The Trump administration is pushing to direct more than $175m of the State Department's flagship human rights fund toward a slate of awards that would bolster rightwing and conservative causes worldwide, according to grant documents seen by the Guardian.

The move comes with hours left before the funding expires, and it represents a significant redefinition of what qualifies as human rights work under US foreign policy.

The package includes 43 awards totalling $176.9m. The largest single item is a $40m grant for an anti-communism fund. Other awards would support a group advancing white Afrikaner rights in South Africa, a campaign against Brazil's supreme court, and programs designed to reward ideological allies in Europe who protect what the documents describe as "western civilisational norms".

The controversial grants make up most of the $205m that Congress has appropriated for the entire Human Rights and Democracy Fund (HRDF), the State Department's principal vehicle for supporting human rights and democracy programming abroad.

The Guardian reviewed a sample of the disputed awards, which reveals the scale and ideological direction of the proposed spending.

Critics have focused on the likelihood that the awards will anger US allies by channeling American money into their internal politics. The campaign against Brazil's supreme court, in particular, represents direct interference in the affairs of a democratic partner, opponents argue.

The proposed allocations mark a sharp departure from the traditional focus of the HRDF, which has historically funded programs supporting civil society, rule of law, and democratic institutions across the political spectrum.

The timing is consequential. With the funding set to expire within hours, the administration is pressing to lock in the awards before Congress can respond, leaving lawmakers and watchdog groups with little room to contest individual grants.

The documents show how the executive branch can reshape the practical meaning of statutory human rights funding through discretionary award decisions. Congress appropriated $205m for the HRDF, but the administration determines which organizations and causes receive the money.

For practitioners, the development signals that grant recipients aligned with conservative ideological causes — anti-communism advocacy, European groups defending "western civilisational norms," and organizations pursuing claims on behalf of white Afrikaners — will now command a substantial share of US human rights funding. Organizations with traditional human rights mandates may find themselves squeezed out of the flagship fund entirely, as the 43 awards account for the bulk of the $205m appropriation.

The interference in allied democracies' internal affairs raises diplomatic and potentially legal questions. Funding a campaign against Brazil's supreme court, a coordinate branch of a sovereign government's judiciary, tests the boundaries of acceptable state conduct between partners and could invite reciprocal complaints under international law norms governing non-interference.

No court or regulator has yet ruled on the legality of the awards. The decisive actors here are the State Department, which approved the allocations, and Congress, which appropriated the funds and retains oversight authority. Whether lawmakers challenge the awards, seek to claw back funding, or tighten statutory language in future appropriations remains an open question as the expiration deadline approaches.

The episode illustrates a broader pattern: the US government is redefining what qualifies as human rights work, shifting from universal rights frameworks toward causes that include anti-communism, protection of "western civilisational norms," and advocacy for specific ethnic groups abroad.