• The International Republican Institute (IRI) has received significant funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and migration-focused NGOs, totaling over $130.7 million and currently holding $9.2 million in active grants.
• Critics argue that IRI’s ties to open borders organizations and USAID funding could conflict with U.S. foreign policy goals, particularly those related to national security and border control.
• The IRI’s board includes influential figures like Senators Lindsey Graham, Joni Ernst, Tom Cotton and Dan Sullivan, as well as former National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, whose criticism of the Trump administration has raised additional concerns.
• The USAID is under intense scrutiny following President Trump’s order to withdraw almost all USAID staff from abroad, leading to a significant reduction in health, education and security aid in critical regions.
• The controversy has sparked a call for greater transparency and accountability in the distribution of government funds, particularly in the context of foreign aid and international development. Conservatives are pushing for a more focused and effective approach to align with national interests.

In a development that has raised eyebrows among conservative policy analysts and lawmakers, the International Republican Institute (IRI), a “Republican-aligned” non-governmental organization (NGO), has been found to receive significant funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and migration-related NGOs. This revelation has sparked a debate over the institute’s true allegiances and the broader implications for U.S. foreign policy.

The funding trail: USAID and open borders NGOs

According to the latest financial disclosures, the IRI has received a staggering $130.7 million in government funding and currently holds active grants totaling $9.2 million. The organization’s financial statements, as detailed in its IRS Form 990, reveal a complex web of funding sources, including significant contributions from migration-focused NGOs such as the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and the Pan American Development Foundation (PADF).

This funding pattern has led to questions about the IRI’s alignment with the broader goals of the U.S. government, especially given the current administration’s focus on national security and border control. Critics argue that the IRI’s ties to open borders organizations and its reliance on USAID funding suggest a potential conflict of interest, particularly in regions where U.S. foreign policy aims to strengthen borders and combat illegal immigration.

Key figures on the IRI board: A who’s who of Deep State influencers

The IRI’s board of directors is a who’s who of influential figures in Washington, including Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Joni Ernst (R-IA), Tom Cotton (R-AR) and Dan Sullivan (R-AK). However, the presence of former National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster on the board has drawn particular scrutiny.

McMaster, a key figure in the so-called “Russia hoax” against former President Donald Trump, has been a vocal critic of the Trump administration. In his 2024 book, McMaster described Trump as “very offensive” and “brash,” and stated unequivocally that he would “never consider working for Trump again.” This sentiment, combined with the IRI’s funding sources, has fueled concerns that the organization may be more aligned with the Deep State and progressive NGOs than with the conservative principles it claims to represent.

The broader context: USAID under siege

The controversy surrounding the IRI’s funding comes at a time when the USAID itself is under intense scrutiny. In February 2025, President Donald Trump, with the support of billionaire ally Elon Musk, ordered the abrupt withdrawal of almost all USAID staff from their posts abroad, sparking outrage and anxiety both domestically and internationally.

The move, which aimed to restructure USAID’s operations to better align with national interests, has been widely criticized as a “coup” against the agency. Democratic lawmakers, including California Rep. Sara Jacobs, have called the action “illegal” and vowed to challenge it through court battles and legislative efforts.

The shutdown of USAID has had far-reaching consequences, particularly in regions where U.S. aid is critical for health, education and security. For example, in South Africa, the health minister expressed concern over the freeze in HIV/AIDS funding, which has supported the treatment of millions of people living with the disease. Similarly, in Turkey, the director of Doctors of the World Turkey, Hakan Bilgin, described the sudden stop-work order as a “lifesaving services crisis,” with 12 field hospitals in northern Syria forced to close and over 300 staff laid off.

Conclusion: A call for transparency and accountability

The revelation of the IRI’s funding sources and its board’s alignment with figures critical of the Trump administration raises serious questions about the organization’s true loyalties. As the debate over the role of USAID and other foreign aid agencies continues, conservatives are calling for greater transparency and accountability in the distribution of government funds.

In an era where national security and border control are paramount, the IRI’s ties to open borders NGOs and its reliance on USAID funding suggest a need for a thorough review of its operations and mission. As Senator Lindsey Graham noted, “We must ensure that our foreign policy and aid initiatives are aligned with the best interests of the American people, not the agendas of special interest groups or the Deep State.”

The coming months will likely see increased scrutiny of the IRI and other organizations like it, as the Trump administration and its allies push for a more focused and effective approach to foreign aid and international development.

Sources include:

TheNationalPulse.com

X.com

MidlandDailyNews.com