the objectives of the B five plus one forum and why Saip is uniquely equipped? to implement it.

Thank you for your question, and I think this is a good example of strong alignment because of American interest between our work and what we're and the administration. Uh, the Center for International Private Enterprise, which is one of the four core institutes whose leader is with us today, uh of the endowment, uh focuses on economic freedoms, and we have supported them for years to operate in Central Asia. It's a good example of working in a region that is not exactly uh uh very democratic, and yet is still interested in having a relationship with the United States under pressure from Russia and China, and doing so through a business landscape in which the State Department has now picked up this effort in the B-five initiative, which is really on how we engage in Central Asia in a way that can help American companies and American workers actually compete more fairly, um, how we can, uh, help support locally independent professional business associations that can engage with the American chambers of commerce, and other organizations that CITE supports to build the fabric between the United States and Central Asia on the basis of transparency of rule of law in the economic sector, of things that are principles in the economic freedom category that are acceptable, uh in a, and on an agenda. And I think this is in alignment with the administration's efforts to engage Central Asia positively, recognizing the pressure that they are facing from Russia and China. This gives a positive means of projecting American engagement and influence. in a way that works for the communities locally, but works very well for American investment as well.

So, Mister Wilson, I also understand, and we do not have a lot of time left, that NED grantees focused on exposing PRC intimidation of the Chinese diaspora were responsible for uncovering the existence of a CCP police station in New York City and other cities around the world. Can you elaborate on that?

With a relatively modest grant, a hundred and fifteen thousand dollars to an organization that began what has really plagued many of our partners, the long reach of the CCP to intimidate them in free societies. Our partner was able to publish the existence of fifty-three overseas police stations, if you will, uh that were used to actually intimidate Uighurs, Tibetans, Chinese dissidents. One of them was in New York. Uh the the Justice Department has acted on that, has made arrests, and there are now people behind prison because of their activities to intimidate American citizens of Chinese descent. But we've seen this in fifty-three countries around the world, and this work that our partner is doing has helped countries break off extradition treaties with China for example, so that innocent Chinese wouldn't be victimized through these efforts of the CCP to silence their critics even outside their borders.

You said that grant was for a hundred and fifteen thousand dollars.

It was, yes.

Thank you. And with that, I yield back.

Representative Davidson.

Excuse me, Mister Chairman. May I be excused for a bio break?

Absolutely.

OK, thank you.

Does anybody else need one at the same time?

Oh.

You get one.

All right. Thank you, Chairman. Um

Warren, did you need her for questioning? Did you have a pause or

Uh, I'll send her some written questions for the record.

Very good. You can have your turn now.

Um, I have plenty of questions for Mister Wilson. Uh, you know, Mister Wilson, you know, fundamentally why should the United States uh fund operations through a non-profit that is maybe not even accountable to the United States government, uh, instead of just doing it ourselves.

Congressman, thank you for that question. Look, we are a creature of Congress. We were established by Congress, working with President Reagan to set up, uh, in advance of the ne-

You know the history in nineteen eighty three, you know, the Cold War's been over for a little bit. Why should we keep doing it this way?

One, in part, it allows our country to project positive influence by working independently in some of the toughest places. So our specialty, our ability to work with uh communities and repressive environments is complimentary to US foreign policy. And it's not without accountability or oversight we consult on these programs both with Congress and the executive branch.

Would you agree with the statement that America's resources should always advance America's interests?

I do, yes.

Do you think you were advancing America's interest when you were at uh Atlantic uh DFR um and you one hundred percent of your content filtering? uh, filtered Trump's messaging in the twenty twenty election cycle.

Uh, I'm now the Endowment National Endowment for Democracy. It's my focus to deliver on our mission. I previously served as executive vice president of the Atlantic Council. My focus there was on Russian uh denials of their forces operating in Ukraine.

Well, you were cited by a board, NED board member, Joaquin Castro, who was an impeachment manager for Democrats against President Trump, as the leading authority on disinformation. Do you consider yourself a leading authority on disinformation?

I'm an American patriot that considers myself really focused on how countries like Russia, China, Iran have been able to, have been trying to challenge the United States and our interests around the world. And I have focused on that nexus in my national security career, working for President Bush and across administrations.

Well, President Bush, uh, I haven't heard you mention President Trump. Are you working to advance President Trump's foreign policy agenda since he is the Commander-in-Chief?

I believe we are. We work closely and have consulted with state. We think about and have examined the national security strategy and how uh our priorities overlap. We just had a meeting this week with senior officials at state about our work in Cuba and how that is relevant to some of their thinking as well so I think in many respects, whether it is how the administration has articulated its importance of projecting American influence of focusing on uh opportunity in Latin America, These are places where I think our work aligns closely.

Well, when you're focusing on opportunity in Latin America, why are you working to undermine uh filtered content in America? That's what Ned did, you know, under the Biden administration. They were counter-programming uh messaging in the United States. Why were you doing that? You did it in Spanish, granted not in English, but why'd you do that?

The endow- the endowment doesn't fund any programming focus on the United States. Look, the the challenge has been how

You don't you don't focus on Advancing United States interest when you're doing this around the world?

No, we don't fund programming that focuses inside work on the United States.

When you're, when you're funding uh America, when when you're using America's resources to advance America's interest in Latin America, why did you put different content out in Spanish than you put out in English? And the Spanish language content undermined America. Why did you do that?

I'm not aware of the the details. We can look into this and and be glad to come answer those questions for you.

Thank you. Do Ned's activities and focus on democracy promotions tangibly increase our influence vis- vis-vis-vis China and Russia in the third world?

Our our focus is on how to deal with the challenges that China and Russia are are putting on American interests.

Are you trying to accommodate China's presence in the Western hemisphere or are you trying to counter China's influence in the Western

No, no, not Not at all.

hemisphere?

I think we have we have built the most important network in Latin America, Africa, of local entities that are

Well, Well, what evidence is there that that foreign countries would what evidence is there that that foreign countries would rather hear from you than from the United States uh State Department? rather hear from you than from the United States uh State Department?

We solely operate on demand and and and uh those that come and seek support, knowing that we are backed by Congress, knowing that this is the American taxpayer. So we we can barely fund maybe maybe twenty-five percent of proposals.

Is it isn't it really clear that when it's the United States government, that it's the American taxpayer? How is it clear that it's the American taxpayer when it's a non-profit?

It's very clear to anyone. We operate fully transparently so that anybody who's accepts funds from the endowment knows about our structure knows that we are knows that we reflect American interests in the long term, that's very transparent.

Well, thank you. Uh, the origin story is great, but I do believe uh Ned has lost their way and hopefully they'll lose their funding. I yield back. Representative Stanley.

Thank you very much uh, Mister Chairman, for putting forward this important hearing. Thank you to the witnesses today, especially my former colleague, Congressman Malinowski, who was such a strong voice on how we can best promote American values. around the globe, especially values of human rights. Today's hearing is critical. Will the United States continue to provide indispensable support for advocates of essential freedoms that we cherish here at home, freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly, and the freedom to earn a dignified wage and support our families. Congress established the Inter-American Foundation and the National Endowment for Democracy as independent organizations that are intentionally separate from the State Department. It is that independence that lends credibility to their work and enables these organizations to promote our most sacred values over the world. The work of NAD, the Inter-American Foundation, and other independent government-minded funded organizations, their work is not charity. It strengthens US national security and benefits American citizens. By helping to strengthen the rule of law, civil society, and enhance good governance, these organizations help build resilience to foreign malign influence and Chinese coercion. They also help create linkages between local stakeholders and the United States, creating opportunities for the United States businesses, civil society organizations, and the government to strengthen partnerships within the country. Here's what's at stake. China is taking advantage of this moment of Americans' retreat to strengthen their standing on the world stage. Meanwhile, the Trump administration is trying to eliminate the very tools that are working to combat authoritarian influence and build US goodwill in the Western hemisphere. and beyond. When America retreats, China advances. And if we keep handing Beijing the keys, the next generation will ask why they let America's influence crumble. Not because we couldn't afford it, but because we didn't fight for it. Congressman Malinowski, in your former role as Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, uh, you oversaw transfer of millions of US government dollars, taxpayer dollars, to NAD and similar organizations. Why do you think is Congress's continued investment in independent organizations that are removed from any administration policies. Why is that so important? And then secondarily, do you believe that the Trump administration's hostile approach to the work of organizations like NAD and IAF is giving China the upper hand?

Well, yeah, thank you for those those questions. The answer to the first one, of course, is is yes, I I'm a deep believer in the bipartisan, um, consensus that has existed in this body and in this country for over forty years. that promoting freedom and democracy around the world is good for America, that there are things the US government and the State Department should be doing directly to promote that cause, but that also serves our interest to have institutions that provide continuity, no matter who is in in the White House. A and as for you know, again, I wanna e- everything I'm saying here, I'm the democratic witness, I wanna make sure I'm speaking in a in a way that that is grounded in a bipartisan consensus. But I I I I do wanna respond a little bit to what Rep Representative Davidson just said,

Please, put.

you know, I'm I'm I'm so glad to hear tough, tough rhetoric against the CCP in China. That's something that is bipartisan. But the the president was just in China. Um, the White House put out a video, um, saying, this is a video about the promotion of American strength in the world. And every image of in that video was either Chinese Communist flags flying, dwarfing the American flag, or Chinese troops marching through Tiananmen Square. I'm glad that we've got institutions like Ed, Ned, that do not feel like they've got to immediately reflect that expression of values. um, that they're still their job is still to support the good guys, the Democrats, the dissidents in countries like China rather than i- if if supporting the p- the president's foreign policy means glorifying the Chinese Communist Party I'm glad they're not obliged to do that. And if I were a conservative Republican on this committee, I might have some concerns about a grant or two, and that's totally fine, but I would not wanna say that the NED and the IAF should do whatever the president in office wants at any given moment, because the next prep pres- president may not be a conservative Republican.

That's a good point.

And careful what you wish for if you wanna completely destroy the independence of these institutions. They should answer to you, mister chairman, ranking member, and not to the politics of the moment. Thank you.

Chairman, I have time. May I ask one more question? Uh, I wanna talk about Mexico, the work of NAD and IAF in Mexico. Uh, obviously there's such a critical bi- bilateral relationship with the United States particularly as we enter hopefully uh a modernization of USMCA. Uh, I've been a close friend of Mexico and try to help build that relationship, but also a critic when they deserve it, particularly with issues of independence of their judiciary because of recent changes. Mister Wilson and Miss Aviel, how are your organizations adapting your programming in Mexico to be responsive to ongoing democracy and rule of law issues, to ensure the door remains open for US business in Mexico.

Thank you for your question. Uh, Mexico has been a priority because of its significance for the United States. Uh, part of what we have helped support are our core institutes, uh, working to ensure that the provisions that have been negotiated into USMCA, for example, about Mexico's commitment to meet certain workers' rights conditions so that they're not undercutting American labor, that those have been met, uh uh that's some of the work that the Solidarity Center does, uh really in partnership with the Department of Labor and Congress to insure that they meet those standards. Our our direct grants program also supports Mexican uh entities themselves that are focused on how not to erode some of the professional uh agencies that are quite critical to whether it's c- independent a collection of independent data, or it's the uh election commission itself, and preserving their professionalism ability to to to to operate without executive influence over them in Mexico.

Thank you. We do a significant amount of work in Mexico in some of the areas that are most uh prone to violence. We have done a significant amount of work to help youth um resist uh gang recruitment. We've also worked with uh coffee cooperatives and supply chains of US businesses. And a very important piece of our work in Mexico that I think speaks to the flexibility that we have as a foundation, is we've created networks of community foundations that are mobilizing domestic resources, teaching them how we do the work to bring communities in, and then bringing in local business resources so that they can start to be taking on this work themselves. So it's a really important uh portfolio that we do there. Thank you.

Gonna recognize myself for a couple minutes here. President Reagan has been brought up numerous times in this. I think rightfully so. But I think it's also important to note something that President Reagan joked about many times. And you could probably know what I'm gonna quote. Said there's nothing quite so close to eternal life on this earth as a government program. He said it in a numer- a a myriad of different ways, joked about it, uh, because there's truth in that. There's a real reason that we're examining the value of these diplomacy aligned entities that don't fall directly under the Department of State. It is the command and control there to be executing what are the guidelines of US diplomacy, what this administration, any administration that is uh of the present time, what they're seeking to accomplish. There's been, I think, for a number of years a derelict of duty of Having uh these these entities before the House of Representatives, I believe the last time that uh these two entities were here was around a decade ago, uh give or take a little bit of time. So Congress has not been doing the oversight of inviting, inviting you all in to say what have you been doing with uh forty million dollars or three hundred million dollars. And I think you can expect that I will also extend an invitation to OMB. to come and explain their side of why they would like to see the operations rolled internally. And I think it's important that we all have that debate and look at that and reflect on that, uh given the changing dynamics of diplomacy around the globe, media around the globe, conversations around the globe, tensions that we face around the globe. Are you relevant? Are you not relevant? Are you a good value? for the american dollars uh that you're given or are you not and i intend to ask the exact same questions to omb in order to to get to the right conclusion about all of this i do wanna ask a couple of questions um mister melinowski thank you for coming back uh i wanna ask you you did mention that there are a lot of countries that grantees would work in where they would be in danger uh for working with the united states department of state To be fair, can you think of countries that they would be in danger in for working with the US Department of State? Where they wouldn't also be in danger for working with the National Endowment for Democracy who is essentially one hundred percent funded by the US Department of State? And it's a well-known fact.

Yeah, that's a, I think that's a very fair, fair question. I, I do think that even if there is one degree of separation, or if there is two degrees of separation, if Um, if these folks are working with another. Um, and the reason I believe that is because in my experience with activists on the ground, facing these dangers, that's what they tell me. And, they're the ones putting their butts on the line. And, so I've gotta defer to them on a question like that. Um, one other thing I, this.

I'll leave it at that.

OK.

Thank you for your response.

Could I could I address something else? Cuz you you you mentioned the issue of oversight.

Not in this moment. I've got a few other questions.

All right.

But maybe if there's another round that could that could take place.

Thank you. Of course.

Uh, there's been, you know, certainly people have talked about the global disinformation index. Uh, it goes to a broader point. Uh, I read another article on Factum Media, uh, one that Ned funded. The United States has never been interested in defending democracy outside its borders, neither freedom of or separation of powers nor uh counter weights, uh goes on to speak about a number of other things. Um I think we could all agree, articles like that are not in America's national interest, agreed? And I'm sure we could find individual places throughout the three hundred million dollars that's constantly spent uh through Ned to say, there's probably places in there where it's not in America's national interest. But I wanna ask, what is the floor of what a grantee would have to do in order to say their persona non grata. We're not going to work with them.

So we turn over.

And what grantees have you terminated?

I'm sorry.

And additionally, what grantees have you terminated?

Yeah. We uh, we turn over uh probably about thirty percent of the portfolio of when we're doing reviews based on effectiveness impact or align or changes in our priorities, after cons consulting with Congress or the administration. So I think for us, we're very focused on is this a g- partner that is actually with an authentic constituency in their country, supporting the growth of democracy and freedom in a way that is resonant with our interests. So we do not fund organizations that are hostile to the United States or or our government. You can imagine some kinds of of supporting independent media that we don't censor, we don't get involved in the production of individual articles or things that might be published in independent media. we do assess pretty rigorously, uh, do they have the right editorial standards, the right oversight, what kind of boards, uh, is there, are there democratic values and principles, and does this over time actually both serve by providing, uh, citizens in a repressed environment access to information, but also in a way that is conducive to American interest. And so, uh, we will we will very much take decisions to terminate support and have done that when we have done evaluations where we've seen we don't have as much of an impact as we want, Or in the case of a of a GDI where with funds that were not from the endowment, but from another donor did something that was indefensible, we understand that fungibility and that's why we put in safeguards on those issues as well.

Thank you for your response. As I said, I intend to, you know, invite OMB to come and speak about this as well. Um, I'm not casting this net on you. I'm using it, uh, to be analogous. Uh, the old saying is, you know, a broken clock is right twice, twice a day. Uh, we want to ensure that three hundred million dollars or thirty or forty or fifty million dollars, uh, that you're right three hundred million times a day, right? Not twice a day. And that has to be the bar that's met. Are you a a value, uh, to the American taxpayer for what it is that you're doing? Or are you not? Or, uh, as President Reagan said, uh, are you the closest thing to eternal life because you're a government program? Uh, and it should be reviewed or should you not? And we're gonna continue that review. I thank you for your testimonies today. Ranking member Meeks.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, I actually think this was a great, this is a great hearing, uh one of the best that we've had, cuz this is what the kind of responsibility of oversight, uh questions that's being asked, uh and answered and I wanna thank all the witnesses. I wanna also acknowledge uh and recognize Mister uh Ken Wallach who happens to be in the room who uh I know has been very significant in my role as a member Congress and on this committee, uh his dedication in a completely bipartisan way, we're putting forward American values and trying to make sure that this planet, that we all share, uh is based upon those values and moving forward in that direction. And so I wanna thank you for your service, sir, because it's very, very much appreciated. Let me also uh just say, you know, I think that what I've heard thus far is clearly, and I hope You know, this is the kind of hearing I hope that the American people has really been listening to. Really important. Because I think that if they have listened uh to what uh has been told here, that they really see the return of the investment that they have made uh in these two organizations. Absolutely essential. You know, we've heard and this part of oversight where some members of Congress, my, especially my remembers on the on the on on the other side of the aisle have a particular interest on a uh program that took place uh i think that mister wilson has addressed that over and over and over again and said and talked and showed how it was at their own initiative that they made sure that it was done with now one of the reasons why i have confidence in that taking place etcetera And I wish many Memo- more members of Congress have the experience that I have, because I know as being a board member of NED, it's made me a better member of Congress. And any number of ways, not only knowledgeable, but working with my Republican colleagues, especially from this committee. And as a result of being a board member with other Republican colleagues who we did not always agree, But we talked to one another, we debated, and many bipartisan strong bills came out of this committee as a result of the affiliation with Ned. There's never, you know, when you look at the people that's there, Democrats, Republicans, and I don't know, independents, it's about our values. It's about soft power also, and I know we've heard General Kelly say long time that, you know, if we forget about all soft power, if we cut off all the funding on soft power, we're gonna pay a lot more as we've seen right now with reference to this war in Iran. It's extremely, extremely important. The work, we're not gonna, and it, and it's OK. We're not gonna always agree on everything. members of Congress, the the system wasn't set up that, but the system was set up for us to have oversight. Oversight of the agencies. But also, very importantly, not just to go by a whatever whoever, whether it's a Democrat or a Republican president, not just to go by whatever they say, this Congress has the responsibility of having oversight of the executive branch also. We're supposed to be not a uh strong copy of the executive branch. We're supposed to be, what? A check and a balance of the executive branch. That's what makes us different than any other country or most other countries in the world. Especially those authoritarian countries. Those are the values of which you are talking about when you're going around the world so that we don't have authoritarianism. We have democracy. That's what this is really all about. Fact, you know, Mister Malinowski, you, I think you, you, you, in your testimony you said that Ned has supported more than twenty Nobel Peace Prize laureates. That's stunning. That's something that's recognition. That, you know, you know, that that means that Ned's global influence to have supported so many individuals Wouldn't you think that would have a strong impact with others all around the world? Other, you know, individuals, Mister Malinowski?

Yeah, and the key point is they were supported long before they won the Nobel Peace It's not like, you know, they were inv you know, already heroes who succeeded and then Ned gave them a medal. Ned was making these investments when those heroes of democracy were young persecuted activists who who could have been snuffed out by their governments, and never heard from again. But those investments led to great transformations in country after country, around the world, and the creation um, of great allies for the United States of America. And I, I think, you know, I, I appreciated Mister Maas' reference to, to, to President Reagan saying that things shouldn't last forever. I think he'd be pretty proud

Gentlemen.

of what his, just as

Hey, let, let, let me, gentlemen, since I've expired, the representative from, um, Guam is recognized, Mister Moylan.

Uh, thank you, Mister, Mister Chairman. Thank you to the panel. Oh, man, boy, that's interesting. Uh, I wanted to just ask a point of questions. Uh, starting with uh, Ned on Indo-Pacom. Uh, can you explain to me if there, if NEDA has any performance in Indo-Pacific area?

Yes, our investment in Asia is our largest in investment globally, uh, across the Indo-Pacific. Uh, uh, it's our most significant program in part because of what's at stake for our country, the challenge we face from China.

Could you expand a bit more on what what we're doing?

Sure, uh, So our largest programs in Asia focus first of all on China itself, as well as support for Uighurs, Tibetans, Hong Kongers, uh and China's influence in the region. Uh after that we have programs that really focus on supporting the democratic development evolution and America's partners, like in the Philippines and Thailand where we're working in partnership to help, uh those uh those uh democracies develop uh in a way that that works uh and delivers for their citizens and produces stable partners for the United States. We have support, uh, in fact, with the Center for International and Private Enterprise across the Pacific Islands to ensure that there is a a network of being able to engage, uh, professional business associations across the Sp- Pacific Islands to work with the United States on investment climate, uh, on being able to deal with corrosive capital, if you will, that comes in through CCP-linked investments in the region. Uh, those are the types of activities we do. In Southeast Asia, a major priority for us as well, uh whether it's supporting uh uh Burmese that believe in a in a free democratic federal Burma or supporting persecuted groups in a country uh like Vietnam.

By chance any work with the pre-associated states?

Uh I I would have to confirm whether they're involved in Snipe's uh uh Pacific Island work, I can't answer off uh off the top, but we can come back to you on that.

Thank you so much. uh, for the um, Inter-American Foundation. Uh, basically the same question for you, please.

About whether we work in the Asia-Pacific? We don't work in the Asia-Pacific. We are exclusively focused, uh, on the Western hemisphere. We work in twenty-seven countries, but we are focused on, uh, countering the adversarial influence of, of entities backed by the Chinese Communist Party within the region.

Appreciate that. Uh, sorry, I didn't ask you any questions, but you, anything to say in reference to Indo-Pekka?

Um, I mean, I'm broadly aware of extraordinary work that Ned has done over the years, um, in the Indo-Pacific region. We've talked a lot about China here today. Um, there are a lot of brave Chinese democracy activists, um, who have benefited over the years, uh, from Ned's support. There is I think extraordinary story, uh, that, that, um, Mister Wilson and others, uh, told about NED grantees helping to expose, uh, CCP police stations in the United States and in other countries where they were using those quote police stations to hunt down Chinese dissidents in exile, um, including in New York City, uh, for a grant that was just over a hundred thousand dollars. Uh, in Burma where, um, the State Department has cut off all support, uh, for the, the brave democracy activists who are trying to, um, address the abuses of the military regime there in Cambodia, in Vietnam. Um, in many cases right now, Ned is really the only, um, voice and actor on behalf of us as American citizens, supporting people in the Indo-Pakam region, who are struggling for democratic values.

I thank you all for your your time. Appreciate it. Thank you, Mister Chair. You.

Thank you. The gentleman from Ohio, Mister Miller, is recognized.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. I appreciate it, and for having this important hearing, and thank you for the witnesses for being here today. It's greatly appreciated. The State Department and organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy, and the Ameri- and the Inter-American Foundation are important organs of the American soft power. They contribute to our nation's ability to push back against the CCP and Russia propaganda abroad, by highlighting the fact that our values of freedom and republican self-government are superior to the totalitarian systems our adversaries are selling. However, this noble enterprise is due for a course correction. In recent history, we seem to have strayed from our mission, and that this is this committee's duty to ensure that we get that back on track. So, mister Wilson, Would you say that the nation of Georgia is on the front lines of war between democratic Western values and totalitarianism?

I'd say that Ge- Georgia is experiencing a real challenge, democratic backsliding, uh, in in that country, and it's a place that uh, the United States has had a long relationship supporting it since the end of the S- Soviet Union and

Mr. Wilson, yes or no? Do you believe that they are on the front lines of democratic Western values and totalitarianism, they're gonna teeter between either or. Do you think they're leaning in one direction more than the other?

I think it's a fair, it's, it's a, it's, I think that's a fair assessment that the country is in play right now.

OK, thank you. It's all, it's all I was asking. I just, we agree on that.

Yes. Yes.

So, do you think it makes sense for Ned, in the name of promoting American values, to fund a mission to combat transphobia and fund a pride parade in twenty twenty three? Uh, these are controversial issues in the United States, so I imagine a small conservative country, and the caucuses may not be too enthusiastic about this.

So, we don't uh, we don't f- we don't fund pride parades, we don't fund that type of work. What we do fund are groups and organizations that are trying to have a, uh, express their, support their rights in their own societies, commiserate with their, their laws there.

Right. So, that, Mister Wilson, well, that worked out so well, that the following year, after the net or, you know, working with the sub-agency underneath them to ensure these funds got out there, cuz you know you you wanna connect with the people that are there and get their opinions out, correct? That is the goal of this. Well, the Georgian parliament, the next year, they passed a law that would allow the government to ban pride parades. So, do you think that that was a worthy investment, period, whether it was directed by the net or underneath it, or that you were, you know, helping a group, uh, express those values, do you think that that was a good representation and a good place for that money to go, yes or no?

Look, our our

yes or no? I really don't want a lengthy answer. This place is full of bureaucracy. It's do you think that was a good place for the money to be spent, yes or no? If you say yes, it blows my mind and the American people will agree. This is an eighty twenty issue, so please, the floor is yours, yes or no?

We're not there to impose any any of our views.

Exactly. See, this is a part of the problem. You can't answer a basic question. I want you to be successful. Everyone on this committee wants Ned to be successful, but we want to make sure that every taxpayer dollar that is being spent, and everything that I sign off on, that my constituents are contributing to, doesn't go to nonsense like this when you agree that they're on the brink of somewhat of a democracy or totalitarianism and this makes up probably less than a fraction of a percent of that entire country's constituency of the people that are there. This is what we're driving at, sir. You and I probably agree a lot more than what we disagree on. But the simple fact that you're sitting there in front of this body and you can't even answer a simple question is a part of why we need to look at the NED and that it is way off its track of what it intended to be. I am somebody who has always supported our allies in this body. Take a look at my voting record. I'm proud of that. But this has gone way too far and you guys act like one dollar that's being mis- is okay and it's not and this is something that this committee has to look at so it is incredibly you know upsetting to me that this stuff is going on i wanna be clear i've been endorsed by the log cabin republicans this isn't something that i'm honing in on on an issue but money just like you would spend in your own checking account for your own family would you spend it on something that wouldn't help or effectuate their life in a positive way i would think not and that's exactly what you are doing at the net in directing this money to causes and things that does not serve the American people, that does not serve the people of Georgia, and does not make this place a better world. And that is what you and I are after. And you deserve this lecture, and your entire organization does. And whether you wanna hear it, it's tough. There are plenty of things that I don't wanna hear every day in this job. But, you know, like I said, you and I agree more than we disagree, but the simple fact you can't answer a yes or no question about a very easy question. Makes me not wanna support your organization one bit, and it's sad because once again, you and I probably agree a lot more than what we don't. Thank you, Mister Chairman. I yield back.

Thank you. Gentlemen, the time's expired. I'll now yield to myself for a few questions. Uh, my questions are also for Mister Wilson. Uh, the National Endowment for Democracy receives ninety-eight percent of its funding through congressional appropriation. Now, I don't actually think we should do it at all, but this isn't about that. My question is about um, " we gave three hundred and fifteen million, but you're not a government agency, you're a so-called private nonprofit that functions outside the State Department with minimal direction from the Secretary of State. Why is NED structured this way and and shouldn't be there be more oversight from the government? If we're going to have an organization that functions like this, why shouldn't you be part of the government and subject to the same rules as any other government agency?"

So, uh, the endowment is a creation of Congress.

Okay, so should we change it? Would you support saying you should be subject to the same rules you, I mean, all your money, maybe when they created it they thought you'd get a lot of private money, I don't know. Um, but you don't. So do you agree maybe we should make you just an agency and subject to the same rules as every other government agency? Or do you think you should be a a a private non-profit that's almost a hundred percent reliant on the government?

I think the structure that's put in, the unique structure works to support American interests over the long term that it provides for

So you have to be a private nonprofit to advance America's interests? Couldn't do it as part of the government?

Uh, you d- you don't have to be part of

OK.

of course.

So, so let me move on. Um, uh, because I think part of the lack of oversight causes problems. So it's been mentioned before, but I wanna cover it again. According to statute, Ned can't support US partisan political activities, but we know in Twenty twenty three, you funded an organization called the quote Global Disinformation Index, end quote, or GDI, which was censoring mainstream conservative media platforms in the United States in the name of quote, combating disinformation. It turns out those are the groups that usually engage in disinformation. And when member, now nothing happened until members of Congress raised concerns with the grantee. And then, as you pointed out, you did cancel the grant program in question and you clawed back the funds. Why was an organization like GDI even eligible for a grant in the first place, given that they were widely known to operate in partisan censorship activity in the United States? Why were they even eligible?

The grant with GDI began years bef- years ago about, with a real challenge of how to deal with Chinese and, and other authoritarian influence in countries around the world. It was a really challenging issue. You were correct that when we became, when I became aware of GDI's American activities, I did not wait to hear from Congress. I initiated a review, took it to our board, and we canceled that grant and came up and briefed Congress because we did agree it was inappropriate.

So you're you would agree that the organization never should have been eligible

It was

for money from Ned given that maybe maybe they weren't engaged in those activities when you first gave them money but once they became involved in those activities, you would agree they never should have been eligible for grant funding.

I agree.

OK. So what concrete steps has Ned taken since then to ensure that other organizations that might be censoring Americans or otherwise carrying out activities that are fundamentally opposed to Congress's intent? What have you made sure there's not another GDI incident?

Sure. So immediately after that, we ran a rev- a review and audit of our programs to very much look into this to ensure that we were meeting congressional intent with our work. We put in safeguards that moved to the outset of uh an application from our partner, that they would submit to us other projects, other activities, other funders that they have, so that we had a three sixty degree perspective on the other work that they did. We raised the bar for organizations that did anything that was beyond sort of a local context. Our special focus is on grassroots groups and countries. So for those who work for an- uh, more internationally, another layer of scrutiny. Uh, and we adapted, uh, and I led the process with our board to sharpen our strategy so that our strategy really is focused on piercing authoritarian censorship and repressive societies, and supporting media in places where it's under pressure.

So, so look, I would conclude with this. Um, I look at the world through a simple lens of the fact that we spend more money than we take in. um, we spend a couple trillion dollars a year more than we take in. And my, when I look at programs, the question is not simply are they a good idea or not. I think you can make an argument that some of what you do might be noble. I think much of it is not. But is it worth sending the country further towards economic collapse and burdening my children and their future grandchildren because of it? In my opinion, these programs are not worthy of borrowing money in order to fund. So I hope that we will ultimately have the courage to disband um both NED and and the IAF. Um with that, um that wraps up my time and I am the final witness today. I wanna thank the chairman for giving me the opportunity to chair the end of the committee. I also wanna thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony and the members for their questions the members of the committee may have some additional questions for the witnesses and we will ask you to respond to these in writing. Pursuant to committee rules, all members may have five days to submit statements, questions, and extraneous materials for the record, subject to the length limitations. Without objection, the committee stands adjourned.