The news started coming out not long after Trump’s inauguration, around the end of January and beginning of February. It was a bit confusing at first. It seemed positions were being cut, as were programs, as was funding, including funding that had already been approved, but it was unclear from where exactly or who exactly would be affected.

As it transpired over the course of days, all of that was true, though it was hard to disentangle all of the ways this was being done, under what authority, and according to what processes. As much else in Trump 2, there was a lot of chaos, and very little in the way of deliberative, rationalized and clear, coherent decision-making. Much of what was taking place, though, seemed to stem from the executive order Trump signed on his first day in office suspending foreign financial aid and assistance and the follow-up statement on its implementation by the State Department.

The upshot of it was positions in the State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor were being cut, mostly, it appears, those of contractors the government relied on to administer funding disbursements, and funding for many existing grants was being frozen. Regardless of what the source of that funding was, any funding facilitated or disbursed by the State Department would be stopped. In addition, the National Endowment for Democracy reported that it couldn’t access its accounts at the Treasury Department and had to furlough staff and suspend grants to about 1,800 partners in more than 100 countries. (NED has also sued the US government.) NPR reported, “Its sister organizations, the National Democratic Institute and the International Republican Institute, have furloughed two-thirds of their Washington-based work forces and are closing down offices overseas, according to officials with the organizations.”

This resulted in dozens of groups monitoring dissent, human and labor rights in China laying off staff or suspending operations. Most of these groups preferred to not publicize their plight for security reasons; suffice to say, if you live in DC and work in these circles, you hear a lot, and in this case, none of it’s good.

But even once the firings and the freezing of funding were confirmed, exactly what was happening was unclear, as the word went out that those who had already been granted funding could apply for a waiver of the freeze, though there didn’t appear to be a clear, open and accessible process through which to apply for a waiver—it depended on who you knew and whether you knew someone who could help you to navigate the opaque process.

Of course, all spending, whether for foreign aid or anything else, should be periodically reviewed, and it should be determined whether the funding is being spent in line with what it was allocated for, whether or not it is used effectively and efficiently, and whether or not it is still in line with US interests. But that kind of review should be a rational process and include examining information and views that might help to determine those parameters. Just shutting off the spigot has been most definitely destructive and disruptive, again without any clear rationale.

The effect on programs, organizations and individuals working on freedom and democracy issues related to Hong Kong and China has been profound. Some have had to pause or cease operations. Some have had to dedicate almost all of their time and effort to looking for alternative sources of funding. Some, the larger organizations especially, such as Freedom House, have had to furlough a very large percentage of their staff.

Up to now, despite the many partisan divides on a great many issues, there has been quite solid bipartisan consensus on taking a tougher line toward China in general and on supporting freedom and democracy in Hong Kong, China and other places ruled by the CCP like Tibet and East Turkestan. But it appears no one in Congress was consulted about these cuts, not even Republicans.

The freeze on funding is all the more ironic given that the new Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, backed this funding in the past, seeing the need to promote democracy, freedom and human rights globally, especially in authoritarian states, and recognizing the ways in which foreign aid is repaid many times over not only in its immediately intended effects but also in terms of goodwill to the US. Now, he’s remained silent.

Ironic also in that this is supposedly being done in the name of “efficiency” or “cost cutting” or “putting America first.” As far as efficiency goes, the process has been extraordinarily inefficient and has arrived at outcomes that are difficult to justify in terms of rationalizing government. The exact amount of funding that will be cut is unclear, because the process and the exact amount of destruction caused so far is unclear, but whatever it turns out to be, while it is substantial to the organizations funded, it’s a pittance compared to big-ticket budget items. And rather than putting America first, the cuts appear to be shooting America in the foot, or scoring an own goal, or any other metaphor for self-destructive behavior you prefer to use.

Really what appears to be going on is little more than a kind of revenge on government, based on an ideological antipathy to government in general as well as a particularly Trumpist paranoia that the “deep state” is against him and seeking to undermine him. It also appears to be an assertion of power—we do it in order to show we have the power to do it and have power over you. (In general, the firing of federal workers, cuts to government agencies, the circumventing of Congress and the challenging of course appears an attempt to amass greater power; in other words, a power grab.) And it is an expression of contempt toward democracy and human rights as well. This makes sense in light of the extent to which Trump is already trampling basic rights such as due process and free speech in the US.

One could argue, as many advocates for a circumscribed and reduced role for government do, that it shouldn’t be the role of government to fund these organizations to begin with.

Two points worth raising about this:

1) That depends on whether you think the US government should be promoting democracy, human rights and freedom abroad; and whether that is in the US interest. Up to now, there has been general bipartisan consensus that it is. If that should be changed, perhaps it would be a bit more democratic to have a debate about that. But then, given that the Trump administration appears quite antagonistic to human rights and democracy, perhaps this is indeed in line with its values and objectives.

2) Many of the organizations that the US government funds have difficulty raising funding privately precisely because of the regimes that regard them as the enemy. This is definitely the case with China work: potential donors fear becoming targets of the regime. I actually agree that these organizations ideally shouldn’t take funding from the US government and at least shouldn’t become overly dependent on the funding, but if cutting them off is the direction we’re going in, then at least helping them find alternative sources of funding and making a smooth transition would be more productive than just axing them altogether.

It appears that now, weeks after the freeze began, funding of some grants has been unfrozen, and some contractors in charge of grant disbursement that were fired have been rehired, but this appears the result of happenstance or ability to maneuver in an opaque policy-making environment, and there are certainly no guarantees for the future.

As if defunding Hong Kong and China work wasn’t bad enough, Trump then added insult to injury, issuing an executive order in mid-March calling for, among other things, reduction in the non-statutory operations of the US Agency for Global Media. Then a Trump ally “advising” the USAGM cut funding for virtually all of the programs it supported, including Radio Free Asia, Voice of America, Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty.

In the case of RFA and VOA in particular, this has a big impact on China and Hong Kong work. Press freedom in Hong Kong has already been drastically declining in recent years, with a couple dozen local outlets being forcibly closed or closing due to expected persecution, and several international outlets departing or downsizing their staff in Hong Kong. While RFA also closed its office in Hong Kong to protect its staff, it continued reporting on Hong Kong, and is regarded by many Hong Kongers both at home and abroad as an important news source. As with the democracy and human rights organizations, we’re not talking about a huge amount of funding here in the big scheme of things, and also as with those organizations, it has been a bipartisan tenet of recent decades that the funding is definitely worth it.

A strong argument could be made that the US government has up to now gotten big bang for its bucks. NiemanLab reports, “According to the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), the networks it funds, including VOA, reached 427 million people weekly in over 63 languages and more than 100 countries in 2024. To put this into perspective, this number widely surpasses other publicly funded international broadcasters according to self-reported figures from the BBC World Service and Deutsche Welle.”

Then, suddenly, it’s all gone. Many articles have reported that regimes ranging from China to Cambodia to Burma are celebrating the defunding, and China and Russia see this as an opportunity to fill the vacuum created by shutting down of these outlets with their own propaganda.

The above video was produced by RFA and features an interview with an RFA journalist from Hong Kong about what working for RFA has meant for him, why he had to flee Hong Kong to continue his journalistic work, and the importance of RFA continuing to operate.

While the civil society groups whose funding was cut have little clout, standing or capacity to oppose the cuts, the media groups are fighting back. RFA has sued the government over its defunding. VOA has also sued, and a judge has temporarily blocked the defunding order. In response to a lawsuit brought by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, the Trump administration said it had restored funding for them and the Open Technology Fund (which had also filed a lawsuit). But the most recent update from RFE/RL, on April 1, is that even though the government told the court it would resume funding and has, they still have not received their funding, suggesting that the Trump administration might be deliberately defying or slow-walking a court order, and they have had to start furloughing staff.

Again, instead of a rational process that involved stakeholders, we have chaos. One wonders if disruption for disruption’s sake is the point. It’s hard to tell whether the reigning force is sadism or sheer incompetence and willful ignorance. Or perhaps it is to make the US less democratic and, by extension, other countries as well.

When you put it all together—the defunding of both activism and news outlets—the effect is a serious blow to the infrastructure the US has for years supported to advance freedom and human rights in places ruled by the CCP.

What’s left to do is assess the degree of the entirely unnecessary tragedy: Will we look back and see this as a blip or a complete paradigm shift? Is this the beginning of the US relinquishing its commitment to democracy globally (and at home), or of a long, contentious saga with a less definitive outcome? If we can suffer through four years of this administration, will we come out the other end largely intact or transformatively damaged?

Of course, at the end of the day, it is up to the people of China, Hong Kong, Tibet and East Turkestan to fight for and win their freedom. But ideally this will be done in a context in which those who already have democracy and human rights stand on their side. Instead, we find ourselves in a situation where the US almost seems to be aping the Hong Kong government in its willful destruction of civil society and media outlets. This authoritarian turn in the most powerful democracy in the world makes it all the more difficult to fight for freedom in Hong Kong.

The above video was produced by RFA and it is about how RFA has walked step by step along the way with Hong Kong people in their struggle from freedom. It focuses on its coverage of the 2019 mass protests.