I saw Elon’s tweet (below) this morning, and it hit me—we’ve only scratched the surface. His words prompted me to take a deeper look, and what I found was undeniable: USAID isn’t just a foreign aid agency; it’s a front for something far more insidious. Beneath the humanitarian facade lies a covert influence machine, funneling money, shaping narratives, and endangering national security—all funded by our own tax dollars. The real question isn’t just whether USAID was secretly financing media in Russia—it’s whether USAID has ever been independent at all or if it’s simply the CIA repackaged under the State Department. I had to drop this series, which is pretty much recycling old articles I published years ago and shows done on this topic, as now people have eyes to see and ears to hear.
It is important to note that USAID actions don’t just violate international norms; they actively endanger our national security every single day, using our tax dollars to fund operations that keep us in a perpetual state of harm. The question we should be asking isn’t just whether USAID was funding media in Russia—it’s whether USAID is truly independent at all. Or is it precisely what I’ve been saying for years? The CIA, neatly packaged under the State Department—better yet, the DEEP STATE Department. This isn’t foreign aid. This isn’t diplomacy. This is a covert influence machine operating under the illusion of humanitarian work. I hope Secretary Rubio has his galoshes ready—because if he’s serious about cleaning the house, he will have to wade through decades of deception, manipulation, and outright subversion disguised as “aid.”
In 2012, Russia decided to expel USAID (United States Agency for International Development) from the country, citing concerns over political interference and sovereignty. Russian authorities accused USAID of operating far beyond its stated humanitarian mission, actively funding opposition groups, NGOs, and independent media in ways that directly challenged the Kremlin’s authority. This was not a minor dispute—it was a confrontation over foreign influence, one that had been brewing for years. Since 1992, USAID had funneled billions into Russia under the banner of democracy promotion, yet Moscow viewed much of this funding as a thinly veiled attempt to destabilize its political landscape.
One of the most significant flashpoints was USAID’s funding of election-monitoring organizations like Golos, which was key in exposing alleged fraud during the 2011 parliamentary elections. This revelation contributed to widespread protests, intensifying the Kremlin’s suspicion that USAID was actively supporting anti-government movements. From Moscow’s perspective, this was not just foreign assistance—it was a coordinated effort to manipulate Russia’s internal affairs, mirroring the Western-backed Color Revolutions in former Soviet states. As tensions escalated, the Kremlin took decisive action, forcing USAID to cease operations in Russia by October 1, 2012.
The expulsion of USAID also aligned with broader crackdowns on foreign influence. Shortly after, Russia introduced the 2012 Foreign Agent Law, requiring NGOs receiving foreign funding to register as “foreign agents” and face heightened government scrutiny. This marked the beginning of a significant tightening of control over Russian civil society, media, and Western-backed initiatives. The U.S. government condemned Russia’s decision, arguing that USAID’s mission was purely humanitarian. However, the Kremlin saw it differently—this was about protecting national sovereignty from what it viewed as a foreign attempt to engineer political dissent. Russia systematically curbed Western influence in the following years, banning specific foreign-funded organizations, restricting international social media platforms, and increasing pressure on independent journalists. The USAID expulsion was more than a policy shift; it signaled that Russia would no longer tolerate external forces attempting to shape its political future.
Following the Kremlin’s decision, USAID officially ceased operations in Russia on October 1, 2012, marking a significant turning point in U.S.-Russia relations. The expulsion underscored a growing rift between the two nations, which had already been widening since Vladimir Putin’s return to the presidency earlier that year. Washington quickly condemned the move, insisting that USAID’s work in Russia was purely humanitarian and aimed at strengthening civil society. Moscow, however, viewed it as an arm of Western political interference designed to cultivate opposition movements and destabilize the Russian government from within.
In the aftermath, Russia tightened its grip on media, civil society organizations, and foreign funding, effectively dismantling the Western-backed influence networks that had operated inside the country for decades. The Kremlin framed this as a necessary defense of national sovereignty, asserting that foreign-funded groups acted as instruments of Western intelligence rather than as independent organizations. The move was not limited to USAID; soon after, Russia expanded restrictions to include Open Society Foundations, the Soros Foundation, and other George Soros-linked entities, declaring them threats to national security and barring them from operating inside the country. Russian officials went so far as to issue a warrant for Soros-affiliated organizations, accusing them of subversive activities designed to undermine Russian stability.
This expulsion was only the beginning. Over the next several years, Russia escalated its efforts to curb foreign influence, restricting social media platforms, banning Western-funded organizations, and placing intense pressure on independent journalists. The message was clear: Western “aid” programs were not seen as neutral humanitarian efforts but as covert tools for shaping Russia’s internal affairs. The precedent set by the USAID expulsion reinforced a long-standing argument—that Western funding streams often serve geopolitical agendas disguised under the banner of democracy promotion. Today, as USAID continues its operations in other nations, questions persist over whether it is genuinely an aid agency or a vehicle for political intervention. This concern extends far beyond Russia’s borders.
This tweet was the perfect segue to educate my readers about the gravity and impact the actions of such a rogue agency can have.
If USAID was officially expelled from Russia in 2012, yet independent media in Russia are now in 2025 complaining about losing USAID funding, then it proves USAID continued operating covertly despite being banned. This raises serious questions about how these financial networks functioned, who facilitated them, and whether the U.S. government deliberately ignored Russian sovereignty to maintain influence operations inside the country.
The fact that Russian media outlets are now reacting to a sudden cutoff of funding suggests that USAID had been finding ways to funnel money into Russia despite its official expulsion. This could have been done through third-party NGOs, offshore accounts, media partnerships, or intelligence-backed operations under a different guise. If true, this would be a blatant violation of international law and an admission that USAID was never indeed an independent aid organization but rather an instrument of geopolitical manipulation.
This revelation also raises serious national security concerns for the U.S. If USAID was conducting unauthorized funding operations in a foreign nation that had explicitly barred it, who approved it? Was Congress misled about USAID’s continued role in Russia? Were federal funds misappropriated under the pretense of humanitarian assistance when, in reality, they were used for covert influence? These are not trivial concerns. This is the kind of behavior that, if reversed, would be condemned as foreign interference or even an act of subversion. The fact that the media is laughing about this rather than investigating it only highlights the selective outrage and hypocrisy surrounding Western influence operations.
Let’s unpack this.
The most plausible explanation is that USAID never left Russia; it simply adapted its funding mechanisms to operate in the shadows. Instead of direct payments, money could have been routed through third-party NGOs, shell organizations, and international foundations that acted as intermediaries. Hypothetically, an organization based in Eastern Europe, perhaps in Poland, Latvia, or Georgia, could have received USAID funds earmarked for “regional media development.” That organization, in turn, could have distributed those funds to Russian media outlets under the guise of journalism grants, training programs, or independent press initiatives. The money technically never came directly from USAID, but the funding source remained the same.
Another possibility is using offshore accounts and financial laundering techniques to keep USAID-linked funds flowing into Russia without triggering alarms. For instance, USAID could have issued grants to a Western NGO, which then “partnered” with a European foundation, funneling the money into Russian media outlets. Each step adds a layer of separation, making tracing the funds back to USAID difficult. This strategy is used in money laundering schemes, where illicit funds are passed through multiple accounts and businesses to obscure their origins. The fact that USAID is a government entity only makes this more alarming—because it suggests that taxpayer money was being funneled into Russia through unauthorized backchannels, effectively bypassing oversight.
Intelligence-backed operations could have played a role as well. What if USAID funding was embedded within projects run by Western embassies, cultural exchange programs, or “democracy-building initiatives” that continued to operate under a different name? Many intelligence agencies—including the CIA—have historically used nonprofit organizations as fronts to move money into hostile or restricted environments. It is plausible that USAID’s banned funding was funneled through front companies, academic research partnerships, or Western-backed “independent” media groups operating outside Russia but with direct influence inside the country.
A final possibility is that USAID-backed tech platforms or online services were used as financial conduits. Could cloud-based funding mechanisms, decentralized cryptocurrencies, or offshore donor-advised funds have played a role? If USAID supported a media freedom initiative hosted on Western servers, Russian journalists could still receive stipends, grants, or operational funding via digital transactions—bypassing traditional financial oversight. This would make it much harder for Russian authorities to detect and cut off the financial flow.
Here is where I park for a hot minute—UNTIED24 “Ukraine Aid”, the initiative Robert Storch used to launder funds through crypto. This isn’t speculation; it’s a direct call for accountability. Where are the crypto bros ? The same ones who claim blockchain ensures transparency should be involved in this. We need serious wallet tracing, forensic analysis, and a full audit of how these funds moved through digital ledgers. If aid money was funneled into untraceable crypto transactions, who benefited, and where did it end up? This isn’t just financial misconduct—it’s a national security breach hiding behind the facade of humanitarian assistance.
Having said that, regardless of which combination of these methods was used, the bottom line is clear: USAID was still operating in Russia despite being officially banned for over a decade. This is not just a violation of Russian sovereignty but also a national security risk for the United States. Who approved these activities if USAID was conducting unauthorized funding operations in a country that explicitly barred it? Were U.S. officials complicit in bypassing Congress? Was taxpayer money funneled into a geopolitical black hole without proper oversight?
If the situation were reversed—if Russian state-backed organizations had continued secretly funding U.S. journalists and political activists despite being banned—it would be called foreign interference, subversion, or even an act of war. However, because USAID’s involvement is framed under the guise of “supporting democracy,” it is conveniently excused. The fact that the media is laughing about this rather than investigating it only underscores the double standard in how Western influence operations are perceived.
Consequences and Law
If USAID was officially expelled from a sovereign nation yet later discovered to be secretly operating and funding activities within that country, the implications would be severe, directly violating the host nation’s sovereignty and entangling the United States in unauthorized or covert operations. Such an action would create diplomatic tensions and present a severe national security risk, primarily if these activities were conducted without proper oversight or congressional authorization. The legal consequences would depend on who authorized, facilitated, or concealed the continued operations and the extent to which these actions compromised U.S. interests or engaged foreign adversaries.
If U.S. government officials knowingly approved or allowed these activities despite the ban, they could directly violate international law, engage in unauthorized foreign intervention, or misuse federal funds—potentially falling under 18 U.S.C. § 641, which covers the theft or misuse of government property. If private contractors, NGOs, or intelligence assets were involved, they could face conspiracy charges, violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), and potentially even espionage-related statutes if their actions put diplomatic or security interests at risk. The most severe consequences could arise if U.S. officials deliberately concealed these operations from Congress or the Executive Branch. In that case, this could constitute misappropriation of funds, fraud against the U.S. government under 18 U.S.C. § 371, or even seditious conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 2384) if the actions deliberately undermined national security.
Would this rise to treason? Likely not, treason under 18 U.S.C. § 2381 requires “levying war” against the U.S. or providing direct aid to an enemy. However, if these activities materially assisted a foreign adversary, exposed classified intelligence, or directly harmed U.S. personnel or assets, espionage charges (18 U.S.C. § 793, 794) or seditious conspiracy could be pursued. Determining culpability would require a federal investigation assessing the chain of command, financial transactions, and internal reports. Who authorized or funded the continued USAID presence? Was Congress misled, and were reports falsified? Did these activities compromise U.S. diplomatic relations, military assets, or intelligence operations? Were foreign entities involved in leveraging this operation against U.S. interests?
If proven, those responsible could face federal indictments, security clearance revocations, financial penalties, and criminal prosecution under national security laws in the most egregious cases. This is more than just an issue of bureaucratic overreach; it is a potentially unlawful and highly destabilizing act of interference that, if left unchecked, could set a dangerous precedent for how U.S. agencies operate in nations that have explicitly rejected their presence.
The Hydra Thrashes: USAID’s Fall, Clearance Revocations and the Upcoming Black Swan of the Federal Reserve
In a recent move, President Donald Trump revoked the security clearances of former President Joe Biden and former Secretary of State Antony Blinken among others, citing concerns over their handling of classified information.
A wave of revoked clearances is happening, and it’s about time. People who should hold clearances can’t cause “status quo,” and those with egregious anti-American conduct do. But this isn’t just about sweeping out compromised bureaucrats—it’s about holding Congress accountable and re-examining key players who operated unchecked for far too long. It’s time to look hard at Peter Tefft, Marie Yovanovitch, George Kent, and others who helped shape, perpetuate, and protect these networks—leveraging Visas, access, and discourse. And let’s not forget Eugene Vindman, whose newly obtained elected position makes this even more fun. If things unfold as they should, he may be the first expulsion from Congress in 2025—a political earthquake that would send shockwaves through the establishment. Now he gets a clearance? I think not- we need to expel him.
While USAID is the visible head of this hydra, its removal has made the fourth unelected branch of government thrash in desperation. Another factor creeps into the spotlight—the black swan looks mighty cute as the Federal Reserve enters the picture. If we’re serious about unraveling this, why not start where the money flows? I say we dig into the bank that Frank LaRose’s Department has allowed a bank to be conveniently registered as a church in Ohio (as Secretary of State, he has never audited business registered). This financial front laundered a massive portion of these funds. That’s where the real skeletons are buried. And if we want to turn the screws, let’s get the crypto bros on the blockchain, tracing every last transaction tied to United 24 and its crypto fund networks.
There’s no better way to expose the entire operation than to follow the money straight to the source (or, in this case, sources to the ULTIMATE SOURCE).
If you like my work, you can tip or support me via TIP ME or subscribe to me on Subscribestar! You can also follow and subscribe to me on Rumble and Locals or subscribe to my Substack or on X. I am 100% people-funded. www.toresays.com
