Why are U.S. federal funds being used to finance the Center for Research, Transparency and Accountability (CRTA), an organization that assesses elections in Serbia?
On what grounds did Washington determine that this belongs in the federal budget, and who actually verifies whether the organization entrusted with this money remains genuinely impartial?
How Much Money Did CRTA Receive?
According to an October 21 report by Breitbart, citing the official U.S. database USASpending.gov, CRTA has so far received $832,432.47 through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) out of an authorized $2.8 million grant.
For those of us living, working, and paying taxes in the United States, the justification for spending public money in this manner must be seriously questioned. The banner of “democracy support” does not absolve U.S. government agencies of their obligation to state clearly what was paid for, what was achieved, and why this expenditure serves the interests of American taxpayers.
Impartiality Under Scrutiny
For years, CRTA has presented itself to the public as an objective election monitor, public opinion researcher, and media watchdog. However, a series of actions by the organization suggests it has long ceased being an impartial observer and instead become an active participant in the country’s political struggle.
Its open alignment with one side is most evident through its awards and direct promotion of opposition figures. While claiming to serve as an independent arbiter during the December 2023 elections, CRTA had previously granted its official award for civic courage to the organizers and participants of the “Serbia Against Violence” protests. In subsequent reports, the organization went so far as to highlight its real-time media coverage of student blockades and street demonstrations – capturing drone footage and generating promotional material for the demonstrations.
When an organization provides logistical and media support to one side, expecting it to remain impartial toward the very actors it promoted is detached from reality.
Controversial Reports on “Phantom Voters” and Belgrade Arena
Doubts surrounding CRTA’s methodology and objectivity reached a boiling point during the December 17, 2023 elections.
On election night and throughout the days that followed, CRTA published a report claiming the Belgrade municipal elections were compromised by an influx of so-called “phantom voters” from Republika Srpska, pointing to the Belgrade Arena as an alleged hub of orchestrated voter fraud.
However, subsequent findings by competent state authorities and independent legal experts revealed that these assertions were politically driven allegations lacking material proof:
Distortion of Residency Data: CRTA’s report conflated registered residency with temporary stay, even though the total number of registered voters in Belgrade between the two election cycles remained virtually unchanged (an increase of approximately 0.8 percent, consistent with typical multi-year demographic trends).
The “Arena” Incident: Follow-up inquiries established that Belgrade Arena was used by a political party as an internal coordination center for its own party members and monitors holding dual citizenship from Bosnia and Herzegovina – not a secret polling station or an operation altering voter rolls.
Premature Declarations of Irregularities: CRTA rushed to announce conclusions about “irregularities that changed the election outcome” before tally sheets from every polling station were finalized, and well before the election commission or judicial authorities could formally rule.
Public Backlash and Expert Assessments
Numerous public officials and political analysts have responded to this discrepancy between the role of an objective election observer and political activism.
Ana Brnabić, who served as Serbia’s prime minister and subsequently as speaker of the National Assembly, commented on a recent post by CRTA on the social media platform X:
Political activist Vukša Dragović, leader of the organization “Serbian Sovereigntists,” argues that CRTA is not an independent election observer but a direct political actor:
“Without CRTA, the students and the student electoral list would not exist… How can an organization credited with such a role impartially assess elections?”
A Decision Made in the Waning Days of the Biden Administration
The timing of this funding is especially notable. According to Breitbart, funding for the “Elections Integrity Activity” project was first granted in 2023, but was expanded on January 17, 2025 – just days before the close of Joseph Biden’s presidency and the inauguration of Donald Trump.
This timeline raises questions regarding the political priorities of the outgoing Democratic administration: was funding channeled to groups like CRTA to exert external influence over Serbia’s domestic political and electoral landscape?
Who Answers to Taxpayers?
U.S. authorities must account for the criteria used to grant these funds, the rationale for selecting CRTA, and the findings of any official audits. At the same time, CRTA owes the public transparency: what was paid for, and can it credibly claim to operate as an independent, unbiased election monitor?
Establishing the facts requires public access to the grant contracts, payment records, expense reconciliations, and audit reports. An organization that demands total transparency from Serbian public institutions must hold itself to that same standard.
American taxpayers should not be expected to accept every expenditure as justified simply because it is branded as “democracy assistance.” And the Serbian public has every reason to scrutinize foreign political funding and question the neutrality of those who claim to judge its elections.
Photo: ChatGPT
