Towards an allied civil society network in Europe

It’s now no secret that part of the Trump Administration’s strategy towards Europe includes reorienting elements of its foreign funding architecture toward civil society. Reversing Europe’s “civilizational erasure” from a top-down policy perspective has its limits; but what Secretary Rubio has realized is that it requires engagement at the level where ideas are formed, advocated for, and normalized in both government and among average citizens.

Civil society is the place where culture meets politics, where narratives take root and ideas are normalized or shunned. For decades, American funding — both governmental and private — has flowed into European civil society with a strong ideologically Leftist tilt. Progressive, Marxist, and anti-American organizations, backed by networks such as George Soros’s Open Society Foundations as well as funding streams connected to USAID and other U.S. government entities, have played an outsized role in shaping advocacy landscapes across the continent. Much of this came to light early 2025 when the White House published a list of some of the most egregious projects like $1.5 million to “advance diversity equity and inclusion in Serbia’s workplaces and business communities” and “$70,000 for production of a “DEI musical” in Ireland.”

Though important to point out that not every single previous funding project was harmful, the bottom line is that for decades, American taxpayers were financially supporting initiatives aligned with expansive interpretations of social policy, identity politics, and ruinous cultural transformation.

In practice, this support has been so overwhelming that it has marginalized the comparatively underfunded alternative viewpoints in European societies — particularly those that are Christian, conservative and patriotic.

The capturing of Irish civil society is a particularly illustrative example. Over the last four decades, a dense network of advocacy organizations supported in part by funding from U.S.-based entities including International Planned Parenthood affiliates, the Center for Reproductive Rights, Atlantic Philanthropies, Oxfam, Open SocietyFoundations, and others have emerged. These resources enabled the construction of what can reasonably be described as a highly organized and well-funded advocacy infrastructure that has succeeded in shaping public discourse and political outcomes. In the leadup to the 2018 referendum on Ireland’s Eighth Amendment, which had enshrined protections for the unborn in Ireland’s constitution, these networks were able to mobilize voters, influence media narratives, and coordinate messaging at a scale that mobbed the market and crushed the opposition.

Though most of this influence may be technically legal, not all of it is. Irish law prohibits foreign donations to groups campaigning in elections or referendums, yet when Amnesty International Ireland illegally received $160,000 from the Open Society Foundation earmarked for its “My Body, My Rights” campaign, it refused to return the funds.

Important to point out is that in these civil society blobs, financial resources are often used to substitute for organic public support, enabling advocacy networks to embed themselves deeply within communities, media institutions, academic environments, and political discourse. Over time, many of these organizations have come to dominate the civic space, leaving competing viewpoints comparatively under-resourced and less visible.

At the same time, regulatory developments across Europe have raised additional concerns about the direction of civil society. In Ireland, the establishment of Coimisiún na Meán as a statutory media regulator has emerged as another blow to free expression, aligned with broader European Union frameworks that allow for the policing of speech on social media platforms in ways that constrain legitimate political debate.

Parallel legislative efforts to introduce or expand hate speech laws have further intensified these concerns. Proposals that would criminalize certain forms of criticism related to immigration policy, for example, highlight the increasingly fraught boundary between protecting individuals from harm and preserving open discourse. In societies undergoing rapid demographic and cultural change, this boundary becomes even more contested.

Ireland again serves as a case study in these dynamics. Historically a majority Catholic country with strong traditions of social conservatism, it is now experiencing one of the most dramatic demographic transitions in Europe. Declining native birth rates, rising levels of migration, and mounting pressure on housing and social welfare systems have created new tensions within communities. These developments are not unique to Ireland, but they are particularly pronounced there, making the role of civil society in mediating these changes all the more significant.

If past funding contributed to ideological imbalance, then a strategic reorientation can help restore equilibrium

Against this backdrop, the argument for recalibrating U.S. support for European civil society becomes even more compelling. If past funding contributed to ideological imbalance, then a strategic reorientation can help restore equilibrium. The Trump Administration took initial steps in this direction by curtailing government funding for initiatives deemed inconsistent with American interests, effectively reducing the flow of support to certain ideological projects abroad. As Secretary of State Marco Rubio observed in a Substack post, elements within the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor had, at times, functioned less as neutral promoters of democratic values and more as platforms for targeted political activism against leaders and governments that did not align with prevailing progressive norms.

The European Union has increasingly moved to fill the gap, expanding its own financial support for civil society organizations

However, the withdrawal of U.S. government funding did not occur in a vacuum. The European Union has increasingly moved to fill the gap, expanding its own financial support for civil society organizations. While this may ensure continuity for existing networks, it also risks entrenching the same imbalances that have characterized the landscape for years.

This is why the current shift within the State Department is so important. By directing funding toward civil society initiatives that align with core American principles—free speech, national sovereignty, among others—the United States can support and empower organizations that actively work to reverse civilizational erasure on their own terms in their own home.

The goal for the U.S. is not domination but restoration. Europe does not need to be remade in America’s image, nor should it be. But it does need a civil society that reflects the fullness of its own traditions, values, and perspectives, including ones that do not share in the managed decline that Secretary Marco Rubio spoke about at the 2026 Munich Security Conference.

Acknowledging that past American finances and involvement has, at times, contributed to the furthering of harm rather than good to our civilization is an essential first step. Acting on that recognition by recalibrating funding priorities is the logical next one.