Since almost day one, the second Trump administration has singled out Europe as a major target of its ire. From U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance accusing European leaders in Munich last year of suppressing free speech for annulling an election in Romania, to the White House National Security Strategy warning that the continent faces “civilizational erasure” due to the influence of the European Union and immigration, the Trump administration has plenty of notes for how it thinks Europe needs to change.

Now, the administration is putting its money where its mouth is: The State Department will soon announce a wave of grants aimed in part at reshaping European domestic politics.

The effort is being overseen by a little-known office within the department known as the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) that was historically involved in promoting democracy in places such as Cuba, Iran, and Russia. Leading the charge is the bureau’s no. 2 official, a 27-year-old who previously worked at a conservative group with ties to Vance, and who first came to prominence for writing a State Department essay criticizing Europe.

The project faces steep odds thanks to bureaucratic hurdles and a European domestic audience that may simply care less about the issues championed by the White House. Yet critics fear that the campaign could further strain already tense relations between some European politicians and the United States—and could help legitimize views once considered fringe in Europe.

---

The grant money comes from last year’s budget for the State Department’s Democracy Fund, said a State Department spokesperson, speaking on condition of anonymity. The fund is known as the State Department’s “venture capital” fund for democracy promotion and is overseen by DRL.

It is unclear precisely how much money remains in the fund, although the spokesperson said any available dollars would be committed. The State Department did not respond to a follow-up request for comment on the specific amount still available in the Democracy Fund.

It was funded at $205.2 million in 2025, and DRL has publicly announced only a $5 million contract for assisting defenders of religious freedom. Separately, a $25 million fund for Ukrainian children taken by Russia was also announced, which the State Department spokesperson said was partially funded by DRL money.

Whatever money remains, though, must be spent by September 2026 under the legislation authorizing it.

Some of the grants will target Europe, the spokesperson confirmed. “The National Security Strategy highlights our priorities in Europe, which include advancing political liberty, promoting free speech, and collaborating with European partners to jointly support European revitalization and civilizational self-confidence,” the spokesperson said.

Exactly how much money the fund will devote to Europe is as yet uncertain. However, a series of trips made by DRL officials suggest that the continent is likely to be a high priority.

DRL’s most prominent ideological voice is 27-year-old Samuel Samson, who became No. 2 at DRL on May 3 when he was elevated from senior advisor to deputy assistant secretary of state. His promotion has not been reported before now.

Samson previously worked in a senior role at American Moment, an organization dedicated to bringing young conservatives into positions of power. The organization has close ties to Vance, who “was one of the first supporters of American Moment from its inception,” according to its website.

Samson first gained prominence as the author of a May 2025 State Department essay that sharply critiqued Europe for becoming “a hotbed of digital censorship, mass migration, restrictions on religious freedom, and numerous other assaults on democratic self-governance.”

Starting from his time as a senior advisor, Samson has made trips to multiple European countries, including to France, Hungary, Austria, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and Greece.

The trips have often had a conservative bent. In Hungary, Samson spoke at a think tank funded by U.S. President Donald Trump ally and former Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban. The trips to Austria, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic were undertaken as part of an effort to work “with our like-minded allies,” Samson said. All three have strong conservative political movements.

In France, French human rights official Magali Lafourcade described a meeting with Samson in which she said he and other officials expressed concern that an embezzlement conviction against National Rally politician Marine Le Pen was an example of political repression. Samson separately made a trip to meet with conservative British politician Nigel Farage and in the United States met with parliamentarians from the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party. The State Department did not respond to a follow-up request for comment on Samson’s trips to Europe.

---

Who might actually receive DRL funding is yet another open question.

The State Department spokesperson said DRL was not planning on funding political parties. It is unclear whether the State Department could do so even if it wanted to. While the U.S. Foreign Assistance Act does not explicitly rule out such a move, it does prevent funds from being used to influence elections.

If the department were to change course, however, it may have ways of legally doing so. It could, for example, choose to distribute money in ways that indirectly support a political party.

“I don’t think there’s anything stopping them from, say, giving a grant to a think tank that works with [British party] Reform or AfD that becomes basically a de facto contribution,” said one person who has worked implementing democracy programs for the U.S. government. The person spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of professional retaliation.

DRL has historically worked with entities such as the International Republican Institute, which in turn work with foreign local organizations to support activities such as polling or candidate training. Such work is typically offered to all parties in a given political race.

There are a number of upcoming elections in Europe that could be prime targets for such activities, including parliamentary elections in Sweden in September and in the Czech Republic in October. A key election in the German region of Saxony-Anhalt is also set for September. Other key elections include a parliamentary election in Spain and Poland in 2027 and a presidential election in France in 2027.

But perhaps the easiest path to advancing the Trump administration’s goals—and perhaps least likely to raise congressional eyebrows—would be to give money to European think tanks or researchers.

This could particularly help a number of conservative think tanks previously funded by the Hungarian government whose funding is now in question following Orban’s electoral defeat in April. The White House—and Samson specifically—already have ties with Hungarian conservative think tanks.

Projects could include working on what DRL has called out as religious repression, the impact of immigration, or tracking what the Trump administration has described as censorship of European political parties. A slate of job postings suggests that technology may be a focus, with contracting companies advertising a senior and junior job advising on human rights and technology for the Office of Free Markets and Fair Labor, an office within DRL.

---

Former State Department officials and other experts expressed mixed opinions on whether a European-focused campaign would sway minds. But they also did not discount that it could have an impact on the margins.

For one, while DRL can give out money, it may lack experienced organizations to work with. DRL has historically worked with large U.S.-based nonprofits, such as the International Republican Institute—which DRL largely cut ties with at the start of the Trump administration. Such organizations are typically skilled in managing the compliance and other paperwork for grants, something that other, newer organizations might struggle with.

“Even doing a proposal is a monstrous effort,” said the person who had worked implementing democracy programs for the U.S. government.

Meanwhile, if programs do get off the ground, negative perceptions of the United States following Trump’s attempt to take Greenland and the Iran war could blunt their impact. A March poll of citizens in Poland, Spain, Belgium, France, Germany, and Italy found that only 12 percent thought of the United States as a “close ally.” The negative perception of the U.S. is such that even many European populists have turned away from Trump. In the highest-profile test of whether U.S. support could sway European voters, Vance stumped prominently for Orban—only to see him lose.

DRL grants may also not sit well with more mainstream European parties, said Dan Hamilton, a former top State Department official. The Trump administration “will be accused of interfering in [these countries’] sovereign decision-making,” he said. The State Department did not reply to a request asking for their comment.

This may depend on how much DRL advertises its support. While grants are often listed publicly on Grants.gov, the federal government does not necessarily have to post opportunities online under certain conditions, like national security concerns. Similarly, DRL is not required to announce the awardees if it determines that the “health or security” of recipients might be threatened.

The issues that DRL and the White House care about in Europe, namely immigration, religious rights, and freedom of speech, may also not sell as well in Europe as they do back in the United States.

While many Europeans are interested in limiting immigration, Europeans are increasingly less Christian. On free speech, the majority of citizens in major European nations polled in 2025 said they saw the internet as free.

“I just don’t think there’s a lot of political space for the State Department to play,” said Mujtaba Rahman, managing director for Europe at the Eurasia Group.

Some experts, though, said that the funding could have some impact.

“You are subtly trying to influence the political culture,” Hamilton said. “Is it going to fundamentally change the debate in Europe? No. But on the margin in some countries, depending on their issues and how they do it, it could make a difference.”

Even if the grants ultimately only amount to a few million dollars, those funds go further in Europe, said Dalibor Rohac, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

“By European standards, that’s a decent pot of money,” he said. “You have influential operations in Brussels that have annual budgets that are a fraction of what a typical D.C. think tank would have—[with] $5 million, you have a decently sized operation.”

While Rohac discounted the influence of some existing groups, he hypothesized that new groups might be created to take advantage of the funds: “The easiest thing would be for these far-right actors to set up organizations.”

“You set up an NGO, you call it ‘Patriotic Foundation for Whatever,’ and you get U.S. money,” he said.