The Trump administration is preparing to distribute $12 million in grants to British political organizations founded by prominent Conservative figures Jacob Rees-Mogg and Toby Young, according to internal US government documents.
The allocation marks an unusual deployment of state department resources into foreign conservative causes and has drawn sharp criticism from former US officials, who argue the grants represent a misuse of American taxpayer money to advance ideological goals abroad.
The largest portion, $7 million, is designated for 878, a think tank co-founded by Rees-Mogg, the former minister of state for Brexit opportunities. The organization describes itself as devoted to the "rediscovery of our ancient culture" and "ending mass immigration." According to state department justification documents, the funding reflects 878's "unique role" as a nonpartisan entity focused on advancing fundamental freedoms. The group incorporated in the UK only in March of this year and launched its website in early July. Its US nonprofit registration remains pending.
An additional $5 million has been earmarked for Free Speech Union International, an offshoot of the Free Speech Union founded by Conservative peer Toby Young. The state department cited the group's work "promoting free speech and countering digital overregulation" across the UK, Europe, and Australia.
A third grant of $3 million targets the Jobs Foundation, a UK charity whose president is Matthew Elliott, the former chief executive of the pro-Brexit Vote Leave campaign. The funding would support a program called "Countering Overregulation to Advance American Investment."
What distinguishes these awards is their structure: all three are classified as "sole source" grants, meaning they are to be awarded without competitive bidding processes. State department procedure typically requires extensive justification for such arrangements, which are normally reserved for organizations with capabilities unavailable elsewhere.
Five former US officials interviewed about the grants expressed alarm at the arrangement. One called the process "outrageous and absurd," noting that sole source awards are meant for entities with unique, hard-to-find capabilities. "In this case," the official said, "these entities are being funded to subvert legal and competitive processes." Another characterized the grants as "horrible stewardship of US taxpayer money."
The grants emerge from months-long efforts by Trump-aligned figures within the state department to redirect funding toward conservative and pro-Trump causes across the UK and Europe, according to former officials who described the shift as causing "dismay" among state department veterans. Several US officials are reportedly driving these initiatives, including Sarah B. Rogers, who pledged $500,000 in US funding to promote "digital freedom," and Darren Beattie, a rightwing political commentator now serving as a senior state department official.
The disclosures come as the Trump administration has signaled broader plans to distribute state department grants to European groups focused on "developing civilizational bonds" and "defending rule of law," with individual awards reaching up to $3 million.
Toby Young confirmed that Free Speech Union International has "expressed interest in applying for grant funding from the US State Department" but said no formal application has been submitted and no grant has been awarded. The Jobs Foundation said it is "under consideration for project funding for a piece of international economic research." Jacob Rees-Mogg did not respond to requests for comment.
The grants present an immediate challenge for incoming UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham, who pledged last week to be "very upfront" with Trump about any disagreements. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has already objected to the prospect of similar grants to Maga-aligned groups in Berlin, stating he does not want American government institutions to interfere in German elections.
A state department spokesperson said the grants would undergo the department's "standard and rigorous vetting process" and remain under "active deliberation," adding that foreign assistance programming is aligned with strategic priorities. Historically, state department grants are highly competitive and heavily regulated, with organizations required to demonstrate solid administrative capabilities and proven track records managing funds.
Author James Rodriguez: "This looks less like foreign aid strategy and more like weaponized state department resources being handed to ideological allies."
Comments