House Judiciary subcommittee hears competing claims over federal grants to nonprofits

The House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight convened at the U.S. Capitol to examine federal grants to nonprofit organizations, with Republican members accusing some grantees—including organizations linked to the Open Society network—of using taxpayer funds to advance a political agenda and Democratic members and witnesses defending the role of nonprofits in delivering services and protecting victims.

The hearing opened with the panel’s Republican leadership framing the session as an investigation into what they described as “leftist nonprofit networks” that “exploit federal tax dollars to advance a radical agenda.” Chairman Van Drew said, “Who the hell is George Soros?” and repeatedly asserted that federal grants had been used to support groups that push policies many Americans oppose. Ranking Member Representative Crockett and Representative Jamie Raskin, speaking for committee Democrats, called the hearing partisan and defended the work of nonprofits that partner with government on criminal-justice reform, victim services and international aid. Crockett said the hearing “sounds like it was ripped from a conspiracy blog.”

Why it matters: Members on both sides linked the question of grant oversight to broader debates about transparency, governmental priorities and the proper uses of federal foreign- and domestic-aid programs. Republicans urged new auditing and transparency requirements; Democrats warned that focusing only on certain grantees risks undermining partnerships that support anti‑trafficking work, refugee assistance and other services.

Witnesses included four invited experts. Tyler O’Neil, senior editor at the Daily Signal, testified that federal funding reaches left‑leaning nonprofits directly through grants and contracts and indirectly through union dues and “official time.” O’Neil cited examples in written testimony and oral remarks, saying USAID awarded funding to entities such as New Venture Fund and the Tides Center and that some of those organizations are connected to the Open Society network. “Congress should seek to prevent this perverse state of affairs,” O’Neil said.

Scott Walker (introduced in the hearing as president of the Capital Research Center) and Mike Gonzales of the Heritage Foundation offered similar critiques, saying that some USAID and other federal grants abroad and at home had political effects they considered inappropriate. Gonzales cited USAID grants in Hungary and other countries as examples he called counterproductive and said the “nexus” of private philanthropy and government funding deserves scrutiny. Gonzales also noted his involvement in Project 20/25, a conservative policy initiative, and said aspects of U.S. grantmaking overseas warranted audit.

Ambassador Luis C. DeBaca, a former ambassador at large to monitor and combat trafficking in persons and now a professor of practice, described bipartisan government–NGO partnerships and the safeguards used in awarding and monitoring grants intended to combat trafficking and provide services. DeBaca said such partnerships have led to prosecutions and victim assistance abroad and cautioned that dismantling established programs can make Americans less safe. “Some highlights: we worked with environmental groups and the Catholic Church to rescue Filipino and Indonesian workers,” he told the panel.

Members raised specific allegations and examples during questioning. Republican members referenced sums and grantees cited by witnesses: assertions in testimony and remarks included that the Vera Institute of Justice received tens of millions in federal contracts and that other nonprofits received hundreds of millions from federal agencies for refugee and immigrant assistance. Democrats countered by noting funding cuts under prior administrations to victim services and public‑safety programs and stressing that funding choices reflect the policy priorities of elected officials.

There was no formal committee action, vote, or new rule adopted at the hearing. Members on both sides asked for more detailed records and documents: Republicans pressed for improved usability and completeness of USASpending.gov and called for audits of grant flows; Democrats and Ambassador DeBaca urged care so oversight does not disrupt established anti‑trafficking and humanitarian programs.

The hearing concluded with members on both sides reiterating their competing priorities—Republicans emphasizing transparency and limiting grants that they say support political advocacy, and Democrats warning that overly broad restrictions could hamper life‑saving programs and government–NGO collaboration. The subcommittee left the record open for additional questions and materials from members.