Splicetoday

Politics & Media
Mar 13, 2025, 06:28AM

Keep NED Open

Funding for NED is crucial for stability in Iran.

69.webp?ixlib=rails 2.1

The Trump administration has threatened to close the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Founded in 1983 at President Ronald Reagan’s behest, NED stands accused by the head of DOGE as “evil” and “rife with corruption.” The U.S. State Department sought to starve NED of funds, forcing it to sue for Congressionally appropriated money. NED, unlike so many other defunded bodies, has won a temporary reprieve through the courts.

The allegations against NED are more than wrong. They are the opposite of the truth. As this writer learned first hand, NED is America at its best.

In the summer of 2009, NED was one of the few organizations that assisted democracy and human rights activists in Iran. It was a season of promise because Iranians demonstrated in vast numbers against the regime. It was also a time of betrayal because the Obama administration ignored pleas for assistance from Iranian dissidents.

NED was one of the first organizations to help Iranians. Along with my program at Freedom House, NED enabled them to mobilize, advocate for their rights, and document human rights abuses.

Millions of Iranians protested against the rigged election, defying regime violence. The demonstrations turned into the Green Movement, the best chance in living memory for non-violent change in Iran. Many Iranians called for U.S. support.

The Obama administration rebuffed these pleas. Obama’s aim, which he achieved in 2015, was an agreement to delay Iran’s nuclear weapons program. For Obama, supporting human rights activists was a potential irritant to starting negotiations with the Iranian regime. Keen to appease Tehran, the State Department’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs stopped funding Iran human rights programs after the June 2009 election.

The funding cut was dangerous. Stopping work would isolate human rights defenders in Iran, brave people under constant regime pressure. It also meant discarding the exiled activists whose unique skills and contacts sustained the Iranian dissident movement. NED saved these programs. NED provided grants that allowed Iran programs to survive long enough for the State Department to change its mind. The Obama administration later realized, but didn’t admit, that it made a strategic error in the summer of 2009.

That NED support for the cause of freedom in Iran was American generosity at its best. It was consistent with NED’s record of assisting dissidents in Eastern Europe during the final years of Communism.

Despite these achievements, there were always people who opposed NED’s mission of democracy promotion. For years, NED’s main enemies were on the conspiracy-theorist left. They accused NED of encouraging regime change, of being a CIA front. They echoed Chinese, Iranian, North Korean, and Russian government resentment of NED’s assistance to democracy and human rights activists. The outlandish claims by repressive regimes appealed to the so-called progressives who believe that the highest ethics are to allow the wretched of the world to live under a dictator.

That previously fringe propaganda has now reached the U.S. government. The suspension of NED’s funding could lead to its demise. The end of NED would be a victory for tyrants like Putin, Ali Khamenei, Xi Jinping, and Kim Jong Un.

Contrary to these accusations, NED holds America to its principles. In his last speech, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. evoked Moses, who saw the promised land but knew that he wouldn’t enter it. Many of those NED has supported haven’t experienced democracy or human rights in their countries. Nonetheless, NED kept their movements for human dignity alive. When King challenged America to “be true to what you said on paper” he added, “If I lived in China or even Russia, or any totalitarian country, maybe I could understand some of these illegal injunctions.”

That’s what NED has done since 1983—keep America true to its principles, keep America different to oppressive regimes. As America prepares to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the declaration of independence, the best way to renew the promise of those words is to keep NED open.

—Andrew Apostolou directed the Freedom House Iran program from 2008 to 2012.

Discussion
  • One of the precepts of democracy is the freedom of speech and the freedom of information. In contradiction to these basic tenets of democracy The National Endowment For Democracy funded the Global Disinformation Index which is a partisan leftwing censorship group that targets its ideological adversaries by creating a blacklist which pressures advertisers of conservative media outlets to pull their ads in an effort to shut down or diminish opposing viewpoints. By definition the NED is anti free speech and by extension anti democratic.. Another precondition for Democracy is free elections but if a Populist or Nationalist decides to run for President in a free and open Democratic election the NED meddles in the election and actively works to undermine their candidacy. It should be of no surprise that President Obama's Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland who was instrumental in orchestrating the soft coup in Ukraine in 2014 was recently part of the board of directors for NED. In the interest of full transparency and accuracy the National Endowment For Democracy should change its name to the National Endowment For Anti-Democratic Interventionist And Censorship Policies.

    Responses to this comment
  • The Global Disinformation Index's study of U.S. media was not funded by NED. Nonetheless, NED staff broke ties to the Global Disinformation Index, fully informed NED's board, fully informed Congress, reviewed NED's grants to ensure there were no connections to similar organizations, and instituted improved procedures. That is a model of responsibility and accountability.

    Responses to this comment
  • According to ADN America and the Washington Examiner NED did fund the Global Disinformation Index. It wasn't until the funding was exposed in 2023 and NED started to get blowback from Congressional Republicans and free speech advocates that they cut ties with GDI. [See links].https://adnamerica.com/en/united-states/ned-cuts-ties-soros-funded-global-disinformation-index-targeting-conservatives..... https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/finance/2773271/disinformation-inc-state-department-bankrolls-group-secretly-blacklisting-conservative-media/#google_vignette....It is also interesting to note that Ann Applebaum who was one of NED's board of directors also sat on the GDI advisory panel. This reeks of collusion, corruption or at the very least a severe conflict of interest. Contrary to the final sentence of the previous comment the actions of NED has been a model of irresponsibility and the fact that they changed course only after their funding of the anti-free speech GDI was exposed and they started to receive widespread complaints is far from being a model of accountability.

    Responses to this comment
  • NED did not fund GDI's work on the U.S. NED's board is bipartisan. Please stop posting false and defamatory information under a pseudonym. Have the moral fibre to use your actual name.

    Responses to this comment
  • You are factually incorrect Andrew. As the two links from my previous comment pointed out NED did fund GDI which set up a 10 riskiest news outlets for disinformation blacklist all of which were American news outlets with conservative or libertarian viewpoints including the New York Post, Reason and Real Clear Politics. Senator Grassley explained it well in his 2023 letter to NED " Recently NED dispensed hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants to the Global Disinformation Index (GDI), an organization whose biases and selective use of the “disinformation” label are easily discovered from its public posts and presentations". GDI then weaponized the blacklist in an effort to censor conservative news outlets. Also from the Grassley letter "GDI accomplishes its censorship by creating a black list of web sites that run afoul of its speech guidelines, which it sends to advertising agencies. Those big tech companies and ad firms then collude with GDI to withdraw ad dollars from sites that GDI deems to contain disinformation." https://www.grassley.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/grassley_to_ned_-_gdi_grant_funding.pdf.....As for my using a pseudonym it is kind of the norm in the comment sections of most news sites including Splice but whether I choose to comment with a pseudonym or my real name is beside the point. The point is about having fidelity to the truth and supporting the freedom of information and the free exchange of ideas which apparently you put little priority on . With those values it is not surprising that you feel right at home at NED.

    Responses to this comment
  • Wrong again. I have never worked at NED. They funded a programme that I ran. NED did not fund GDI’s work on the U.S. Please stop spreading misinformation and potentially libellous insinuations. If you believed what you are writing you would put your name to your views, as I do.

    Responses to this comment
  • Put his name out there so you can sue him, even though it's an empty, vapid threat? You need to do better, Andrew. To claim that anyone who posts anonymously in the comments section doesn't believe what they say makes you sound like a fool, as it's always been the norm on the internet.

    Responses to this comment
  • I'd love to see your lawsuit against crestrider. What a joke that would be.

    Responses to this comment
  • Loads of courage on this thread. I put my name on my article. He can do the same.

    Responses to this comment
  • So you can sue him? If you're referring to me with the "courage" comment, my identity is known. You can easily find it if you ever decide to sue me.

    Responses to this comment
  • Andrew, there has been no refutation by you of the evidence provided by the investigative journalists which I linked to in a previous comment that exposed NED funding of GDI and GDI running a censorship operation targeting conservative U.S news sources which was backed up by U.S Senator Grassley in his letter to NED. These facts have been well established which is why NED cut funding to GDI once the scheme was exposed. But instead of addressing these glaring facts you state that "NED did not fund GDI’s work on the U.S" and you stated this in three different comments on this thread almost as if you were coached to say that by a NED affiliated attorney. I see what you are doing here Andrew. By creating a separation between NED and GDI and GDIs censorship operations against certain U.S news outlets you are trying to absolve NED of any culpability. I am not a lawyer and perhaps this sleight of hand approach using slithery legalese as a maneuvering tool might work in a courtroom but it doesn't fly in the court of public opinion and particularly among those who think logically and rationally.... Let me put this as succinctly as possible. I U.S citizen Crestrider pays thousands of dollars every year in taxes. The U.S sends those tax dollars to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars to fund NED. U.S funded NED then sends hundreds of thousands of dollars to fund GDI. GDI sets up a censorship operation targeting conservative and libertarian news outlets. As Senator Grassley pointed out GDIs censorship operation was no secret and knowing what GDI was up to NED continued to fund GDI probably because they were simpatico with the corrupt ethos of GDI. As a consumer of news from these censored news outlets I U.S citizen Crestrider and tens of millions of people like me who value the freedom of information are justifiably outraged that our tax dollars funded an organization like NED that purposely violated the principles of the first amendment.. As for lawsuits the people who knowingly perpetrated this censorship operation on U.S news outlets using U.S taxpayer money and in clear violation of the first amendment should be brought before the courts and those that support and defend this corrupt racket should be publicly lambasted.

    Responses to this comment
  • Is logic now illegal? NED did not fund GDI's work on the U.S. and took exemplary steps afterwards to cut ties to GDI to fully address all concerns. I note that NED's incredible work assisting dissidents is of no interest to the internet researchers posting above under pseudonyms.

    Responses to this comment
  • Just let me know if you want to sue me - one of those "internet researchers" - Andrew. I'll provide you with my full name. But with your thin skin, maybe you should publish work only where it can't be critiqued by "potentially libelous" commenters?

    Responses to this comment
  • You have done it again Andrew. For the fourth time on this thread and almost word for word is the statement "NED did not fund GDI's work on the U.S." I have to give the NED attorney's credit, they have done a good job of keeping you on script and because NED's funding of GDI was not earmarked to go towards GDI's censorship operation the way the statement is phrased shields NED with a layer of separation and plausible deniability even though at the time of NED's funding of GDI it was quite apparent that GDI was censoring conservative U.S news outlets. It wasn't until this indefensible funding scheme was exposed and NED got caught that they then cut ties with GDI. And you refer to this behavior as exemplary? Once they were caught NED had no other option but to cut ties with GDI and had they not been caught it's reasonable to believe that the NED to GDI funding/censorship scheme would have continued.... As far as my using a pseudonym if I listed my real name on my comments say 'Sam Smith' or 'John Jones' the two words you would likely say is "who's that?" And you would be correct in thinking that. I am not a journalist or a publicly prominent person so unlike yourself or others on this site that post articles and then comment using their real names or derivations of their real names for me to use my real name would be for the most part irrelevant to the discussion on this topic.

    Responses to this comment
  • You pay taxes to USG? Ok, so you are responsible for "Fast and Furious" by your logic. Are you secretly Eric Holder? All that MAGA masculinity, but lacking the courage to state your name.

    Responses to this comment
  • Let's say he tells you his name is Ed Jones? That will somehow make you happy? Doubt it. You imply legal action against people in the comments section - granted it's an empty threat - yet you want them to divulge their names? So bizarre.

    Responses to this comment
  • There is an analogy to be made here Andrew but it is not in the convoluted and nonsensical example that you laid out. The better comparison is between GDIs censorship campaign which targeted conservative news outlets and the Fast and Furious operation where firearms were sent to Mexican drug gangs resulting in hundreds of deaths including a U.S Border Patrol agent. Both of these operations were reprehensible and were aided or orchestrated by their benefactors in the former case NED which funded GDI with full knowledge that it was conducting censorship operations and in the later case using the ATF during the Obama administration and under the direction of AG Eric Holder... As a U.S taxpayer my tax dollars funded both of these nefarious operations which I am outraged by... Could you please put the tired pseudonym argument to rest. My semi-anonymous identity is immaterial to the discussion at hand. It is obvious that as a defense mechanism you are using your objection to pseudonyms as a diversionary tactic in order to distract from NEDs culpability in the GDI censorship controversy.

    Responses to this comment
  • NED did not fund GDI's activities on the U.S. There is zero evidence of that. This exchange demonstrates, yet again, that MAGA thinking is unAmerican and that people who hide behind fake names are cowards.

    Responses to this comment
  • Andrew for now the fifth time and almost word for word you repeat the same mealy-mouthed statement "NED did not fund GDI's activities in the U.S." This is a devious obfuscation of reality. What NED did do was fund GDI with full awareness that GDI was running a censorship operation in the U.S media market. This amounts to a distinction without a difference. I have given numerous links on this thread that exposes the NED/GDI/Censorship connection and here is another link " https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/house/3148525/embattled-state-department-office-funding-censorship-groups/. The following sentence is an excerpt from this link "Moreover, the report argues the National Endowment for Democracy, a State Department-funded nonprofit group that awarded hundreds of thousands of dollars to GDI, “violated its international restrictions by collaborating with fact-checking entities in assessing domestic press businesses’ admission to a credibility organization." The report referred to is the The Congressional report titled "Instruments and Casualties of the Censorship-Industrial Complex" . The report stated the following "The NED grant documents show that the NED was aware of the GDI’s work in the U.S. media market at the time of funding." Here is the House Committee report in full. https://smallbusiness.house.gov/uploadedfiles/house_committee_on_small_business_-_cic_report_september_2024.pdf...At this point Andrew it is clear that no amount of evidence that I provide will sway you because truth is obviously not your main priority nor does it appear to be a central part of your value system. This is perhaps the primary distinction between us. To the best of my abilities I always try to reach my conclusions based on facts and evidence regardless of my own personal ideology or agenda. It is quite clear that you reach your conclusions based on your own personal ideology or agenda regardless of the facts and evidence. This is the biggest take away from our exchange on this thread.

    Responses to this comment
  • "Andrew for now the fifth time and almost word for word you repeat the same mealy-mouthed statement “NED did not fund GDI’s activities in the U.S.” This is a devious obfuscation of reality." Sorry the truth is so painful. Somebody who hides his name clearly cannot even accept the truth about himself.

    Responses to this comment
  • The claim that NED is bipartisan is false. Trump ended that. The list of very partisan individuals associated with the organization includes board member Anne Applebaum, former NED president Carl Gershman, Robert Kagan, Larry Diamond, and board member Rachel Kleinfeld.

    Responses to this comment
  • Please provide a similar list of those balancing out the partisanship of the above names.

    Responses to this comment

Register or Login to leave a comment