The velvet glove of interference: What NED's new report reveals about Washington's China playbook

Editor's note: Adriel Kasonta, a special commentator for CGTN, is a London-based foreign affairs analyst. He is the founder of AK Consultancy and former chairman of the International Affairs Committee at Bow Group, the oldest conservative think tank in the UK. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

In Washington's lexicon, it is called "democracy promotion." In Beijing, it is increasingly seen as something else.

The newly released annual report of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), an American non-profit, lays bare a familiar – and now intensifying – pattern: an expanding financial and institutional commitment to China-related projects that operate far beyond neutral civil society support. Behind the polished rhetoric lies a geopolitical instrument – one that is designed not merely to observe China, but to shape it.

The numbers tell part of the story. In 2024, NED distributed roughly $286 million through more than 1,900 grants across 91 countries. The grant details and program descriptions reveal a dense and growing network of China-focused initiatives. These extend across the Chinese mainland, including Xinjiang and Xizang, Hong Kong, as well as diaspora communities abroad.

Funding is only one dimension. The more revealing element is the nature of the recipients.

From media platforms amplifying dissenting narratives to advocacy groups focused on ethnic and regional issues, NED's ecosystem reflects a strategic alignment with actors openly critical of Beijing's governance model. The organization boasts that its grants "empower local changemakers" and help expose abuses in China.

Such phrasing, however, sits uneasily alongside the political reality: Many of these "changemakers" operate in direct opposition to the Chinese government, including groups advocating for outright independence in regions such as Xinjiang and Xizang.

This is not incidental. It is structural.

NED's institutional DNA traces back to the Cold War, when Washington sought to shift from covert to overt methods of influencing political developments abroad. As one of its founders, Allen Weinstein, famously acknowledged, much of what the organization does today mirrors activities once conducted discreetly by the Central Intelligence Agency. The difference is not the objective, but the visibility.

Indeed, NED occupies a peculiar space: formally a non-governmental organization, yet almost entirely funded by the U.S. Congress. This hybrid status allows it to operate with the flexibility of civil society while advancing priorities closely aligned with US foreign policy. The organization has long been known as Washington's "white-glove" instrument for pursuing regime change without the overt fingerprints of state intervention.

Nowhere is this duality more evident than in its China portfolio.

Consider its engagement in Hong Kong. Following the unrest of 2019, Chinese authorities revealed evidences about NED supporting groups that fueled protest movements and advocated for "Hong Kong independence." While the organization denies direct involvement in protest coordination, it has acknowledged funding civil society actors in the city – many of whom were deeply embedded in the political mobilization of violence during that period.

In China's northwestern frontier region Xinjiang, the pattern is similar. NED-backed organizations have played a prominent role in documenting the West's so-called human rights abuses, shaping international discourse, and lobbying for sanctions. Some of these groups have received millions of dollars in funding over the years.

Such efforts are part of a coordinated campaign to internationalize and politicize China's internal affairs.

Xizang Autonomous Region in southwest China, too features prominently in NED's grantmaking. Advocacy networks supported by the organization continue to promote narratives of cultural repression and political marginalization, often in forums far removed from the region itself.

None of this is hidden. NED publishes grant listings, honors activists, and openly celebrates its role in what it frames as a global struggle for "freedom." Its 2025 Democracy Awards, for instance, recognized organizations focused on China-related issues, including platforms documenting so-called censorship and advocacy groups spotlighting ethnic policies.

But transparency does not neutralize intent.

The broader question is not whether NED supports civil society but how that support is calibrated, and to what end. In regions ranging from Eastern Europe to the Middle East, similar funding patterns have preceded or accompanied political upheavals often described as "color revolutions." The playbook – support independent media, train activists, amplify grievances – has become a familiar one.

China, with its size, stability, and global economic weight, represents a far more complex target. But NED's logic remains consistent: Cultivate networks that can incite subversion from within, while shaping international perceptions from without. This is where the language of democracy promotion collides with the realities of great power competition.

For Washington, NED is a tool of influence – a means of projecting values and interests without direct state confrontation. For Beijing, it is an instrument of interference, one that seeks to exploit social fissures and undermine political stability.

The scale and focus of NED funding on China are growing. Whether framed as support for human rights or as a vehicle for ideological contestation, the organization's expanding footprint underscores a deeper shift: the intensification of a systemic rivalry that now extends well beyond trade and technology into the realm of narratives, institutions, and internal stability.

In that contest, NED is not a bystander. It is an active participant – one whose actions and ambitions are increasingly difficult to separate from the strategic objectives of the state that funds it.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on X to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)