BY MELISSA GOLDIN, Associated Press
As the Trump administration moves to dismantle the U.S. Agency for International Development, false and misleading information is being pushed on social media to support the change, much of it spread by the administration and Elon Musk.
The posts raise questions about funding for certain projects and organizations, often claiming without evidence that the money was used inappropriately.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said to reporters Tuesday that USAID had spent “$1.5 million to advance DEI in Serbia’s workplaces; 70,000 for the production of a DEI musical in Ireland; 47,000 for a transgender opera in Colombia, 32,000 for a transgender comic book in Peru.” Those claims were picked up and spread widely on social media throughout the week.
Only the grant to a Serbian organization called Grupa Izadji was awarded by USAID. Its stated aim is to “to advance diversity, equity and inclusion in Serbia’s workplaces and business communities.”
The rest were awarded by the State Department’s Office of the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs. In 2022, it granted $70,884 to an Irish company for “a live musical event to promote the U.S. and Irish shared values of diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility.” A grant for $25,000 was awarded in 2021 to a university in Colombia “to raise awareness and increase the transgender representation” through the production of an opera, with an additional $22,020 coming from non-federal funding. And $32,000 awarded in 2022 to a Peruvian organization funded “a tailored-made comic, featuring an LGBTQ+ hero to address social and mental health issues.”
“The information environment about what USAID does and does not do has gotten to a very difficult place, where there’s a lot of false and misleading information being circulated,” said Rachel Bonnifield, a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development. “And I would hope everybody could hew back to the facts, which are publicly available, and we can have a good faith discussion about what USAID should and should not be doing based on those.”
Sean Roberts, a professor of international affairs at George Washington University and director of the school’s international development studies master’s program, explained that it “makes sense” that these programs were funded by the under secretary’s office.
“They do these small grant programs as outreach to local organizations and local communities and they’re generally supposed to reflect values of the United States and the friendship between the countries,” he said. “Sometimes they’re about democracy, in this case they’re about diversity. But they have nothing to do with USAID.”
Asked about the Trump administration’s portrayal of USAID funding, including Leavitt’s statement earlier this week, White House deputy press secretary Anna Kelly said, “This waste of taxpayer dollars underscores why the president paused foreign aid on day one to ensure it aligns with American interests.” She did not address the misrepresented grants cited above.
What about the media?
Major media outlets are among the organizations that have been singled out with claims that are false and misleading, including The Associated Press.
The BBC, for example, was said to have received approximately $3.2 million (2.6 million pounds) during the 2023-2024 financial year. But that money didn’t go to its news operation. It went to BBC Media Action, an international charity that is “part of the BBC family,” but editorially and financially separate from BBC News, the charity said in a statement. It accounted for about 8% of BBC Media Action’s budget that year.
“We follow the BBC’s editorial standards and values in our support for public interest media,” reads the statement. “However, all of our funding goes to our own projects. These are completely separate from the journalism of BBC News. We have no influence over the editorial decision-making of BBC News. The BBC in the UK is mostly funded by a TV Licence fee.”
The BBC — not including BBC Media Action, which is a separate entity — also earns income from the organization’s commercial subsidiaries.
Posts shared widely across social media also falsely claimed that Politico received at least $8 million from USAID in 2024, with some posts putting that number as high as $34.3 million. That is incorrect. USAID did pay the news site $44,000 in subscription fees in financial years 2023 and 2024. But additional government payments came from other entities.
Politico, in a statement to readers from CEO Goli Sheikholeslami and Editor-in-Chief John Harris, said Thursday that it is not getting a government subsidy.
The Associated Press was among the media outlets said to receive USAID funding. Although the news wire has been paid $37.5 million by other government agencies since 2008, none of that came from USAID, according to a federal government website that tracks its spending. AP spokeswoman Lauren Easton said that “the U.S. government has long been an AP customer — through both Democratic and Republican administrations. It licenses AP’s nonpartisan journalism, just like thousands of news outlets and customers around the world. It’s quite common for governments to have contracts with news organizations for their content.”
Values change
Foreign aid experts say that it is normal for an incoming administration to examine how aid is allocated and make changes based on its values.
“For a new administration to come in and review aid to see if it’s in line with their view of the American interest and their policy priorities, their general orientation, in theory this is totally normal and appropriate. Elections have consequences,” said Bonnifield.
She added, however, that the information being spread on social media about USAID funding shows a lack of understanding of how the agency works.
“There are certain motivations being assigned to it that don’t really seem to square with the facts and people are kind of reaching conclusions without understanding what’s happening,” she said. “That’s not to say necessarily all those expenses are good or should continue, but they’re implying intent that isn’t there.”
Roberts described the Trump administration’s current approach to USAID as “shoot now, ask questions later” in which it is amplifying any funding data it can by using “incendiary accusations based on nothing.”
“They just tend to obscure any kind of rational discussion about whether this agency is worthwhile and what its goals are and what’s the purpose of foreign aid,” he said in reference to recent social media posts about USAID funding.
Bonnifield and Roberts agreed that further research would be necessary to determine independently from political views whether there are instances of inappropriate or wasteful spending.
USAID is an independent agency that has provided humanitarian and development assistance around the world for more than 60 years. According to its 2023 annual report, the agency worked in more than 100 countries worldwide guided by five areas of focus: promoting global health, support global stability, providing humanitarian assistance, catalyzing innovation and partnership, and empowering women and girls.
