The money is becoming real

When the Financial Times reported in February that the US State Department planned to fund MAGA-aligned think tanks and charities in Europe, the proposal could still be dismissed as another provocative idea circulating around the Trump administration. The funding was linked to America’s 250th anniversary celebrations and described as an effort to promote “American values” and challenge European approaches to free speech and digital regulation.

Six months later, that possibility is becoming policy.

In July and August, the State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labour opened several Europe-focused funding programmes. One offers grants of between $1 million and $3 million for projects on “civilizational bonds”, sovereignty, migration, censorship and lawfare. Another, worth almost $2 million, promotes “civilizational values”. A third offers nearly $3 million for research and advocacy on migration, sovereignty and the rule of law. A further $1 million programme targets a consortium of European journalists.

Reuters reported on 31 August that these calls form part of at least $25 million planned for conservative civil-society initiatives in Europe, including $4 million for right-leaning media. The State Department reportedly notified Congress of additional allocations on 21 August. Importantly, this is money planned or offered, not $25 million demonstrably distributed to European organisations yet.

There are indications that considerably larger resources could eventually become available by repurposing US democracy-assistance funding, although how much might ultimately go to Europe remains unclear. Sarah B. Rogers, Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and one of the administration’s most outspoken advocates of this agenda, has made it clear what the political intent behind the effort is.

Continuation, acceleration—certainly not a start

This is not a moment for panic. It is a moment for urgency. The arrival of US government money does not suddenly create an anti-liberal ecosystem in Europe. It strengthens one that has been developing for years.

Research by the European Parliamentary Forum for Sexual and Reproductive Rights found that $1.18 billion flowed to anti-rights and anti-gender initiatives in Europe between 2019 and 2023, involving 275 actors. Roughly three-quarters of that funding originated within Europe, while US Christian Right organisations were already significant funders.

Nor is funding the whole story. Radical-right actors have invested in networks, conferences, fellowships, media, talent pipelines, litigation, cultural platforms and long-term institutional capacity. The lesson from Hungary’s Mathias Corvinus Collegium (MCC) ecosystem or America’s Heritage-led Project 2025 is not simply that “they have more money”. It is that they understand political change requires infrastructure around political parties, as well as skilled political influencers and entrepreneurs who can carry ideas into institutions and society.

Opportunities instead of challenges

This situation poses a real challenge for democratic think tanks. Trying simply to match every dollar, even if it were financially realistic, would be strategically unimaginative and politically immature. Democracy proponents cannot win an auction against American federal money, billionaires and deeply capitalised ideological foundations. They should instead focus on opportunities that are hiding in plain sight.

First, there is a vulnerability built into the very design of the support scheme. Movements that campaign on sovereignty cannot easily explain why their sovereignty is subsidised from abroad. Foreign patronage is a soft flank, as the recent difficulties surrounding Giorgia Meloni’s relationship with Trump and the German AfD’s MAGA connections illustrate.

Second, this is not a new fight for pro-democracy Europeans and think tanks should say so clearly. Nor is it inevitable that Washington can simply replace the financial infrastructure weakened by Viktor Orbán’s electoral defeat. American and European religious-right and radical-right funders have supported anti-gender and “pro-sovereignty” causes for years. The new US federal funding is a potent additional stream, but it enters an already mature European ecosystem.

Finally, this is influence in plain sight: an overt ideological campaign from a long-standing ally whose current administration is increasingly acting as an ideological adversary in parts of Europe’s domestic political debate, using public money to shape European politics. Europe’s foreign-interference toolkit was built largely to respond to covert Russian disruption and is therefore not directly suited to this challenge. But many of the lessons learned, such as mapping networks, tracing money, exposing proxies and acting early, remain useful. One lesson in particular stands out: democratic actors need to be more proactive rather than permanently playing defence.

Four things European think tanks should do now

The response must be smarter, not richer. Drawing on the June 2026 convening of European think-tank leaders in Brussels organised by the European Policy Centre (EPC) and On Think Tanks, four moves stand out.

First, expose the money flows and understand what is being built. Analyse, expose and use the contradictions. Think tanks should jointly and systematically track where US federal, philanthropic and technology money lands: grants, donations, media investments, fellowships, event sponsorships and institutional partnerships. Transparency is one of the cheapest and sharpest instruments available because it can turn the recipients’ own sovereignty rhetoric against them.

But transparency starts at home. Think tanks must disclose their own funders if demands for transparency elsewhere are to carry weight. The mapping must also be forensic rather than conspiratorial: distinguish conservative organisations from explicitly illiberal actors, and legitimate international cooperation from attempts to undermine democratic institutions.

And then communicate the contradictions relentlessly. A movement whose defining claim is national sovereignty is politically vulnerable when its infrastructure depends heavily on foreign patrons. The point shouldn’t be made once; everyone needs to understand it.

Second, expose consequences rather than endlessly diagnosing “the far right” or issuing generic warnings about “threats to democracy”. When radical-right organisations publish proposals, translate them into tangible consequences. What would “remigration”, restrictions on gender rights, attacks on EU regulation or judicial restructuring mean for a company, university, municipality, family, migrant, journalist or young person?

Different audiences encounter democracy in different ways. From an evidence-based, public-interest perspective, think tanks should therefore keep working on issues the radical right exploits, such as migration, housing, security, or the cost of living, and show what competing policy choices would mean in practice. Ceding those subjects is precisely how political ground is lost.

Third, become harder to intimidate. Transparency, income diversification and experimentation all strengthen resilience. Think tanks should establish donor red lines and clear rules for controversial partnerships. They should diversify revenue whenever possible. Independence is difficult to defend when a single government, foundation or corporation can threaten an organisation’s survival.

They should also establish crisis protocols and rapid-response capacity before trouble arrives. And they should innovate in how they reach people: partnerships with filmmakers, artists, creators and popular media can make democratic ideas legible beyond the policy elite. This is a moment for experimentation and action, not endless deliberation about variants of advocated policy solutions.

Finally, act as a guild, not as lone shops. When a think tank or the principles that guide the sector are attacked, organisations should act collectively. Think tanks can compete for grants on Monday and defend the conditions of independent research together on Tuesday. Shared early-warning mechanisms, legal and communications support, intelligence on problematic funding conditions, and coordinated responses would reduce individual organisations’ vulnerability. Funders should support this collective infrastructure and provide more flexible, longer-term resources for politically sensitive work.

Most institutes still experience funding cuts and smear campaigns as private misfortunes. Collective defence can change that: a shared early-warning channel, a solidarity protocol when one organisation is attacked, pro bono legal support and pooled funding for sensitive work on foreign influence, radical-right networks and democratic vulnerability that individual donors may hesitate to support.

Keep calm and change gear

Washington’s new funding will not determine Europe’s political future, but its significance should not be underestimated. What matters is not only the amount of money but the institutions, networks and legitimacy it can help build.

The answer is therefore neither panic nor business as usual. Think tanks do not need to become ideological armies. They do need to become more agile, transparent, collaborative, and willing to act in the battle of ideas already underway. The response is not to outspend the other side, but to out-think it: expose the money, make the consequences tangible, build collective muscle and defend independent policy knowledge with greater confidence.

References

1. Financial Times, 6 February 2026, “US government to fund Maga-aligned think-tanks and charities in Europe.”

2. EULive, 3 June 2026, “Trump’s administration launches grants to boost ‘civilizational self-confidence’ and free speech in Europe.”

3. US Department of State / Grants.gov, Developing Civilizational Bonds, Democratic Resilience, and Rule of Law in Europe, July 2026.

4. US Department of State / Grants.gov, Promoting Civilizational Values, August 2026.

5. US Department of State / Grants.gov, Promoting Sovereignty and Rule of Law in Europe, August 2026.

6. Reuters, 31 August 2026, “Trump administration plans $4 million for right-wing media in Europe, sources say.”

7. European Parliamentary Forum for Sexual and Reproductive Rights, 26 June 2025, The Next Wave: How Religious Extremism Is Reclaiming Power.

8. Financial Times, 18 August 2026, “The German far right’s MAGA problem.”

9. Financial Times, 20 August 2026, “Meloni and MAGA: a cautionary tale.”

Goran Buldioski is a Senior Adviser at the On Think Tanks.

This article is part of Democracy under Pressure, a collaborative initiative by the European Policy Centre and On Think Tanks (OTT), supported by the Network of European Foundations. The initiative brings together think tank leaders across Europe to strengthen collaboration and develop practical responses to the challenges facing democratic, liberal and plural institutions. Explore the project page for more insights, meeting summaries and publications.

The support the European Policy Centre receives for its ongoing operations, or specifically for its publications, does not constitute an endorsement of their contents, which reflect the views of the authors only. Supporters and partners cannot be held responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.