More than $2 billion annually has been allocated from foreign assistance funds over the past decade for democracy promotion activities, including support for good governance (characterized by participation, transparency, accountability, effectiveness, and equity), rule of law, and promotion of human rights. While there has been bipartisan support for the general concept of democracy promotion assistance, policy debates in the 116 th Congress may question the consistency, effectiveness, and focus of such foreign assistance. With President Trump indicating in various ways, including in proposed funding cuts for democracy promotion assistance, that promoting democracy and human rights are not top foreign policy priorities of his Administration, this debate has taken on new vigor. The 116 th Congress may consider the impact of the Trump Administration's requested foreign assistance spending cuts on U.S. democracy promotion assistance, review the effectiveness of democracy promotion activities, evaluate the various channels available for democracy promotion, and consider where democracy promotion ranks among a wide range of foreign policy and budget priorities. Human Rights and Rule of Law. Stability was the primary foreign policy objective of the Lyndon B. Johnson, Nixon, and Ford Administrations, during which it was perceived that stable dictators were better for U.S. interests than countries in democratic transition, which may be susceptible to communism. The global spread of democracy seemed inevitable to many at the time, and democracy promotion and support became deeply integrated into the U.S. foreign policy structure. State Department and USAID share primary responsibilities for democracy promotion and human rights assistance. Democracy Promotion Funding

In recent years, 95%-99% of U.S. democracy promotion assistance has been funded within the Department of State and USAID budgets, with 11 other agencies providing the rest. This argument is often the basis for the efforts to restrict civil society organizations that promote democracy, sometimes with U.S. or other foreign funding. Relative Significance of Security, Trade, Human Rights

As the history of democracy promotion in U.S. foreign policy indicates, the emphasis placed on human rights and democracy at a given time or in a particular bilateral relationship depends significantly on competing security and economic interests (such as stabilizing a country or region with the potential of becoming a U.S. trading partner). While these challenges lead some to question ongoing U.S. efforts to promote democracy abroad, others assert that these activities are more important than ever because diminished U.S. leadership with respect to promoting democratic values could leave a void that other countries could fill, with detrimental consequences for the United States in the long term.
Promoting democratic institutions, processes, and values has long been a U.S. foreign policy objective, though the priority given to this objective has been inconsistent. World events, competing priorities, and political change within the United States all shape the attention and resources provided to democracy promotion efforts and influence whether such efforts focus on supporting fair elections abroad, strengthening civil society, promoting rule of law and human rights, or other aspects of democracy promotion.
Proponents of democracy promotion often assert that such efforts are essential to global development and U.S. security because stable democracies tend to have better economic growth and stronger protection of human rights, and are less likely to go to war with one another. Critics contend that U.S. relations with foreign countries should focus exclusively on U.S. interests and stability in the world order. U.S. interest in global stability, regardless of the democratic nature of national political systems, could discourage U.S. support for democratic transitions—the implementation of which is uncertain and may lead to more, rather than less, instability.
Funding for democracy promotion assistance is deeply integrated into U.S. foreign policy institutions. More than $2 billion annually has been allocated from foreign assistance funds over the past decade for democracy promotion activities managed by the State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development, the National Endowment for Democracy, and other entities. Programs promoting good governance (characterized by participation, transparency, accountability, effectiveness, and equity), rule of law, and promotion of human rights have typically received the largest share of this funding in contrast to lower funding for programs to promote electoral processes and political competition. In recent years, increasing restrictions imposed by some foreign governments on civil society organizations have resulted in an increased emphasis in democracy promotion assistance for strengthening civil society.
Despite bipartisan support for the general concept of democracy promotion, policymakers in the 116th Congress may continue to question the consistency, effectiveness, and appropriateness of such foreign assistance. With President Trump indicating in various ways that promoting democracy and human rights are not top foreign policy priorities of his Administration, advocates in Congress may be challenged to find common ground with the Administration on this issue.
As part of its budget and oversight responsibilities, the 116th Congress may consider the impact of the Trump Administration's FY2020 foreign assistance budget request for U.S. democracy promotion assistance, review the effectiveness of democracy promotion activities, evaluate the various channels available for democracy promotion, and consider where democracy promotion ranks among a wide range of foreign policy and budget priorities.