Given recent revelations I’d prefer the knife work to go a little higher up the body but cutting their US government funding is a good start. But it’s not just the grift and the fraud that’s the problem with NGO’s, as bad as that is.

No, the real problem – danger actually – is that this model of NGO’s has turned into another arm of government, despite the denial of that explicit in their label.

In pre-revolutionary France it was held that there were three basic “estates” in the nation, the clergy, the nobility, and the commoners. The so-called “Fourth Estate” was the press, supposedly there to keep an eye on the others.

In modern America, that’s been translated into the three official, co-equal arms of government: legislative, executive, and judicial. The “Fourth Estate” is still there, as well as a so-called “Fifth Estate” which used to be non-MSM news sources or journalists but can now be regarded as the world of bloggers and other social media.

Actually there is a fourth arm of government and that’s the bureaucracy, which often seems as powerful as the other three. Similarly with NGO’s, which have now become the fifth arm of government and, like the bureacracy, well ahead of the two “Estates” in power and influence, as the following article explains:

What once seemed benign now appears suspect, even sinister. For some, this moment arrived with the realization that NGOs, those supposedly nonpartisan charities bearing names like “Global Relief” or “Justice Now,” were not simply operating beside government but often as the government. Not elected, not accountable, yet flush with your tax dollars.

Why does this matter? Because it represents a fundamental evasion of the structure and safeguards of constitutional democracy. The Founders designed a system of checks, balances, and electoral accountability. No power without representation, no authority without transparency. But in recent decades, and particularly under the Biden administration, a parallel architecture has emerged. This architecture is built not of departments and agencies, but of foundations, non-profits, and NGOs. It is a second state, answerable not to the people, but to donors.

And the reason it has been built is precisely to evade the checks and balances of government. If “President” Biden was a convenient meat puppet for various Left-Wing groups to get what they wanted with a robo-pen signature, then NGO’s are the machines outside of government who can really make those things happen, free of any effective government oversight; legislative, executive, or judicial.

Here the absurdity becomes structural. The taxpayer, often unknowingly, is subsidizing the political opposition. Conservative voters in Texas may wake up to find their taxes supporting NGOs that lobby for transgender curricula in schools, the defunding of police departments, or the relocation of foreign nationals into their communities. This is not charity. This is policy, outsourced.
…
The appeal of NGOs to progressive administrations is not mysterious. They provide plausible deniability. They can test radical policies, stir public sentiment, and run propaganda campaigns under the guise of humanitarian work. They can sue the government in one circuit while receiving funds from it in another. They are unregulated proxies in the battle for the soul of the Republic.

Who needs the dictatorship of the Politburo when you’ve got “Justice Now”?

Because it’s Xitter it may vanish so I’m going to cut and paste the whole thing below the fold for future reference. But read the whole thing.

=========================

There is a moment, common to many political awakenings, when a veil is lifted. What once seemed benign now appears suspect, even sinister. For some, this moment arrived with the realization that NGOs, those supposedly nonpartisan charities bearing names like “Global Relief” or “Justice Now,” were not simply operating beside government but often as the government. Not elected, not accountable, yet flush with your tax dollars.

Why does this matter? Because it represents a fundamental evasion of the structure and safeguards of constitutional democracy. The Founders designed a system of checks, balances, and electoral accountability. No power without representation, no authority without transparency. But in recent decades, and particularly under the Biden administration, a parallel architecture has emerged. This architecture is built not of departments and agencies, but of foundations, non-profits, and NGOs. It is a second state, answerable not to the people, but to donors.

What precisely are NGOs doing with public funds? Everything from facilitating migrant influxes at the border, to administering social justice programs abroad, to writing and distributing model legislation domestically. The problem is not only the content of their actions but the structure in which they occur. NGOs are not subject to FOIA requests. They are not answerable to voters. They are rarely audited. Yet they regularly execute the very programs that would be politically toxic or legally suspect for the government itself.

Let us speak plainly. In theory, the state exists to serve citizens within a lawful and constrained framework. When the executive branch wishes to pursue a policy, it must secure funding from Congress, survive judicial scrutiny, and face the judgment of voters. But NGOs allow for a sleight of hand. The executive can partner with an ideologically aligned NGO, give it taxpayer funds, and let it carry out controversial operations at arm’s length. It is both an end-run around constitutional limits and a backdoor laundering of political will.

Take immigration. The Biden administration flooded the southern border with NGOs ready and waiting to transport, house, and resettle illegal immigrants. These were not merely humanitarian outfits acting independently. They were funded in large part by federal agencies such as USAID, HHS, and the Department of Homeland Security. Some NGOs even received advance notice of migrant arrivals, coordinating logistics more efficiently than federal authorities. In any meaningful sense, they were the immigration system. At the same time, another class of NGOs, also funded by taxpayers, filed lawsuits to block deportations and fight removals in court. These groups acted as legal combatants against the federal government itself, creating the bizarre spectacle of the public funding both the importation and the legal resistance to enforcement. This was not public service, it was political warfare conducted under the banner of humanitarianism.

Who benefits from this arrangement? Not the American public. The real winners are the architects of ideological influence: men like George Soros, whose Open Society Foundations have pumped over $32 billion into a sprawling latticework of NGOs across the globe. These NGOs, seeded with private money, use their alignment with progressive causes to secure government grants. Once federally funded, they expand their operations, amplify their messaging, and become the default executors of soft power.

Here the absurdity becomes structural. The taxpayer, often unknowingly, is subsidizing the political opposition. Conservative voters in Texas may wake up to find their taxes supporting NGOs that lobby for transgender curricula in schools, the defunding of police departments, or the relocation of foreign nationals into their communities. This is not charity. This is policy, outsourced.

Advocates will object: But NGOs are efficient! They provide services the government cannot! That is a distraction. If the government truly cannot perform a function, it may contract out through competitive bidding, subject to oversight and audits. Commercial vendors operate under enforceable terms. They are accountable. NGOs, in contrast, blend the moral halo of charity with the operational latitude of private actors. They can advance agendas while posing as neutral service providers.

This is not theoretical. A recent internal audit revealed that more than half of USAID grants to NGOs lacked clear performance metrics. Billions are disbursed annually with minimal tracking or consequence. The incentives are perverse: NGOs that push fashionable causes, no matter how ineffective, are rewarded. Those that pursue traditional or apolitical goals often lose out. Worse still, once entrenched, NGOs become nearly impossible to dislodge. They form networks, build media alliances, and embed themselves in international forums. And even when a president determines that a particular NGO is no longer operating in the national interest, that judgment may be overridden—not by Congress or voters, but by federal judges. In the last ninety days, Democrat-appointed judges have issued injunctions compelling the Trump administration to continue funding NGOs simply because the doesn’t agree its their judgement. It is an inversion of authority: the executive branch is stripped of discretion, and taxpayers are forced to sustain organizations whose objectives may run counter to the will of the people or the interests of the state.

The appeal of NGOs to progressive administrations is not mysterious. They provide plausible deniability. They can test radical policies, stir public sentiment, and run propaganda campaigns under the guise of humanitarian work. They can sue the government in one circuit while receiving funds from it in another. They are unregulated proxies in the battle for the soul of the Republic.

At bottom, the use of NGOs to circumvent constitutional governance is not just a fiscal or administrative concern. It is a moral one. The essence of republicanism is deliberative legitimacy: laws made by elected bodies, executed by accountable officials, within a transparent structure. NGOs subvert this. They represent a fusion of elite philanthropy and bureaucratic ambition, insulated from both market discipline and democratic consent. In some cases, the subversion is formalized in statute. Congress has gone so far as to create agencies that operate their own companion-NGOs, such as the U.S. Institute for Peace and its Endowment Of The United States Institute Of Peace Incorporated. These hybrids enjoy the power and prestige of federal status while retaining the secrecy, flexibility, and ideological latitude of private foundations. They are neither wholly public nor truly private, and they answer to neither Congress nor the citizenry. They exist in the gray zone, where political agendas thrive without oversight.

The remedy is not complicated. First, federal funding to NGOs should be halted. Where services are needed, the government can contract private firms through open bidding processes, with strict oversight. Second, all existing grants should be reviewed for compliance, effectiveness, and political neutrality. Third, Congress must assert its power of the purse and demand justification for any non-governmental expenditure. Finally, all existing NGO-related appropriations should be placed on a firm legislative sunset schedule. This would force transparency, restore congressional control, and begin the process of dismantling the permanent infrastructure of taxpayer-funded activism.

Some will claim this is heavy-handed, that it endangers vital humanitarian work. But that confuses the issue. No one is banning NGOs. They are free to solicit private donations and pursue their missions. What they must not do is function as shadow ministries funded by the very public they are not accountable to. Public money demands public control.

To those still skeptical, consider this: If a Republican president created a network of tax-funded conservative NGOs to rewrite education standards, police local elections, and resettle immigrants in blue cities, would progressives accept that? Of course not. They would cry foul, and rightly so. The principle is clear. Legitimacy in a free society requires both transparency and consent. NGOs, as currently deployed, offer neither.

The rise of the NGO-industrial complex is not a sign of governmental weakness. It is a symptom of political cowardice. Rather than legislate, progressives subcontract. Rather than debate, they disseminate. Rather than govern, they fund proxies. This must end.

Our Republic was not designed to be ruled by foundations. It was designed to be ruled by laws. The American people deserve nothing less.