In an eye-opening vote on Capitol Hill, dozens of Republicans joined Democrats to preserve $315 million in federal funding for the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) — a nonprofit once born from Cold War ideals, but now under fire for allegedly fueling censorship and funding attacks on conservative media. The vote: 127 in favor, 291 against — and with that, Rep. Eli Crane’s effort to defund the organization was firmly rejected.
The failed amendment, part of a broader State Department funding bill, drew a sharp line between the GOP’s populist and establishment wings. Eighty-one Republicans broke ranks to side with Democrats, who defended NED as an instrument of global stability.
Crane, a Republican from Arizona and member of the House Freedom Caucus, didn’t mince words: “Tonight, the Uniparty rejected my amendment… to fund this rogue organization that fuels global censorship and domestic propaganda.”
The rhetoric isn’t just bluster. NED has faced growing scrutiny over its financial ties to groups like the Global Disinformation Index (GDI) — a UK-based outfit that blacklisted conservative media outlets as high-risk for “disinformation,” then quietly passed that blacklist to advertisers. The intent? Starve these outlets of revenue under the guise of promoting “media responsibility.”
Even the White House — yes, President Trump’s administration — recommended defunding NED last year, citing its financial support for organizations working against American conservative voices.
Utah Sen. Mike Lee echoed the sentiment this week: “We are not the world’s ATM,” he wrote, warning against sending hundreds of millions overseas in the name of “democracy” while U.S. citizens face real economic pressure at home.
But Democrats, with help from establishment Republicans, countered that NED’s work is critical to stabilizing fragile regions abroad. Rep. Lois Frankel, a Florida Democrat, invoked emotional imagery from Ukraine, the Congo, and Pakistan, describing NED as a bulwark against war crimes, corruption, and religious persecution.
Those arguments carried the day — but not without raising serious questions. If NED is supposed to promote democracy, why is it funding organizations that choke dissent at home? Why are lawmakers so quick to protect foreign outreach programs, yet hesitant to root out domestic censorship cloaked in globalist virtue?
At the center of the debate is a broader and more unsettling theme: who gets to define “democracy,” and at what cost? NED was established in the 1980s to counter Soviet influence — a noble mission. But today, its actions suggest a shift from promoting free thought to policing it. And that’s a drift many Americans — and now at least 127 Republicans — aren’t comfortable with.