Glenn Reynolds wrote this week about so-called "non-governmental organizations," which the leftwing globalists employ to impose their unelected "shadow government" on the country. (And the world, if that matters.)
I'm often darkly amused by common examples of inherently false nomenclature: "Jumbo shrimp." "Government ethics." "Unbiased news media."
And one of our society's biggest falsehoods-in-a-name: "Non-governmental organizations."
Until recently these groups have been widely seen as international, idealized versions of domestic non-profits.
We thought of them as do-good organizations set up by people who really care -- about the environment, or poor people, or children, or freedom.
We imagined they raise money, help the downtrodden, send out press releases and engage in other private activities to promote the causes they favor.
They're not government entities, we thought -- the very name says that -- but a species of private charity whose good intentions deserve the benefit of any doubt.
Perhaps some NGOs do operate in that way.
But as we've learned recently, partly as the result of Department of Government Efficiency digging, many "non-governmental" entities are really just fronts for government activities that Americans would never stand for if Washington attempted them directly.
For example, America's border crisis was funded in large part by Joe Biden's government, which sent large sums of money in the form of grants to various NGOs that helped train migrants on how to get to the United States -- and how to claim asylum when they arrived.
NGOs helped the illegal immigrants with expenses on their way, and then provided legal resources and more than $22 billion worth of assistance for them -- including cash for cars, home loans and business start-ups -- once they got in.
This was US taxpayer money, laundered through "independent" organizations that served to promote goals contrary to US law, but consistent with the policy preferences of the Biden administration.
Under President Donald Trump, this funding halted -- and, unsurprisingly, the flow of illegal immigrants did, too.
Likewise, the weird wave of sudden global enthusiasm for "trans rights" and novel ideas about gender turns out to have been largely funded by the US government through USAID grants.
...
As data expert Jennica Pounds ("DataRepublican" on X) put it, "Over the last few months, we've come to a realization that should have landed much harder: NGOs weren't just adjacent to government."
They were tools of government, "the parallel government," Pounds wrote, specifically doing things that Washington bureaucrats knew full well they couldn't easily do themselves.
He mentions that the government pours money into supposed NGOs, which then kick back the money to... the same DC politicians who send them taxpayer money.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), for example, voted to award $14.2 million to Ocean Conservancy since 2008, Fox News reported -- and the NGO, in turn, paid his wife Sandra Whitehouse and her firm $2.7 million for consulting work.
No wonder the Washington establishment went crazy when Trump and DOGE started cutting off such funds.
He also notes that foreign countries use NGOs to stamp out domestic opposition to the Davos set.
Xer @amuse has a simple proposition: Let's ban NGOs.
@amuse
@amuse
End the Gravy Train: Why Public Money Should Not Fund NGOs
There is a moment, common to many political awakenings, when a veil is lifted. What once seemed benign now appears suspect, even sinister. For some, this moment arrived with the realization that NGOs, those supposedly nonpartisan charities bearing names like "Global Relief" or "Justice Now," were not simply operating beside government but often as the government. Not elected, not accountable, yet flush with your tax dollars.
Why does this matter? Because it represents a fundamental evasion of the structure and safeguards of constitutional democracy. The Founders designed a system of checks, balances, and electoral accountability. No power without representation, no authority without transparency. But in recent decades, and particularly under the Biden administration, a parallel architecture has emerged. This architecture is built not of departments and agencies, but of foundations, non-profits, and NGOs. It is a second state, answerable not to the people, but to donors.
What precisely are NGOs doing with public funds? Everything from facilitating migrant influxes at the border, to administering social justice programs abroad, to writing and distributing model legislation domestically. The problem is not only the content of their actions but the structure in which they occur. NGOs are not subject to FOIA requests. They are not answerable to voters. They are rarely audited. Yet they regularly execute the very programs that would be politically toxic or legally suspect for the government itself.
Let us speak plainly. In theory, the state exists to serve citizens within a lawful and constrained framework. When the executive branch wishes to pursue a policy, it must secure funding from Congress, survive judicial scrutiny, and face the judgment of voters. But NGOs allow for a sleight of hand. The executive can partner with an ideologically aligned NGO, give it taxpayer funds, and let it carry out controversial operations at arm's length. It is both an end-run around constitutional limits and a backdoor laundering of political will.
...
Who benefits from this arrangement? Not the American public. The real winners are the architects of ideological influence: men like George Soros, whose Open Society Foundations have pumped over $32 billion into a sprawling latticework of NGOs across the globe. These NGOs, seeded with private money, use their alignment with progressive causes to secure government grants. Once federally funded, they expand their operations, amplify their messaging, and become the default executors of soft power.
...
Here the absurdity becomes structural. The taxpayer, often unknowingly, is subsidizing the political opposition. Conservative voters in Texas may wake up to find their taxes supporting NGOs that lobby for transgender curricula in schools, the defunding of police departments, or the relocation of foreign nationals into their communities. This is not charity. This is policy, outsourced.
...
The appeal of NGOs to progressive administrations is not mysterious. They provide plausible deniability. They can test radical policies, stir public sentiment, and run propaganda campaigns under the guise of humanitarian work. They can sue the government in one circuit while receiving funds from it in another. They are unregulated proxies in the battle for the soul of the Republic.
At bottom, the use of NGOs to circumvent constitutional governance is not just a fiscal or administrative concern. It is a moral one. The essence of republicanism is deliberative legitimacy: laws made by elected bodies, executed by accountable officials, within a transparent structure. NGOs subvert this. They represent a fusion of elite philanthropy and bureaucratic ambition, insulated from both market discipline and democratic consent. In some cases, the subversion is formalized in statute.
...
They are neither wholly public nor truly private, and they answer to neither Congress nor the citizenry. They exist in the gray zone, where political agendas thrive without oversight.
The remedy is not complicated. First, federal funding to NGOs should be halted. Where services are needed, the government can contract private firms through open bidding processes, with strict oversight. Second, all existing grants should be reviewed for compliance, effectiveness, and political neutrality. Third, Congress must assert its power of the purse and demand justification for any non-governmental expenditure. Finally, all existing NGO-related appropriations should be placed on a firm legislative sunset schedule. This would force transparency, restore congressional control, and begin the process of dismantling the permanent infrastructure of taxpayer-funded activism.
See the post for more.