The Hidden Pipeline of Political Funding

If you ask most Americans whether their tax dollars should be spent advancing abortion access, promoting transgender surgeries for minors, or accelerating mass immigration, polling shows that large majorities either strongly oppose or hold significant reservations about such policies.

Yet critics allege—and many prominent figures from the political, legal, and watchdog community suspect—that these same policies are advanced quietly through a complex network of federal agencies and favored non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

Former Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought, Heritage Foundation analysts, and members of Congress such as Senator Josh Hawley, Representative Jim Jordan, and Representative Chip Roy have publicly warned that the Biden administration’s spending patterns reveal an intentional bypass of public resistance.

Journalists like Mollie Hemingway (The Federalist) and policy experts at the Government Accountability Institute have highlighted that taxpayer money often travels a winding path: from Congress to an agency, then to a grant program, and finally into the bank accounts of an NGO whose mission aligns with the White House’s ideological goals.

The arrangement, critics say, functions like political “money laundering.”

Not in the criminal sense of drug cartels washing illicit cash, but in the political sense of transforming broadly appropriated taxpayer funds into targeted ideological fuel—all while maintaining plausible deniability for the President and congressional allies.

Here’s how it works:

Congress funds a federal agency through a general appropriations bill.
The bill’s language is intentionally broad, offering no line-item detail about specific downstream recipients.
Agency officials—often political appointees—exercise wide discretion in selecting NGO grant recipients.
The NGOs then carry out programs that advance administration-friendly policies on abortion, gender ideology, or immigration.

When questioned, the President or cabinet members can respond:

We never directly funded those activities. The agency simply exercised its discretion within the law.

This is the essence of plausible deniability—shielding decision-makers from direct accountability by inserting multiple layers between appropriations and controversial outcomes.

Watchdog groups like Judicial Watch and OpenTheBooks have called this an intentional design, not an accident. The complexity makes it very hard to prove intent, even when patterns of grant-making appear ideologically slanted.

In the pages ahead, we will examine how this suspected funding pipeline operates, focus on the Biden administration’s use of it in abortion, gender ideology, and immigration policy, and explore how critics believe the process subverts both the law’s spirit and the will of the American people.

Definitions and Key Concepts

To understand how critics believe taxpayer money is funneled through federal agencies to politically aligned NGOs, we need to define some key terms and mechanisms. These are the moving parts in what former OMB Director Russ Vought calls a “shadow appropriation process”—one that Congress technically authorizes but often cannot see in detail.

Non-Governmental Organization (NGO)

An NGO is a non-profit, voluntary citizens’ group organized on a local, national, or international level. Examples range from humanitarian groups like Catholic Charities to activist organizations like Planned Parenthood or the Human Rights Campaign.

NGOs are often chosen by federal agencies to implement programs because:

They have existing infrastructure and networks.
They are legally separate from the government, giving officials political insulation.
They can engage in activities (such as advocacy or political pressure campaigns) that federal agencies cannot directly conduct without legal or political backlash.

Critics such as Heritage Action for America and Sen. Ted Cruz have alleged that some NGOs effectively serve as “ideological contractors” for the administration in power, pursuing controversial objectives without Congress having to explicitly approve them.

Federal Agency Discretionary Spending

Congress appropriates funds to agencies in large, often vaguely worded lump sums. These are sometimes referred to as “program accounts” or “budget authorities.” Within those accounts, agency leadership has broad discretion to allocate grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements.

This discretion is the crux of the problem critics identify:

Congress may intend a program for broad purposes like “public health” or “humanitarian assistance.”
Agencies can interpret these mandates to include funding for abortion counseling, gender transition advocacy, or migrant resettlement—activities many Americans oppose.

Rep. Jim Banks has warned that this setup allows bureaucrats “to turn taxpayer-funded programs into ideological slush funds.”

Fungibility of Funds

Fungibility means that money is interchangeable. If an NGO receives federal funding for one part of its work, it can free up other resources for different, more controversial activities.

Example:

The federal government gives Planned Parenthood $500,000 for “women’s health outreach.”
Planned Parenthood uses that money to cover legitimate health services, freeing up other funds for abortions or political lobbying.

Critics like Michael Farris of Alliance Defending Freedom have argued that fungibility is the reason “no amount of earmarking can truly separate general funding from controversial activities.”

Plausible Deniability

Plausible deniability is the ability of leaders to credibly deny knowledge of or responsibility for actions carried out in their name. In this context, it means:

The President can claim, “We didn’t fund abortions or illegal immigration,” because the direct payments went to an agency, not the NGO performing the controversial service.
Agency heads can say, “We followed statutory guidelines,” even if their grant-making patterns overwhelmingly favor one ideology.

Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy has noted that this design is “perfect for avoiding accountability—it leaves fingerprints nowhere near the Oval Office.”

Legislative Vagueness

When Congress writes spending bills without line-item details, it empowers agencies to define the scope of their programs.

Critics, including watchdog group OpenTheBooks, argue that vagueness is sometimes intentional—an unspoken agreement between political allies in Congress and the White House to keep controversial spending off the public radar.
Former Sen. Tom Coburn famously warned before his death that “vague appropriations language is the lobbyist’s and bureaucrat’s best friend.”

Extreme Ideological Agendas (As Critics Define Them)

In this article, “extreme” refers to policies that enjoy only minority public support according to national polling, such as:

Abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy (supported by ~19% of Americans in Gallup’s 2023 survey).
Allowing minors to undergo gender transition surgery or receive cross-sex hormones without parental consent (opposed by 69% in a 2022 Pew Research poll).
Mass immigration without enforcement of border laws (opposed by over 60% of Americans in Gallup and Rasmussen polls).

These figures are cited by critics like Sen. Marsha Blackburn and journalist Ben Shapiro to argue that funding NGOs to advance these causes is contrary to the public will.

With these concepts in place, we can now examine how critics say the process works in practice, and why they believe it is both a moral and legal problem despite being difficult to prove in court.

The Legal Framework and Its Loopholes

Critics agree on one point: the funding process at the center of these allegations is rarely illegal in the black-letter sense.

Instead, they argue it exploits gaps, ambiguities, and procedural habits within U.S. budget law—allowing presidents and agencies to fund controversial activities while remaining technically compliant with federal statutes.

How Congress Funds Federal Agencies

The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the “power of the purse” (Article I, Section 9), meaning no federal money can be spent without congressional appropriation. In practice, however, appropriations bills for major departments—such as Health and Human Services (HHS), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the State Department—are sprawling, often thousands of pages long.

Most are written at a program account level, not at a line-item level. For example:

Congress might allocate $10 billion to HHS for “community health programs.”
The bill does not specify which NGOs or specific initiatives get funded.

This format gives agency leadership—often political appointees—a wide legal runway to decide where the money flows.

Agency Discretion and Broad Mandates

Once funds are appropriated, agencies have “obligation authority” to spend them in line with their legal mandate. These mandates are usually phrased broadly—terms like “health services,” “equity initiatives,” or “humanitarian assistance” can encompass a wide range of activities.

Former OMB Director Russ Vought has warned that “broad statutory authority is where ideology sneaks in.”

Under the Biden administration, for instance:

HHS used equity and inclusion language in its grant criteria, leading to funding for organizations that promote gender transitions for minors.
DHS awarded contracts to NGOs like Catholic Charities, which critics say have facilitated large-scale migrant processing.
USAID grants in Gaza and the West Bank prompted accusations from members of Congress like Rep. Jim Banks that funds were indirectly bolstering organizations tied to anti-Israel activity.

All of this is legal under current interpretations—unless Congress explicitly restricts it.

How Legislative Vagueness Creates Loopholes

Vagueness in appropriations serves several functions:

Political cover for lawmakers: Members can tell their constituents they opposed controversial funding while still voting for large omnibus bills that hide such funding inside agency budgets.
Operational flexibility for agencies: Bureaucrats can adjust funding priorities without coming back to Congress for permission.
Plausible deniability for the White House: Presidents can claim no direct involvement, as the spending was done “in accordance with the law” by an independent agency.

Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton has argued that this is a deliberate design:

You hide the money in vague program descriptions, then let the agencies steer it toward the causes you’d never get past a floor vote in Congress.

Oversight Weaknesses

Congress technically has tools to oversee agency spending—hearings, inspector general reports, Government Accountability Office audits—but critics like Sen. Rand Paul and Rep. Thomas Massie argue that these are:

Sporadic and selective.
Often too slow to respond to fast-moving grant cycles.
Compromised by partisan majorities that shield “their” administration from deep scrutiny.

By the time an oversight body identifies questionable grants, the money is spent and the program completed. Clawing it back is rare.

Why It’s Hard to Prove Wrongdoing

Even when patterns emerge—like an overwhelming share of grants going to left-leaning NGOs—proving intentional political bias is extremely difficult:

Agencies can point to formal application processes and compliance checklists.
NGOs can argue they applied for and received funds legitimately.
There’s usually no “smoking gun” email from a President ordering an agency to fund a specific ideological cause.

Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy has described this as “structural insulation,” where the process itself is designed to obscure the political motive. This is why critics say it’s not a matter of catching illegal activity—it’s about reforming a system built to shield decision-makers.

How Critics Say It Works in Practice

While the legal framework and agency discretion provide the structure, critics argue that the execution of this process under the Biden administration shows a deliberate pattern: federal agencies funnel money to NGOs that carry out controversial policies—policies that the administration’s congressional allies might not be able to pass openly.

The process is not speculation in the abstract; it has been traced, step-by-step, in multiple documented cases. These examples also illustrate how the layers between Congress, the agencies, and the NGOs create enough insulation for political figures to claim “We didn’t fund that directly.”

Step 1 – Broad Congressional Appropriation

Congress passes an omnibus or appropriations bill with large allocations to departments like:

HHS (Health and Human Services)
DHS (Department of Homeland Security)
USAID (U.S. Agency for International Development)
State Department

These allocations are couched in broad terms—“public health services,” “equity initiatives,” “humanitarian assistance,” “border processing support.”

Critics like Sen. Josh Hawley and Rep. Chip Roy point out that these vague phrases make it nearly impossible for taxpayers—or even many members of Congress—to see the ideological implications.

Step 2 – Agency Discretion

Once the funds arrive, agency leadership—often political appointees aligned with the administration—drafts grant guidelines, selects eligible applicants, and awards contracts.

Examples critics highlight:

HHS’s Office of Population Affairs increasing grants to affiliates of Planned Parenthood under the banner of “Title X family planning services.”
DHS’s Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and Office of Refugee Resettlement directing millions to Catholic Charities and Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service for migrant housing and transportation—despite polls showing most Americans oppose mass releases of illegal border crossers.
USAID funding NGOs in the West Bank and Gaza that critics such as Rep. Jim Banks say have ties to groups involved in anti-Israel activity—raising concerns about indirect violation of the Taylor Force Act.

Step 3 – NGO Implementation

The NGOs then use the funds for programs that advance the administration’s ideological goals:

Planned Parenthood uses federal family planning grants for legitimate services, freeing up other funds for abortion provision and lobbying against pro-life laws.
Catholic Charities USA coordinates transport and resettlement for migrants—accelerating the administration’s policy of large-scale entry and distribution of border crossers.
International NGOs receiving USAID funds engage in “humanitarian assistance” projects that, critics allege, indirectly bolster groups hostile to U.S. allies like Israel.

Because of fungibility, even if federal dollars are not used for the most controversial activities, they indirectly enable them by covering other budget items.

Step 4 – Plausible Deniability

If challenged, the administration can claim:

“We did not fund abortions—Title X grants cannot be used for abortion procedures.”
“We did not encourage illegal immigration—Catholic Charities is providing lawful humanitarian aid.”
“We did not support terrorism—USAID grantees passed vetting under existing guidelines.”

This separation of steps provides the cover.

Critics like Tom Fitton (Judicial Watch) and Mollie Hemingway (The Federalist) call it an “accountability firewall”—money moves in ways the public can’t follow, and every link in the chain has legal language to protect itself.

Step 5 – Political Benefits Without Political Cost

This system allows an administration to:

Reward ideologically aligned NGOs with substantial funding.
Advance controversial policies without risking a failed vote in Congress.
Avoid explicit accountability for unpopular outcomes.

Andrew McCarthy has argued that this is the point—the structure wasn’t an accident of bureaucracy but a political design perfected over decades to protect administrations while advancing agendas the public doesn’t support.

Abortion: Planned Parenthood’s Funding Pathways

If there is one NGO that has become emblematic of the debate over indirect federal funding, it is Planned Parenthood. It is the largest abortion provider in the United States and a major political actor, yet under federal law, direct taxpayer funding for abortion procedures is prohibited (with exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother).

However, critics—including Rep. Jim Jordan, Sen. Marsha Blackburn, and policy analysts at the Charlotte Lozier Institute—argue that the Biden administration has used agency discretion and fungibility of funds to maintain and even increase Planned Parenthood’s public funding streams despite broad opposition to abortion extremism.

Public Opinion on Abortion Extremes

Gallup’s 2023 polling shows that only 19% of Americans believe abortion should be legal in the third trimester, and a majority (55%) support restrictions after the first trimester. Yet Planned Parenthood consistently lobbies for and provides abortions through all stages of pregnancy in states where it is legal.

Critics like Lila Rose (Live Action) and Abby Johnson (former Planned Parenthood director) argue that channeling taxpayer money to such an organization—no matter the accounting rules—amounts to subsidizing its abortion enterprise against the will of the majority.

How the Funding Flow Works

Under the Biden administration, HHS’s Office of Population Affairs restored and expanded Title X family planning grants to Planned Parenthood affiliates. Title X rules prohibit using those funds for abortion procedures, but:

The grants cover salaries, facilities, and utilities for clinics that also perform abortions.
This frees up other unrestricted funds to be used for abortion services and political advocacy.

This is the classic fungibility problem: money is interchangeable. Critics like Michael Farris (ADF) point out that even if every Title X dollar is spent on legitimate health care, it still indirectly supports abortion by covering overhead costs.

Examples of Biden-Era Shifts

Restoration of Title X Funding (2021)
- The Trump administration implemented a “Protect Life Rule” requiring separation of abortion services from Title X facilities.
- In 2021, Biden’s HHS repealed this rule, allowing Title X funds to flow to clinics that perform abortions in the same facility.
- Sen. Steve Daines called it “a taxpayer-funded bailout for the abortion industry.”
COVID Relief Funds and State Pass-Throughs
- Some state governments, using federal COVID relief allocations, provided grants to Planned Parenthood for “pandemic recovery” services.
- Critics like Rep. Chris Smith allege this was a backdoor subsidy for abortion providers under the guise of public health aid.

Plausible Deniability in Action

When confronted, the Biden administration maintains:

“Federal law prohibits using Title X funds for abortion.”
“States have discretion in how they allocate certain block grants.”
“Planned Parenthood provides a range of legal health services beyond abortion.”

Legally, these statements are correct—but critics argue they obscure the fact that money is fungible and the net effect is to prop up the abortion infrastructure.

Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch describes it this way:

It’s like paying the rent for a mobster’s headquarters while saying you never funded organized crime. The building stays open and the operations go on.

The Political Payoff

Planned Parenthood is not only an abortion provider but a major political donor, overwhelmingly to Democratic candidates. By sustaining its revenue streams through indirect funding, critics allege the administration strengthens a loyal political ally while shielding itself from direct accountability.

Gender Ideology and LGBT-Related NGO Funding

Critics argue that one of the most dramatic shifts under the Biden administration has been the integration of gender ideology—particularly transgender policy—into nearly every federal agency’s grant-making and program criteria.

While federal law does not explicitly authorize funding for gender-transition surgeries or cross-sex hormones for minors, many suspect that through a combination of broad appropriations, vague program mandates, and grants to ideologically aligned NGOs, taxpayer dollars indirectly advance these goals.

Public Opinion on Youth Gender Transitions

Polling consistently shows that the American public is far more cautious than the Biden administration on gender ideology:

A 2022 Pew Research survey found 69% of Americans oppose allowing minors to receive gender transition surgery.
The same survey showed 60% oppose puberty blockers for minors without parental consent.

Despite this, critics like Sen. Tom Cotton, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, and advocacy groups such as Family Research Council and Alliance Defending Freedom contend that federal agencies are quietly funding NGOs that promote these very procedures and policies.

How the Pipeline Works in Gender Ideology Funding

Broad Funding Authorizations
- Congress allocates billions to agencies for “health equity,” “mental health services,” and “violence prevention.”
- None of these terms inherently imply gender transition services, but they can be interpreted that way by agency officials.
Agency Discretion and Grant Criteria
- HHS’s Office of Minority Health and Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) have included “LGBTQ+ cultural competency” and “gender-affirming care” in their grant guidelines.
- The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights has funded programs promoting “inclusive school environments,” which critics say become platforms for promoting gender ideology to minors.
NGO Implementation
- LGBTQ+ advocacy organizations like the Trevor Project, GLSEN, and the Human Rights Campaign have received federal grants for youth outreach, suicide prevention, or anti-bullying campaigns.
- Critics argue that while these programs may have legitimate aspects, they often incorporate promotion of social and medical transition as the “affirming” solution for gender dysphoria.

Examples Under the Biden Administration

SAMHSA’s LGBTQ+ Youth Mental Health Grants (2022–2023)
Provided millions to NGOs for programs that included training teachers and counselors to “affirm” students’ gender identities and refer them to gender clinics.
Critics like Rep. Mary Miller argue that these trainings normalize life-altering interventions without parental involvement.
CDC’s Division of Adolescent and School Health (DASH)
Distributed funding to local school districts and NGOs for “safe spaces” and “inclusive policies,” which in some cases included allowing biological males in female sports and restrooms—policies opposed by majorities in national polls.

Plausible Deniability in Gender Ideology Grants

If questioned, agency officials and the administration point out:

“We are funding mental health and anti-bullying programs, not surgeries.”
“These grants are about inclusion and equity, not ideology.”

Legally, that’s accurate. Yet critics like Ryan Anderson (When Harry Became Sally) argue that once an NGO is funded for general “youth mental health,” it can incorporate—and often does—training, resources, and policy advocacy for gender transition, using federal dollars to cover the costs of broader ideological campaigns.

Why Critics See This as More Dangerous Than Abortion Funding

Abortion, while morally grave for pro-life advocates, is at least a topic of longstanding public debate and legal clarity regarding funding restrictions (the Hyde Amendment). Gender ideology in children’s health care is newer, less legally restricted, and often hidden under broad language about “youth services” or “mental health.”

Former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos has warned:

The administration is embedding gender ideology in every corner of government spending, and unless you read the fine print of grant announcements, you’ll never see it.

Immigration: Catholic Charities and Others

If abortion and gender ideology are lightning rods in domestic policy, immigration is the lightning storm itself. The Biden administration’s rollback of Trump-era border restrictions has coincided with record-setting illegal crossings—over 6 million encounters since January 2021, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection data.

While border enforcement is a core federal responsibility, critics argue that the administration has used NGO partnerships to facilitate, not deter, large-scale migration. In this view, Catholic Charities USA, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service (LIRS), and other faith-based NGOs are the “logistical arm” of mass migration—funded in part by taxpayers.

Public Opinion on Border Policy

Polls show most Americans oppose the current state of the border:

A 2023 Gallup poll found 64% say the situation at the U.S.-Mexico border is a crisis or a major problem.
A February 2024 Harvard/Harris poll found 68% support mass deportations of illegal immigrants—an idea the Biden administration rejects.

Despite this, many suspect that NGOs are receiving federal funds to expand, rather than restrict, migrant flows.

How the Immigration Funding Pipeline Works

Congressional Appropriation
- Congress funds DHS, HHS, and the State Department for “humanitarian assistance,” “refugee resettlement,” and “migrant processing.”
- These appropriations are not limited to certain NGOs, and they rarely restrict spending to exclude organizations that have openly supported more permissive immigration policies.
Agency Discretion
- The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) within HHS and FEMA within DHS award large contracts to NGOs for services like housing, legal aid, and transportation for migrants.
- The State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) provides overseas grants to NGOs that prepare migrants for U.S. entry.
NGO Implementation
- Catholic Charities USA operates shelters near the border, provides bus and plane tickets into the U.S. interior, and helps migrants apply for legal status.
- Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service and International Rescue Committee perform similar roles, sometimes partnering with smaller local NGOs for distribution of aid.

Critics’ Allegations

Figures like Mark Krikorian (Center for Immigration Studies) and Stephen Miller (America First Legal) argue that these NGOs, while operating under the guise of humanitarian relief, actively assist in the dispersal of illegal entrants into American communities.

Former Acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf has stated:

The NGOs are doing what the administration cannot be seen doing directly—facilitating the release and relocation of hundreds of thousands of migrants.

Plausible Deniability in Immigration Funding

The administration can point out:

“We are funding humanitarian care for people in custody.”
“We are partnering with faith-based organizations respected for decades of service.”
“We have no control over NGO advocacy; we only contract for specific services.”

Critics respond that fungibility makes these defenses hollow—federal dollars for housing and transport free up NGO resources for lobbying against enforcement and in favor of expanded immigration pathways.

Specific Examples Under Biden

$350+ Million to NGO Shelter Programs (FY2022–2023)
Reports from the Texas Attorney General’s Office and conservative watchdogs show Catholic Charities among top recipients of DHS humanitarian contracts.
“Alternatives to Detention” Programs
NGOs like Vera Institute of Justice received DHS grants to manage migrant casework instead of detention—a policy critics say effectively ensures release into the U.S. interior.

Political and Moral Implications

From the perspective of critics, this funding pipeline erodes border sovereignty while providing political benefits to the administration:

Mass immigration expands the future voter base (critics allege) for the Democratic Party.
The use of religiously affiliated NGOs lends a moral sheen to controversial policy.

Former Rep. Lamar Smith summarized it bluntly:

The government pays others to break the very laws it claims to enforce.

Foreign Policy Example: USAID, Palestinians, and Critics’ Concerns

The principle behind the alleged domestic funding pipelines—broad appropriations, agency discretion, NGO intermediaries—applies in foreign policy as well. Critics point to USAID (U.S. Agency for International Development) and certain State Department programs as examples where taxpayer dollars, though legally bound by restrictions, may indirectly support actors engaged in activities hostile to U.S. allies.

One high-profile case is U.S. aid to the West Bank and Gaza, where many suspect that despite safeguards, money indirectly sustains elements of the Palestinian Authority’s Martyrs’ Fund—a program that provides stipends to the families of those who commit terrorist attacks against Israelis.

The Legal Restriction: Taylor Force Act

The Taylor Force Act (2018) prohibits U.S. economic aid to the Palestinian Authority until it ends the practice of paying stipends to individuals who commit terrorism and to their families. Named after a U.S. Army veteran murdered in Israel, the act was designed to close loopholes that allowed indirect U.S. support for these payments.

However, critics such as Sen. Ted Cruz, Rep. Lee Zeldin (before leaving office), and watchdog groups like NGO Monitor allege that the Biden administration has skirted the spirit of the law by:

Channeling funds through NGOs operating in Palestinian territories.
Labeling the aid as “humanitarian” or “infrastructure” support.

How Critics Say the Pipeline Works in Foreign Aid

Congressional Appropriation
- Funds are allocated to State/USAID for “humanitarian assistance” in conflict zones.
- Appropriations bills rarely name specific implementing partners.
Agency Discretion
- USAID selects local and international NGOs as grant recipients.
- Vetting procedures focus on whether the NGOs themselves are directly engaged in terrorism—not on whether their work indirectly benefits the Palestinian Authority’s budget.
NGO Implementation
- NGOs use the grants to fund projects (schools, infrastructure, aid distribution) that critics allege free up the Palestinian Authority’s own resources for the Martyrs’ Fund.

Public and Political Reaction

Polls consistently show broad U.S. public opposition to any funding that even indirectly supports terrorism:

A 2021 Rasmussen poll found 77% of likely voters oppose U.S. aid that could benefit terrorists.

Despite this, many suspect the Biden administration’s renewed aid to the Palestinian territories in 2021—following a pause under Trump—has not fully prevented indirect support for the stipends.

Former U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman stated:

Money is fungible. Every dollar the U.S. gives the PA for something ‘good’ is a dollar they can spend on rewarding murderers.

Plausible Deniability in Foreign Aid

The administration insists:

“We comply fully with the Taylor Force Act.”
“All recipients are vetted against U.S. terrorist watchlists.”
“Our aid is humanitarian and goes directly to the people in need.”

Legally, these statements hold—but critics argue that fungibility and indirect budget support undermine the intent of the law. NGO Monitor has documented cases where U.S.-funded Palestinian NGOs partnered with groups linked to designated terrorist organizations.

The Broader Pattern

This international example mirrors the domestic cases in abortion, gender ideology, and immigration:

Broad congressional appropriations.
Agency discretion to select implementing partners.
NGOs with agendas or activities at odds with much of the American public’s values.
Built-in layers for plausible deniability.

Plausible Deniability and Political Cover

The term plausible deniability is often associated with covert intelligence operations, but critics argue that under the Biden administration—and, in truth, across multiple presidencies—it has become a standard operating feature of federal spending strategy.

In the context of funding controversial causes through NGOs, plausible deniability means that every step in the chain of money movement provides a layer of separation between political leadership and the end result. This makes it almost impossible to pin direct responsibility on the President, cabinet officials, or congressional allies—even when the outcome aligns perfectly with their ideological agenda.

How the Layers Work

Congressional Shielding
- Appropriations are written in broad strokes, giving members of Congress cover from politically toxic specifics.
- Lawmakers can claim, “I voted for humanitarian assistance” or “community health funding,” not for a specific NGO or program.
Agency Insulation
- Federal agencies act as the middlemen, issuing competitive grants or contracts.
- These processes are dressed in bureaucratic neutrality—application forms, scoring rubrics, compliance checklists—masking the ideological filters that critics say are embedded in the criteria.
NGO Distance
- NGOs are independent legal entities, free to pursue their missions.
- Once they receive funds, how they allocate internal budgets often falls outside the scope of federal monitoring, as long as direct expenditures comply with grant rules.
Political Deflection
- If confronted with controversy, the President can say, “That was an agency decision.”
- Agency heads can say, “We funded general services, not the controversial activity.”
- NGOs can say, “We used private donations for that controversial program, not federal funds.”

Critics on the Intentional Design

Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy calls it “a laundering system for political will,” while Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch labels it “an accountability firewall.” Both suggest the system is not an accidental byproduct of bureaucracy but a deliberate structure meant to:

Advance policies that lack popular support.
Avoid legislative fights that could result in defeat or public backlash.
Ensure a steady stream of funding to ideological allies without electoral consequences.

Mollie Hemingway (The Federalist) notes that the genius of the design is in its bipartisan survivability—Republicans sometimes tolerate or even quietly benefit from the same tools when in power.

Why It’s So Hard to Prove

Even investigative journalists or congressional oversight committees face challenges:

The lack of line-item appropriations means no paper trail linking Congress directly to controversial NGO programs.
Agency grant descriptions use generic language that avoids flagging hot-button activities.
Fungibility obscures which dollars support which part of an NGO’s work.

This is why many of the allegations we’ve discussed remain in the realm of “many suspect” or “critics allege” rather than proven violations of law. The structure is designed to create just enough uncertainty to deflect accountability.

Are Republicans Complicit?

While much of the criticism over indirect funding of controversial causes is aimed at the Biden administration and its Democratic allies, many suspect that some Republicans share responsibility—whether through inaction, quiet cooperation, or selective outrage.

This is not to say that GOP lawmakers generally endorse abortion expansion, youth gender transitions, or mass illegal immigration. Rather, critics argue that parts of the Republican establishment tolerate the funding pipeline because:

The same mechanisms could be useful when Republicans control the White House.
Major appropriations bills are often “must-pass” legislation, and challenging agency discretion can derail unrelated priorities.
Some Republicans have close relationships with certain NGOs or industries that also benefit from broad federal spending.

The “Wink and Nod” Accusation

Policy analysts like Russ Vought (Center for Renewing America) and commentators such as Mollie Hemingway and Mark Levin have charged that a segment of the GOP treats this system with a “wink and nod.” In their view:

Republican lawmakers may rail against Planned Parenthood funding in public speeches but still vote for omnibus bills that keep Title X funds flowing without restriction.
Some accept the State Department’s broad “humanitarian” appropriations knowing they will not be line-item audited, even if those funds later end up with NGOs whose activities contradict conservative principles.

Examples of Republican Passivity

Omnibus Spending Votes
- In December 2022, the $1.7 trillion omnibus bill passed with votes from Senate Republicans like Mitch McConnell, Susan Collins, and Mitt Romney—despite conservative warnings that the bill funded Biden administration priorities without meaningful restrictions on NGO grants.
Border NGO Funding
- Some GOP members representing districts with large NGO operations (including faith-based charities) have been reluctant to push for cuts, citing the local economic benefits of federal contracts—even if those NGOs also assist in migrant resettlement.
Foreign Aid Packages
- Bipartisan support for foreign aid bills sometimes overlooks NGO vetting issues, especially in conflict zones, for fear of appearing unsupportive of humanitarian relief.

Why Some Republicans Avoid Confrontation

Political Risk: Blocking a large appropriations bill over NGO funding could trigger a government shutdown, which the media would likely blame on Republicans.
Donor Influence: Some high-dollar donors support specific NGOs or global aid causes that benefit from federal contracts.
Short-Term Gains: Maintaining the status quo allows for smoother legislative negotiations when the GOP is in the majority and wants similar discretion for Republican-led agencies.

Critics’ Counterargument

Figures like Sen. Rand Paul and Rep. Chip Roy insist that refusing to confront this funding model is a form of political cowardice.
As Rep. Roy has put it:

If you vote for an appropriations bill that hands Biden’s agencies blank checks, you are complicit in whatever those agencies do with the money—period.

Moral and Legal Analysis

The crux of this debate is not whether the Biden administration’s funding practices are technically legal—most observers, even sharp critics, acknowledge they operate within the letter of existing federal law. The real question is whether they are moral, whether they violate the spirit of the law, and whether they represent a betrayal of public trust.

Legal Perspective

Under current appropriations and administrative law:

Agency Discretion: Federal agencies have wide latitude to interpret vague appropriations language and award grants accordingly. Unless Congress places explicit statutory limits, most grant-making decisions are presumed lawful.
Fungibility Loophole: Courts have generally upheld that indirect benefits to controversial activities—such as freeing up other funds for abortion—do not violate funding restrictions if the direct grant funds are spent on permissible services.
Oversight Weakness: The absence of strict line-item reporting and the difficulty of tracing post-award spending means there’s rarely hard evidence of statutory violation.

Former Inspector General Michael Horowitz has emphasized that much of this comes down to legislative drafting:

If Congress writes a vague check, agencies will cash it broadly. That’s not technically illegal—it’s the design.

Moral Perspective – Conservative Christian View

From a biblical worldview, legality does not determine morality. The issue is whether these practices align with God’s standards for justice, stewardship, and truth.

Abortion Funding (Planned Parenthood): Even indirect financial support for an organization that ends unborn lives violates the biblical command “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13) and the Christian duty to protect the innocent (Proverbs 24:11).
Gender Ideology Funding: Promoting gender transitions—especially for minors—undermines the biblical truth of male and female created by God (Genesis 1:27), and may cause irreversible harm to children (Matthew 18:6 warns strongly against leading children into sin or harm).
Immigration NGO Funding: While Scripture commands kindness to the sojourner (Leviticus 19:34), it also affirms the role of lawful governance (Romans 13:1–4). Facilitating lawless entry undermines justice and public order.
Foreign Aid to Hostile Actors: Funding entities that indirectly enable terrorism violates the biblical principle of defending the innocent (Psalm 82:4) and protecting covenantal allies (Genesis 12:3 in relation to Israel).

Public Mandate and Consent

In a constitutional republic, elected leaders are supposed to reflect the will of the people within the boundaries of moral law. Polling data we’ve already cited shows:

Strong majority opposition to late-term abortion.
Strong majority opposition to gender-transition procedures for minors.
Strong majority support for secure borders and enforcement.
Strong opposition to funding that could benefit terrorist-linked actors.

To critics like Sen. Mike Lee, funneling taxpayer dollars into policies the majority rejects is not only a betrayal of conscience but also a breach of the social contract.

The “Theft” Argument

Some conservative thinkers go further, calling this theft from conscientious taxpayers.
If a citizen believes abortion is murder, forcing them to subsidize an abortion provider—even indirectly—is a violation of conscience akin to compelled speech (compare James Madison’s Memorial and Remonstrance).
The same applies to believers who view gender transition as rebellion against God’s design or who oppose open-border policies.

Plausible Deniability as a Moral Failing

While plausible deniability might protect leaders from legal liability, it can be morally corrupt. Scripture repeatedly condemns those who conceal their works of darkness (Ephesians 5:11–13) and praises transparency (John 3:21). Hiding behind bureaucratic layers to accomplish what could not survive public scrutiny is fundamentally deceptive.

In short:

Legality: Yes, in most cases.
Morality: Strongly contested—critics grounded in a biblical worldview argue these practices violate God’s law and the public trust.

Proposed Legislative Reforms

Critics from across the conservative spectrum—from policy analysts at the Heritage Foundation to lawmakers like Sen. Rand Paul and Rep. Chip Roy—agree that the problem lies not only in presidential ideology but in the structure of federal spending.

If that structure remains, any administration can use it to funnel money to ideological allies while claiming clean hands.

Mandate True Line-Item Appropriations

Congress should move away from vague lump-sum appropriations and toward line-item budgeting that:

Names each major NGO recipient in the appropriations bill.
Describes specifically what activities the funds may be used for.
Prohibits transfer of funds between line items without congressional approval.

This would allow members to vote on controversial items separately rather than hiding them inside “community health” or “humanitarian” umbrellas.

Require Detailed Post-Award Reporting

Agencies should be required to submit quarterly, publicly accessible reports showing:

All grant and contract recipients.
The amounts awarded.
A plain-language description of the funded activity.

Such transparency would make it harder to disguise ideological programs as generic “services.” Watchdog groups like OpenTheBooks have shown that when grant data is public, waste and politicization are easier to expose.

Close the Fungibility Loophole

Congress could require that any recipient of federal funds:

Maintain completely separate facilities, staff, and accounts for any activities Congress has prohibited from direct funding (such as abortion procedures).
Submit audited reports proving compliance, with penalties for violations.

This would re-establish something like the Trump-era Protect Life Rule for Title X funding and apply similar separation to other sensitive policy areas.

Ban Federal Funding to NGOs That Engage in Certain Activities

Statutes could specify that federal funds may not go to any NGO that:

Performs or promotes abortions.
Advocates for gender-transition procedures for minors.
Assists illegal entry or resettlement of individuals unlawfully present in the U.S.
Has financial ties to entities designated as terrorist organizations.

This would move beyond the current “don’t spend our money directly on X” model to a “don’t give our money to organizations involved in X at all” model.

Strengthen Oversight Mechanisms

Require annual GAO audits of all agency grants over a certain threshold.
Expand Inspector General powers to investigate ideological bias in grant-making.
Create a bipartisan Appropriations Oversight Board that reviews NGO grant patterns for ideological favoritism.

Increase Penalties for Violations

Current penalties for misusing grant funds are often minor—repayment of funds, loss of eligibility for future grants. Critics argue these are not deterrents.
Proposals include:

Criminal penalties for willfully misrepresenting the use of federal funds.
Personal liability for agency officials who knowingly circumvent congressional intent.

Address Foreign Aid Loopholes

To ensure compliance with the Taylor Force Act and similar laws:

Require recipients to certify not only that they do not engage in prohibited activity, but that they do not partner with or free up funds for entities that do.
Mandate third-party audits of foreign NGOs funded by U.S. taxpayers.

Tie Funding to Public Opinion Benchmarks

While unconventional, some lawmakers have proposed that taxpayer funds should not be used for policies with sustained public opposition above a certain threshold (measured by reputable polling).
This could prevent the advancement of deeply unpopular policies—though it raises questions about governance by poll versus principle.

If implemented, these reforms would not merely restrain one administration; they would rewrite the rules so that no president—Republican or Democrat—could exploit agency discretion to fund controversial ideological goals without explicit congressional approval.

Conclusion

The Biden administration’s critics argue that what we have examined is not simply a budgeting quirk or an occasional misuse of funds—it is a system.

A system in which Congress appropriates large sums under broad and vague terms, agencies apply ideological filters when awarding grants, and NGOs carry out activities that the American people often oppose by wide margins.

The strength of the system for those in power is the weakness for those seeking accountability:

At every stage, there is enough legal insulation to deflect blame.
Fungibility ensures that even legally compliant funds can support prohibited or controversial ends.
Plausible deniability means the political cost of advancing an unpopular agenda is low, while the benefits—both ideological and electoral—can be substantial.

We have seen this pattern in abortion funding through Planned Parenthood, gender ideology promotion via youth-oriented NGOs, immigration facilitation by Catholic Charities and similar groups, and foreign aid cases like USAID’s work in Palestinian territories. In each, the mechanics are the same:

Vague Appropriation → Agency Discretion → NGO Implementation → Indirect Achievement of Political Goals.

Legally, much of this is permissible under current law. Morally, critics—especially those informed by a biblical worldview—see it as deception, misuse of taxpayer resources, and complicity in evil.

The solution is not merely electing a different president.

It requires structural reform:

Line-item appropriations.
Mandatory transparency.
Clear prohibitions on funding organizations engaged in morally unacceptable activities.
Vigorous oversight and penalties with teeth.

Without these changes, the same machinery will remain—ready to serve the ideological goals of whoever controls the executive branch, regardless of public opinion. And in that scenario, American taxpayers will continue footing the bill for agendas they neither approved nor condone.

S.D.G.,

Robert Sparkman

MMXXV

christiannewsjunkie@gmail.com

RELATED CONTENT

Concerning the Related Content section, I encourage everyone to evaluate the content carefully.

If I have listed the content, I think it is worthwhile viewing to educate yourself on the topic, but it may contain coarse language or some opinions I don’t agree with.

I use words that reflect the “woke” culture and their re-definitions sometimes. It is hard to communicate effectively without using their twisted vocabulary. Rest assured that I do not believe gender ideology or “Progressivism”. Words and phrases like “trans man”, “trans women” , “transgender”, “transition” or similar words and phrases are nonsensical and reflect a distorted, imaginary worldview where men can become women and vice-versa. The word “Progressive” itself is a propagandistic word that implies the Progressives are the positive force in society, whereas in reality their cultic belief system is very corrosive to mankind.

Feel free to offer your comments below. Respectful comments without expletives and personal attacks will be posted and I will respond to them.

Comments are closed after sixty days due to spamming issues from internet bots. You can always send me an email at christiannewsjunkie@gmail.com if you want to comment on something afterwards, though.

I will continue to add videos and other items to the Related Content section as opportunities present themselves.