The English version of the PDF will be available for download shortly.
On January 20, 2025, Donald Trump signed an executive order that, like so many others, was loaded with implications: all US foreign aid was to be stopped for 90 days to assess its “efficiency” and “consistency with United States foreign policy.” On January 24, Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued a directive that effectively shut down the US Agency for International Development (USAID). As early as March 10, Rubio said that they were cancelling 83 percent of USAID’s programs amounting to 5,200 contracts. The remaining ones (about 1,000) would come under State Department administration. The real driver behind the dismantling of the aid organization is Trump’s advisor Elon Musk. With his so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), he is reshaping the state apparatus and pushing ahead to de facto dissolve the agency, while publicly denigrating it as a “criminal organization” that must “die.” In his statement, Marco Rubio thanked DOGE for achieving this “historic reform.” This change is indeed fundamental and poses a serious threat to internet freedom and democracy in a broader sense; much more than “just” USAID is at stake here.
Internet Freedom Promotion as Part of US Foreign Policy
US foreign aid has not only provided essential backing for humanitarian projects, global health, disaster relief, and economic development; it has also been a pillar of support for much of the world’s civil society and media working to counter authoritarian internet blocking and shutdowns and to promote accessible networking and communication. Internet freedom programs are deeply intertwined with broader programs promoting democracy, independent media, and human rights. Many civil society groups working on press freedom, civic engagement, and fighting corruption depend on digital security tools and research developed through internet freedom funding.
Over the past few decades, the United States has established the promotion of an open internet as an integral part of its foreign policy. USAID has been at the forefront of this effort, funding programs on digital rights, cybersecurity, and internet freedom in numerous countries. Until now, USAID and the US State Department had the mandate to “preserve and expand the internet as an open, global space for freedom of expression and association” from Congress. The State Department’s Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) played a key role, funding programs in all regions of the world to develop secure technologies, provide training in digital security, combat repressive internet laws, and research major threats to internet freedom. Funding for these and similar State Department and USAID programs had increased in recent years and most recently totaled around $270 million – more than in any other country.
In addition, the United States Agency for Global Media (USAGM) funds technologies to circumvent internet censorship and government surveillance. It finances the Open Technology Fund (OTF), which has established itself as a major promoter of open-source technologies. According to its own statistics, more than two billion people worldwide use OTF-supported technology every day, such as the secure messenger Signal and the Psiphon software for bypassing internet blocking. Since 2019, Congress has tripled OTF funding, most recently providing over $43 million. In addition, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the International Republican Institute (IRI) support digital technology projects for democratic resilience and cybersecurity in more than 100 countries.
Partial Restoring of Funding and an Uncertain Future
Now, Trump’s executive order and Musk’s DOGE team not only challenge the decision of Congress but also endanger the “infrastructure of democracy” that the United States has built and supported since the Cold War. Still, the judicial branch is now addressing the funding freeze and pointing out the limits of presidential power. On March 5, the Supreme Court upheld the ruling of a federal judge requiring the Trump administration to pay about $2 billion to foreign organizations for their accomplished work. This is a significant step to restoring justice in this unprecedented crisis; however, no judge can reinstate the canceled contracts or rule payments for work in the future.
Additionally, NED turned to the court on March 5 and filed a lawsuit in the US District Court against Executive Branch agencies and officials for denying access to congressionally approved funding. Just five days later, the State Department restored NED’s access to parts of those funds. While many projects can now restart their work, full restoration of funds is still not decided and there are no safeguards to prevent a funding freeze and cuts from happening again in the future.
Those legal actions play an important role in restoring at least some funding and project activities. However, the trend is pointing rather to a dramatically shrinking internet freedom portfolio, cutting further funds and establishing more direct control by the State Department. Getting a clear picture of the restructured portfolio is challenging so far and grasping the entire change may take time. But one thing is clear: the impact of Trump’s funding freeze on civil society is already being felt, with few NGOs able to bridge the funding gap for 90 days. Moreover, trust in American support of internet and democracy is disappearing while concerns over possible conditions of the new US funds and one’s own reputation linked to such funding is growing. A questionnaire of the State Department that was sent to all potentially remaining project partners provides an example of what these conditions could look like. The prospect of funding is linked to such policies as the partners’ rejection of DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) and “gender ideology” as well as to the projects’ contribution to the advancement of US rare-earth minerals security. There is justifiable fear of a bleak outlook for the future.
Curtailed Funding for Internet Freedom Projects: A Turning Point for the Global Internet and Democracy Aid
Under Trump 2.0, the United States is turning its back on its global involvement, not only implementing the principles of an “America First” foreign policy but also reinterpreting ideas of democracy, freedom of expression, and human rights. This became apparent in the speech by US Vice President JD Vance at the Munich Security Conference. Moreover, the world’s richest man, Elon Musk, was attacking the administrative apparatus, endangering the rule of law in the United States, and verbally assaulting democratically legitimate offices and institutions in Germany and Europe. The close cooperation between the tech entrepreneur and the president is blurring the line between Silicon Valley and Washington. It is to be expected that the international digital policy of the United States will be guided by the economic interests of the Big Tech corporations rather than by values such as democracy and an open, global internet. It is therefore highly unlikely that the Trump administration will promote critical civil society in authoritarian countries. The current US president either ignores or accepts the fact that a strengthening of digital authoritarianism and the expansion of Chinese and Russian spheres of influence actually go against the interests of the United States.
Not Surrendering the Digital Future to Authoritarian Countries
Recognizing the severe consequences of this withdrawal from crucial funding programs, Germany and leading European countries must prioritize the protection of human rights and democracy in the digital age. The German Strategy for International Digital Policy provides a framework for cooperation with other states, but it needs to define clearer goals and responsibilities. For example, the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development and the Foreign Office could develop a portfolio on internet freedom based on the model that has been used in the United States. They should establish a joint program to better coordinate and finance issues related to internet governance and digital rights across departments. In addition, both ministries could expand their digital policies, integrating them more closely with existing initiatives, such as those of the German International Cooperation Society (GIZ) and Bread for the World, to promote a free internet in the Global Majority. Other EU countries could take a similar approach.
In addition, the EU governments should foster the potential of existing programs, such as the German Prototype Fund and the Sovereign Tech Fund, and establish a European foundation following the model of OTF. Such a foundation should promote the development of open-source technologies – especially decentralized social platforms and encrypted communication tools – for Europe itself as well as for partner countries.
Neither Germany nor any other European country can close the financial gap left by the United States on its own. This requires a joint European response: the EU could provide more support for digital projects promoting internet freedom and a human-centered digital transformation as part of the Global Gateway and Team Europe Initiatives. In addition, the European Commission should engage with private foundations, philanthropists, and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development to discuss a joint fund. Common interests in terms of an interconnected digital economy as well as cross-border data transfer and protection against internet shutdowns for trade and civil society should be identified and promoted.
Germany and the EU should help build a new digital world order and shape the geopolitical agenda based on their core values. They should not only engage in multi-stakeholder forums such as the Internet Governance Forum and the Freedom Online Coalition but also significantly step up their partnerships with other technological powers. For this, the International Digital Dialogues of the German Federal Ministry for Digital and Transport offer a suitable platform with great potential.
As a signatory to the Declaration on the Future of the Internet, which was initiated by the United States, Germany along with other EU member states and dozens of other nations have committed themselves to a vision of an open internet and the protection of human rights. The withdrawal of the United States from the endeavor makes the commitment of all other states all the more imperative. Too much is at stake to abandon this vision and leave the shaping of the digital future to authoritarian regimes.
