USAID : soon in Europe ?
In the aftermath of the USAID controversy, EU institutions disbursed €130 million to media organizations across Europe as part of efforts tied to the European elections.
Translation of our article published in French on February, 15th, 2025.
Introductory Observations
To grasp the context of what follows, it is essential to first define USAID. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is an autonomous agency within the U.S. federal government, officially responsible for overseeing foreign development assistance.
Its declared core mission is to foster economic and social progress, alleviate poverty, and bolster democracy and human rights on a global scale.
In reality, USAID fulfills these aims but extends its reach further. For deeper insight, consider the interview with John Kiriakou, a former CIA officer, conducted by French Invaders.
What USAID Is Not
USAID does not function as a humanitarian entity—its acronym can be deceptive—despite what French media narratives might imply. Rather, USAID has channeled funds into NGOs, foundations, think tanks, and similar entities, occasionally for purposes that raise significant ethical concerns.
The Current State of USAID
USAID has not been formally dismantled—at least not yet. However, its operations, budget, and workforce have been effectively suspended, with staff placed on administrative leave (a move some might liken to a purge) pending a comprehensive audit. This abrupt shift, executed in a characteristically Trump-esque fashion, has seen the agency subsumed into the State Department under the oversight of Marco Rubio.
USAID’s Interventions
Mike Benz, a prominent authority on the matter, highlights that USAID, through its ties to the Atlantic Council (which once counted Benjamin Haddad—now France’s Secretary of State for European Affairs—among its ranks), financed a significant counter-operation in response to the Macronleaks. This incident involved WikiLeaks’ publication of extensive documents from Emmanuel Macron’s campaign organization, marking a blatant instance of interference in an electoral process.
Has Trump Upended the Status Quo?
By opting to radically overhaul USAID, has Trump effectively delivered a bold, cowboy-booted stomp to the anthill—disrupting the entanglement of development aid with covert operations aligned to U.S. foreign policy objectives?
Regardless, his actions have laid bare the scope of America’s influence strategy—if not outright interference—projected overseas, particularly aimed at shaping the political dynamics and electoral results of sovereign Euro-Atlantic nations.
USAID’s True Purpose
“The core mission of USAID is to execute regime-change operations, employing tactics strikingly similar to those of Soros and his network of NGOs. Examples are plentiful worldwide and have been criticized for years, even within the United States. The French press mourning its overhaul reveals much about their loyalties,” observes independent journalist Frédéric Aigouy.
Across Latin America, Africa, the Balkans, Central Europe, Ukraine, Georgia, Syria, Romania, and beyond, USAID’s presence is ubiquitous. Is it merely for humanitarian and development efforts, or does it serve as a tool for political meddling in the affairs of sovereign nations?
In Syria, USAID openly admits to funding local groups to bolster governance in regions outside Bashar al-Assad’s control—effectively supporting areas dominated, aside from the Kurds, by jihadist elements. In 2023, Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador urged Joe Biden to halt USAID’s funding of organizations antagonistic to his administration. A decade earlier, in 2013, Bolivian President Evo Morales expelled USAID, accusing it of conspiring and interfering, notably by co-opting union leaders to undermine his government.
In Cuba, USAID launched ZunZuneo, dubbed the “Cuban Twitter,” a social media platform active from 2010 to 2012 designed to foment dissent against the government. In Nicaragua, the agency supported small groups and NGOs during the 2018 protests against President Daniel Ortega, having previously, according to WikiLeaks cables, financed efforts to destabilize Hugo Chávez’s government in Venezuela a decade prior.
In Georgia, USAID paused its activities after accusations of acting as a conduit for American interests and destabilizing the government surfaced. This followed the passage of a law—modeled on the U.S. Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) of 1938—mandating that organizations receiving over 20% of their funding from foreign sources register as “foreign agents,” directly targeting NGOs, media, and USAID itself.
Its role may be less publicized but is no less significant in Africa—consider the creation of South Sudan from the ground up in 2010—or in Ukraine, where its involvement in the Maidan uprising is widely acknowledged yet rarely dissected, and in Romania. Still, one might question whether those pointing fingers should also examine their own actions. Elon Musk, for instance, has pledged $100 million—the largest donation in British political history—to Nigel Farage and his party. While his transparency sets him apart from USAID’s covert playbook, the parallel raises eyebrows.
A Dual Legacy
Since its inception in 1961 under John F. Kennedy, USAID has worn two masks. Its founding coincided with Operation “Pincushion,” a covert U.S. Special Forces program, funded by the CIA, to train mercenaries during the Laotian Civil War to counter communist influence in Vietnam— reportedly with USAID’s backing, despite its official mandate of civilian aid and economic development in Southeast Asia.
“When a job’s too messy for the CIA, it gets handed to USAID. The CIA requires presidential approval for covert actions; USAID doesn’t,” notes Shawn Ryan, a former Navy SEAL and CIA operative.
Is USAID merely a polished front for the CIA? John Kiriakou offers clarity: “In a 1973 letter, Senator Ted Kennedy queried Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and the CIA Director about USAID serving as a CIA cover. The answer was ‘yes.’ It funded CIA operations in Laos from 1969 to 1972 and has continued to act as a front ever since—in Afghanistan, Bolivia, Cuba, and dozens of other cases. During Afghanistan’s 20-year occupation, USAID was everywhere, ostensibly building infrastructure and promoting democracy, but in reality, it was a CIA facade.”
Trump’s Disruption
Donald Trump’s sweeping reforms have triggered a wave of panic—legal efforts to block his freeze on USAID’s budget are already underway. Yet, most media narratives focus narrowly on the purge (its staff reportedly slashed from 10,000 to 300) or the threat to NGOs reliant on USAID, which drives 40% of global development aid, while glossing over the broader implications.
Take Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, former French Education Minister under François Hollande, whose near-hysterical criticism of Trump conveniently omits her role as director of the NGO One—previously funded by USAID. She was recruited by Gayle Smith, a former USAID head under Obama, who later led One before returning to the Biden administration during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Unraveling the Web
This is just the beginning of untangling a complex knot—one where genuine aid and development must be separated from outright interference. USAID’s duality embodies America’s “soft power.” The French-American Foundation’s “Young Leaders” program, for example, has groomed figures like François Hollande, Pierre Moscovici, Emmanuel Macron, Édouard Philippe, and Najat Vallaud-Belkacem—alongside a similar initiative with China that included Olivier Véran.
Then there’s the German Marshall Fund, a potent U.S. lobbying entity tied to the State Department, USAID, and the Department of Defense, funded also by GAFAM and NGOs like Open Society and the Rockefeller Foundation, with deep ties to U.S. security circles. Emmanuel Macron, as a finance inspector in 2006, benefited from this network before joining Rothschild. The Atlantic Council, another influential think tank, once employed Benjamin Haddad, now France’s Europe minister.
Even the rap scene reflects this strategy. Mike Benz, a former State Department official under Trump, terms it “hip-hop diplomacy.” In March 2024, the State Department hosted 22 rappers from various countries in Washington, D.C., training them to use art as activism—a move open to interpretation. In France, under Obama, significant resources flowed into suburban areas with little public oversight.
COVID and Beyond
USAID’s dual nature extended to the COVID-19 crisis, providing humanitarian aid in Africa while also combating “disinformation” through training, media campaigns, and promoting “verified” content on social platforms—blurring the line between assistance and influence.
The threads of this intricate tapestry remain tangled, demanding careful scrutiny to discern aid from interference.
Remember what Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Meta, said on Joe Rogan’s podcast : 'Different agencies and branches of government pushed us to the limit to delete posts (on Facebook) that were true.' 1
The Battle for Information Control
Control over information is paramount—a concept far from novel. Recall Operation Mockingbird in the 1950s, when the CIA disbursed cash-filled envelopes to journalists at outlets like the Washington Post, the New York Times, and CBS, as well as major Euro-Atlantic media houses, to shape public opinion in the struggle against communism.
In France, however, this role of the media is rarely acknowledged, if at all.
Yet, per U.S. federal government data, USAID has trained and supported 6,200 journalists globally, subsidized 707 non-state media entities, and bolstered 279 civil society groups aimed at fortifying 'independent' media. Which outlets benefited? What sums were funneled to each—directly or via intermediaries like the Open Society Foundations (Soros) or NGOs such as Internews Network, both recipients of USAID largesse?
A WikiLeaks investigation alleges USAID channeled nearly half a billion dollars through Internews Network—an NGO branding itself as a champion of press freedom and independent journalism, yet led by a board with deep ties to the American Democratic Party. In 2023 alone, this funding reportedly sustained 4,291 media operations, underwrote 4,799 hours of programming—reaching an audience of up to 778 million—and trained over 9,000 journalists, including in counter-disinformation tactics. Target countries included Bangladesh in 2021, Indonesia in 2022, and Iraq and Nigeria in 2023.
All purportedly in the name of independence and pluralism? At the 2024 World Economic Forum, Jeanne Bourgault, president of Internews Network, pushed for 'blacklists' to steer advertisers toward funding 'approved information' as a bulwark against 'disinformation'—raising questions about the true agenda behind such initiatives.
Media and Manipulation: A Euro-Atlantic Perspective
The task of co-opting media is simplified when outlets fail to scrutinize their benefactors or the agendas behind their funding.
Consider Drew Sullivan, founder of the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), a consortium uniting 70 media partners and renowned for spearheading global investigations. An excerpt of his interview, once available on YouTube but removed since February 14, 2025, was recovered via X through Tribune Populaire. Sullivan remarked: “I don’t care if it furthers their foreign policy. I request funds for a specific purpose, and if they provide it, that’s acceptable. It’s not ideal—I’m well aware—and we’ve navigated this tension for 17 years.”
Last December, five outlets, including France’s Mediapart and Italy’s Il Fatto Quotidiano, critiqued the OCCRP. Not only was it partly established with U.S. backing via USAID, but until recently, the White House supplied nearly half its budget and retained veto power over staff appointments. In response to Mediapart’s exposé, the OCCRP insisted: “U.S. funding poses no issue—it doesn’t shape our reporting.” This strains credulity, as self-censorship, particularly where money flows, is hardly alien to journalism.
What emerges is a cyclical ecosystem: media feed off entities like USAID, the CIA, the Pentagon, and the State Department, which, in turn, leverage the media for influence. American journalist Michael Shellenberger—labeled a conspiracy theorist yet credited with early revelations—asserts that USAID and the CIA fueled the 2019 attempt to oust Trump. Evidence from a whistleblower (a CIA analyst from the Obama era) alleging Trump conditioned Ukrainian military aid on digging up dirt on Biden traced back to OCCRP data. “The OCCRP effectively operated as a USAID appendage, which Trump has now dismantled,” Shellenberger concludes starkly.
USAID’s Reach: Inescapable?
In Ukraine, nine out of ten media outlets survive solely on USAID grants, making it the linchpin for 'independent' media. Yet its sway extends beyond Latin America or post-Soviet states—Euro-Atlantic media too are ensnared in this web of external influence.
While Russian or Chinese interference often dominates headlines, French and European media remain conspicuously mute on another form: interference from within the Euro-Atlantic sphere itself, orchestrated by European institutions. What role did they play in the June 2024 European elections?
Italy’s Il Fatto Quotidiano, citing revelations from the Spanish human rights group Iustitia Europa, asked this question. Did the EU, mirroring U.S. State Department tactics, 'purchase' media ahead of the MEP elections—or at least attempt to sway journalists?
Opacity clouds the issue. Unlike the U.S., where the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) offers some transparency, the EU’s labyrinthine structure excels at obscurity, often flouting its own rules. In October 2023, the European Parliament and Commission, adopting an American playbook, allocated €132.8 million in EU funds to media as part of the June 2024 election campaign. Which outlets? How much per recipient?
Routed through Havas (Bolloré Group), an advertising agency acting as a opaque intermediary, this framework agreement shields details under the pretext of “protecting the commercial interests of economic operators.” It also sidesteps obligations like public tenders for payments exceeding €14,000 or logging them in the ted-europa.eu database, the EU’s procurement journal—effectively dodging its own transparency mandates.
“The benefit? Concealing individual payments and recipients. This indirect mechanism could skirt oversight and obscure the funds’ endpoints,” Iustitia Europa told The European Conservative. What do Havas’s contracts, signed on behalf of EU institutions, entail? Mere advertising, as Il Fatto suggested?
Per the Italian daily, some funds aimed at major Italian outlets (Rai, Mediaset, Sky, Corriere della Sera, Repubblica) covered business-friendly articles and services. Yet a €62,000 partnership—inked without tender—between Repubblica, Italy’s second-largest center-left newspaper, and the European Parliament and Commission also paid for election-related content. How many such deals exist, or might still emerge?
Access to EU documents falls under Article 15 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which cites confidentiality to protect deliberations, personal data, public security, defense, national security, or the Union’s financial interests—but not the “commercial interests” invoked to justify secrecy here. The threads of this Euro-Atlantic influence network remain tangled, demanding scrutiny to separate fact from facade.
“I’m broadly supportive of vaccination, but [the Biden administration] sought to silence anyone questioning it. They exerted intense pressure on us to suppress even factual content (...), such as mentions of potential vaccine side effects. Biden administration officials would phone our teams, berating them with profanity (...). This is all detailed in the documents we submitted to Jim Jordan’s parliamentary inquiry committee (Republican representative, ed.).”