In the latest escalation of their campaign against federal agencies, President Trump and Elon Musk have turned their sights to dismantling the U.S. Agency for International Development, a.k.a. USAID. The attack has seemingly been spurred by claims made against the agency by former U.S. State Department official Mike Benz, whose posts on X and recent interviews on the Joe Rogan podcast have been widely shared by Musk.
Mike Benz served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Communications and Information Technology from 2020 to 2021 and founded the Foundation for Freedom Online who, according to their website, “seek to provide nonpartisan insights and assistance to all peoples taking a stand for freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and the free exchange of ideas online.”
Benz and the Trump administration assert that USAID has engaged in activities beyond its humanitarian mission, alleging political interference both in foreign jurisdictions and on U.S. soil. Benz contends that USAID has allocated substantial funds to media outlets, NGOs, and political movements in countries like Ukraine, Brazil, and Bangladesh in order to sway public opinion and influence domestic politics.
Benz also claims that USAID has financed initiatives to pass anti-misinformation legislation in Ukraine and Brazil, which he argues are politically motivated attacks intended to influence elections and suppress dissenting voices.
This article will discuss the recent claims against USAID and current efforts to rein in its influence, drawing heavily on claims made against USAID by Mike Benz during a recent Joe Rogan podcast. To watch the full episode, click here.
Background
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID), long presented as an organisation dedicated to humanitarian assistance and democracy promotion, has come under intense scrutiny for its role in shaping global political discourse through strategic funding, media influence, and judicial interventions. Recent claims and investigative reports have shed light on a complex web of operations that suggest that USAID functions as a covert arm of U.S. foreign policy, advancing political and economic interests under the guise of development aid.
New claims, as discussed in a recent exposé by Mike Benz, a former State Department official and expert on information warfare, detail the extent to which USAID has been involved in media manipulation, international election interference, and judicial influence campaigns. From training journalists to align with U.S. government narratives to directing financial resources toward destabilising governments deemed adversarial, USAID appears to operate far beyond its publicly stated mission.
USAID as a covert arm of U.S. foreign policy
USAID was established in 1961 by President John F. Kennedy and has since grown into one of the most powerful instruments of American influence abroad. While it publicly champions causes such as economic development, humanitarian assistance, and democratic governance, critics argue that it has been repurposed as a tool for executing covert foreign policy objectives.
The agency’s role in global politics mirrors the Cold War-era strategies employed by the CIA, which was frequently involved in regime-change operations, media infiltration, and paramilitary funding. As Benz argues, many of the CIA’s past functions have been absorbed into USAID, allowing the U.S. government to engage in covert political manoeuvres without direct congressional oversight. Unlike the CIA, whose covert actions require presidential authorisation through a formal “finding,” USAID is able to operate under the banner of “discreet democracy promotion,” effectively bypassing traditional intelligence agency restrictions.
Global regime influence under the cover of democracy promotion
One of the most well-documented examples of USAID’s transition to CIA-like activities is its reported involvement in political destabilisation efforts. Just as the CIA funded opposition movements and orchestrated coups throughout Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East during the Cold War, USAID has been linked to similar activities in the modern era.
A clear example is ZunZuneo, a USAID-funded social media platform launched in Cuba, which was designed to influence public sentiment and mobilise anti-government protests. Modelled after Twitter, the project targeted Cuban youth with seemingly neutral content like sports and music, only to later introduce political messaging that encouraged resistance against the Cuban government. This strategy mirrors Cold War-era psychological operations (PSYOPs), where U.S. agencies used propaganda and controlled media to shape political outcomes. The operation ultimately cost USD $1.2 million and was able to garner 60,000 followers in Cuba before it was exposed.
Similarly, in Ukraine and Poland, USAID-funded legal reforms have been closely tied to efforts to sideline political opposition. Documents from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED)—USAID’s partner organisation—show explicit calls for judicial reforms that would lead to the arrest of political figures aligned against U.S. interests.
The claims that Benz has made against USAID’s influence in Poland are particularly striking: USAID’s partner organisation, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), has openly advocated for legal action against political opponents. In a 2023 article published in the Journal of Democracy, an NED-affiliated publication, the organisation laid out a clear strategy for Poland’s newly elected government to prosecute members of the opposition Law and Justice Party (PiS). The article frames these legal actions as necessary to “stamp out populism” and ensure that the opposition does not return to power.
As Benz points out, the article goes beyond general policy recommendations and specifically calls for criminal prosecutions, urging Polish authorities to focus on cases that should be “tried immediately.” It even acknowledges that proving allegations against the PiS leader would be “difficult,” yet still encourages legal action. The term “transitional justice”, frequently cited in the piece, is commonly used to describe post-regime legal purges—a process in which former ruling parties are prosecuted under the guise of judicial reform. The publication argues that Prime Minister Donald Tusk and his government must take action to prevent populism from regaining a foothold in Polish politics, effectively endorsing the use of the legal system as a political weapon.
This strategy is not unique to Poland. Similar USAID-backed judicial interventions have allegedly taken place in Brazil, Ukraine, and Serbia, where legal training programs and NGO initiatives have been used to push prosecutions against political figures deemed unfavourable to U.S. interests.
In each case, Benz argues, the judiciary has played a critical role in reshaping the political narrative under the banner of democratic stability. While the NED’s rhetoric carefully avoids direct statements of political motivation, Benz points to the pattern of USAID and its affiliates being deeply involved in influencing foreign judicial systems as evidence of its ambition to ensure favourable political outcomes.
Media infiltration and controlling the narrative
During the Cold War, the CIA allegedly ran Operation Mockingbird, a covert effort to influence mainstream media by placing journalists on agency payrolls and feeding government-approved narratives to major newspapers and television networks. Today, Benz argues that USAID’s funding of international media organisations serves a similar function.
For instance, Benz points to Internews, who receive $500 million of USAID funding annually and has trained journalists across the globe in reporting techniques that align with U.S. foreign policy objectives, as clear evidence of global media influence. Other organisations, such as BBC Media Action and the Atlantic Council, have received funding from USAID to engage in media development programs that critics argue serve as a modernised form of information control. The Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), another USAID-backed entity, has been involved in investigative journalism efforts that appear to target political figures at odds with U.S. interests.
How it works
USAID has positioned itself as a key player in the fight against disinformation by funding NGOs, think tanks, and media organisations that work directly with social media platforms to shape public narratives (Joe Rogan has claimed that 55,000 NGOs have received USAID funding). While these initiatives are framed as efforts to promote factual reporting and prevent the spread of falsehoods, Benz argues that they have increasingly been used as a tool to suppress political content that contradicts U.S. foreign policy goals.
Here is the process by which USAID supposedly controls the media narrative:
Step 1: USAID funds NGOs to combat misinformation
Through its partnerships with organisations such as Internews, the Atlantic Council, and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), USAID provides hundreds of millions of dollars to fund fact-checking initiatives across the globe. These organisations then create anti-misinformation / disinformation frameworks, training journalists, researchers, and activists to identify and flag content deemed to be false or harmful. However, what qualifies as misinformation is an inherently politicised issue and often subjective, which raises concerns that the initiative is aligned with U.S. strategic interests rather than finding the objective truth.
For example, PolitiFact’s executive director was flown to Pakistan to train journalists on misinformation at an event hosted by the U.S. Embassy in Pakistan. Similar programs have been implemented in Bangladesh, Ukraine, and Brazil, where USAID-backed groups conduct media literacy campaigns that Benz claims reinforce narratives favourable to U.S. geopolitical objectives.
Step 2: Partnering with Big Tech to control the flow of information
Once trained, these USAID-funded organisations partner with major social media platforms, including Facebook, X, and YouTube, to implement content moderation policies. Through collaborations with groups like the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRLab), these organisations act as arbiters of truth, flagging posts that challenge U.S. policy as “misinformation” or “foreign influence”.
One key example is the EU Code of Practice on Disinformation, which has been used as a legal framework to demand access to social media data for researchers. However, Benz points out that these researchers are often directly connected to USAID, the State Department, or intelligence-linked organisations. This supposedly allows governments and NGOs aligned with U.S. interests to exert backdoor pressure on social media companies to censor content they cannot legally suppress in the U.S. due to First Amendment protections.
Step 3: Suppressing political speech that contradicts U.S. interests
Through its influence on Big Tech, USAID-backed misinformation initiatives are able to shape global online discourse by prioritising certain narratives while suppressing others. Benz claims that this occurs in several ways:
- Downgrading content:
Social media companies tweak algorithms to reduce the visibility of flagged posts, making them less likely to be seen or shared. - Demonetisation:
Content creators and independent media outlets that post content unfavourable to U.S. foreign policy can lose ad revenue if their work is labelled “misinformation” by USAID-affiliated fact-checkers. - Account suspensions and bans:
In extreme cases, accounts that frequently post content critical of U.S. policy are suspended or permanently banned—often under the justification of “coordinated inauthentic behavior” or “spreading harmful misinformation.” - Media amplification: At the same time, USAID-backed media outlets such as BBC Media Action, OCCRP, and Internews flood social media with reports reinforcing U.S.-approved narratives, drowning out dissenting voices.
A global speech-control network
The result is a global information-control system, where U.S.-funded NGOs, fact-checkers, and social media platforms operate in tandem to regulate speech under the guise of combating misinformation. While presented as a neutral effort to ensure accurate information, these programs, critics argue, function as a geopolitical tool—allowing USAID and its partners to influence public perception, weaken political adversaries, and shape online discussions in ways that benefit U.S. foreign policy.
Paramilitary and covert funding networks
During the Cold War, the CIA funded and armed paramilitary groups, terrorist organisations, and insurgents under the justification of fighting communism. These efforts were often hidden behind layers of financial and logistical obfuscation, with organisations like Air America and foreign intermediaries handling operations.
Today, USAID has been linked to similar covert activities, particularly in Syria, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, where money from the agency has reportedly ended up in the hands of extremist groups. A report cited in Benz’s podcast with Rogan revealed that $122 million in USAID funds reportedly went to ISIS-linked groups, and other investigations have pointed to USAID’s indirect role in financing insurgencies in various regions.
Moreover, USAID’s alleged involvement in drug trafficking networks in Latin America and Southeast Asia further reflects its Cold War-era intelligence ties. Similar to how the CIA is said to have facilitated the narcotics trade in Afghanistan and Nicaragua to fund black-budget operations, USAID has been accused of supporting networks that launder drug money under the guise of humanitarian assistance. The Taliban’s heroin trade, for example, was explicitly defended by a USAID-funded think tank, the U.S. Institute for Peace, which argued that disrupting Afghanistan’s opium production would create economic instability.
The evolution of covert operations
As Benz surmised, “When it’s too dirty for the CIA, you give it to USAID.” This statement encapsulates the shift in strategy that has allowed the U.S. to maintain influence while sidestepping the legal and political scrutiny that the CIA now faces. By operating under the banner of development and humanitarian aid, USAID can supposedly conduct many of the same activities—media influence, political subversion, and financial support for aligned factions—without the same level of public awareness or accountability.
The current push to dismantle the USAID network
The recent claims against USAID’s covert activities have led to unprecedented efforts to rein in its influence. Under the Trump administration, significant steps have been taken to restructure the agency, including mass layoffs and funding cuts. Benz notes that 99% of USAID’s workforce—approximately 14,000 employees—was eliminated in a single month, marking one of the most significant shake-ups in the agency’s history.
However, dismantling USAID’s vast influence network won’t happen overnight. As Benz warns, the organisation’s deep entrenchment in global political and economic structures means that rolling back its operations could take decades. In the meantime, USAID continues to operate through proxy organisations, multilateral partnerships, and outsourced funding mechanisms, ensuring that its strategic objectives, today at least, remain intact.