Millions of US tax dollars sent to rightwing European thinktanks. Did any Trump supporters vote for that?

Where America’s Tax Dollars Are Really Going: European Thinktanks and the Trump Agenda

Wanderstayfinder.com – When Donald Trump declared on Truth Social that corruption had reached unprecedented heights, he wasn’t pointing fingers at his own White House. The president was targeting USAID, the US Agency for International Development, demanding it be shut down entirely. Within hours of his proclamation, the agency was effectively dismantled, with the vast majority of its workforce placed on indefinite administrative leave. This dramatic move was positioned as a cornerstone of the administration’s nationalist vision.

Officials and rightwing media personalities had spent months building the case that USAID was squandering American taxpayers’ contributions on what they characterized as absurd overseas initiatives rather than addressing domestic needs. One particularly persistent narrative, repeated across multiple news platforms without verification, claimed the agency was funneling millions into condom distribution for Gaza. With humanitarian assistance significantly reduced under the banner of prioritizing American interests, one might expect funds to remain within national borders.

The European Connection

The reality is more complex. Substantial amounts of taxpayer money continue flowing overseas, but rather than supporting the world’s most vulnerable populations, these resources are increasingly directed toward European thinktanks established by wealthy individuals seeking to export American conservative ideology. Recent disclosures reveal that the State Department plans to allocate twelve million dollars to conservative British organizations, a decision many observers view as an effort to shape foreign political landscapes.

Seven million of that total will flow to an organization called 878, which was co-founded by Jacob Rees-Mogg, a former Conservative minister who now hosts a television program and whose personal fortune exceeds one hundred million pounds. The entity was registered in Britain during March and describes itself as a premier Anglo-American institution committed to reinforcing the civilizational bond between the two nations.

“The advertising of the funding calls follows a long period of networking among Maga and like-minded European actors, which have already facilitated the identification of a pool of possible recipients,” explained Zsuzsanna Végh, a scholar specializing in liberal democracy.

For those wondering why such substantial sums are being directed to a relatively new organization with somewhat ambiguous objectives, the answer lies in deliberate bureaucratic maneuvering. A former American official noted that standard funding procedures are being bypassed to channel resources toward causes aligned with the current administration. Additional grants are available for European groups proposing initiatives that build “civilizational self-confidence” while tackling issues including migration, censorship, sovereignty concerns, and legal challenges—all framed within shared Western traditions and political values.

Democratic Concerns Mount

This vagueness appears intentional rather than accidental. The German chancellor, Friedrich Merz, recently cautioned the American administration against meddling in domestic elections following these grant announcements. Meanwhile, the US embassy in London is distributing awards of up to half a million dollars each for public education initiatives designed to cultivate dialogue about common civilizational principles between Britain and America.

One departing State Department official characterized the effort as an attempt to generate British-originated narratives that would bolster American conservative messaging. Lisa Smart, a Liberal Democrat member of Parliament, went further, accusing Trump-aligned financial flows of interfering with British democratic processes.

The question remains: what does the typical Trump supporter think about millions being spent on British educational programs while American public schools struggle with inadequate funding? The likely answer is that most voters aren’t paying attention. Many conservative media consumers remain preoccupied with other cultural battles, from debates surrounding Anthony Fauci to discussions about transgender participation in athletics.

There is considerable irony in the administration’s aggressive posture toward independent journalism. When media ownership is concentrated among wealthy allies, it becomes considerably simpler to mislead the public and divert attention from unfulfilled commitments. Twelve million dollars might appear modest when viewed against larger expenditures—Pete Hegseth reportedly spent fifteen million on ribeye steaks for Pentagon personnel last September, while military operations targeting Iran have consumed at least thirty-seven and a half billion dollars to date.

Yet the European investments represent something qualitatively different from traditional spending. These are not disconnected projects but rather components of an expanding transnational network designed to embed American conservative values within European political institutions, potentially reshaping democratic governance on both sides of the Atlantic for years to come.