The NED: from (nearly full) transparency to (almost) total opacity

When the NED was created in 1983, the aim was to position “democratic assistance” as an alternative way of conducting the political subversion activities that US military and intelligence agencies carried out—and continue to carry out—covertly and clandestinely. The CIA was going through a rough patch after a series of leaks and tough congressional investigations, which revealed some of its darkest endeavours, so the idea was to bring out into the open what had been done with extreme secrecy since the beginning of the Cold War. This was under the guise that “non-governmental” assistance could more dynamically penetrate the socio-political core of target nations. In this regard, although it is very likely that the most sensitive projects, or certain NED partners, were censored from the reports that the endowment—which receives its funding through the State Department—regularly published on its activities, it is presumed that most of its activities were made transparent to ensure a narrative and a penetration capacity.

I have consistently analyzed this issue regarding Cuba for more than ten years, so I can report on how disclosure policies have gradually become more restrictive over time. For example, since the last decade, ForeignAssistance.gov does not show data on NED grants, generally understanding the endowment only as an implementing partner of Foggy Bottom, as also happens with USASpending.gov. In practice, it is another (government) agency. Yet until fiscal year 2021, the NED published, albeit with increasing redactions, a detailed list of its grants by country, including those related to environments considered more “sensitive” such as Cuba. Only the disruptive Trump administration, which seeks to discontinue its funding, attacking this lack of transparency, has recently roused the NED from its two-year slumber in terms of public disclosure of its grants.

The new vision, outlined by its president and CEO, tells us that the NED is copying USAID's approach and even taking it to a higher level, although without reaching (yet) the comprehensive obscurantism of the State´s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. Behind the apparent commitment to transparency introduced by the Obama administration, the fine print of legislation such as the DATA Act and federal directives on "open government" and transparency offers carte blanche for censorship of relevant information—i.e., the identity of partners, the objectives set, or the very existence of a program.

For example, the Secretary of State has discretionary power to determine whether the publication of certain information on ForeignAssistance.gov is detrimental to “national interests.” USAID, in particular, may exempt certain applicants and beneficiaries of its programs from compliance with important registration requirements when it determines that doing so is in the interests of U.S. national security or foreign policy. According to agency regulations, the following scenarios may require such an exemption: 1) when disclosure of information is likely to expose associated individuals to dangerous situations, such as imprisonment, detention, or any other material deprivation of essential human rights; and 2) when security risks may have a deterrent effect on the willingness of potential partners to work with sensitive populations or beneficiaries, or when publicly identifying the exact location where a program is carried out and the identity of the implementer and/or beneficiaries may endanger the recipient organization, its employees, or the beneficiaries.

Damon Wilson says that “after temporarily pausing public listings to reassess risks, NED is resuming with a new, responsibly curated public listing of grants that reflects the projects approved for funding in fiscal year 2024.” He writes as if the pause had lasted just months rather than two long years without information, years about which, incidentally, nothing is still known. He argues that the new disclosure policy abides by the choice of the endowment's partners: “while some are comfortable with public disclosure, many—particularly those operating under dangerous conditions—prefer to maintain their anonymity. We never publicly disclose identifying details on their behalf without their explicit consent.” In this regard, it is interesting to note that the norm is that virtually all NED partners choose not to disclose the link with the "NGO". This can be verified by browsing the exquisitely curated list of grants approved by the NED for Latin America last year. Beyond NED core institutes, only two organizations, “China in the World” and “Russia in the World,” are identified as partners. The NED has turned to (full) covert mode.