The Tor network heralded as a bastion of online anonymity, has been instrumental in the lives of journalists, whistleblowers, and dissidents worldwide. However, mounting evidence suggests that entities like the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) have developed methods to compromise security, casting a shadow over its reliability as a privacy tool.
Tor’s inception traces back to the mid-1990s when the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory developed the core principles of onion routing to protect intelligence communications. Transitioning into a not-for-profit initiative, Tor has received substantial funding from various U.S. government agencies. Notably, in 2013 alone, the U.S. government provided over $1.8 million in funding, even as agencies like the NSA allegedly sought to infiltrate the network.
Documents leaked by Edward Snowden 2013 unveiled the NSA’s concerted efforts to target Tor users. The agency developed tactics to implant malicious code into the computers of users accessing certain websites, aiming to de-anonymize their activities.
Furthermore, the FBI has employed Network Investigative Techniques (NITs) to unmask users involved in illicit activities on the dark web. A notable instance is the 2015 Operation Pacifier, where the FBI seized a Tor-based child exploitation site and deployed malware to identify and apprehend its users.
Here is a research paper you must read to comprehend the severity of the situation.
Compromised Exit Nodes?
One of Tor’s most critical vulnerabilities lies in its exit nodes—the final relay in the Tor network where traffic is decrypted before it reaches its destination. While Tor’s onion routing ensures that no single node knows the origin and destination of traffic, exit nodes remain a weak link, as they can see unencrypted data. State-level actors, could exploit this by running their exit nodes, allowing them to harvest metadata, inject malware, or use traffic correlation techniques to de-anonymize users.
Strong evidence suggests that state and private actors have previously deployed malicious exit nodes. In 2014, researchers demonstrated that with the proper infrastructure, an attacker with control over key network vantage points—such as a nation-state—could trace up to 81% of Tor traffic back to its source. This was demonstrated at the USENIX Conference in 2014. This research is critical because it highlights a fundamental weakness in Tor—even if the encryption is strong, timing and traffic patterns can still be analyzed to de-anonymize users. Suppose a government has indeed deployed such compromised nodes. In that case, it could be using them to monitor Tor users in real-time, collect browsing habits, or even insert exploits into traffic passing through its controlled relays.
The Silk Road takedown—where U.S. law enforcement tracked Ross Ulbricht’s supposedly anonymous transactions—is a case in point that Tor is not infallible and that motivated actors, whether Western intelligence agencies or China’s cyber divisions, can pierce its veil of secrecy when needed.
I attended the conference in San Diego in August 2014 and brought my daughter along. Anticipating the possibility of the research being removed from the website, I kept a copy—which turned out to be necessary. Below is the link to the full document.
LINK TO FULL DOCUMENT
The Silk Road Takedown: A Live Test of Government Capabilities to Pierce Tor’s Anonymity
The Silk Road takedown, which led to Ross Ulbricht’s (Dread Pirate Roberts) arrest in 2013, has long been regarded as one of the most significant cases of de-anonymization on the Tor network. While the official narrative portrays it as a standard criminal investigation, growing evidence suggests that it was not merely about shutting down an illicit marketplace but a large-scale, real-time intelligence test conducted by government agencies to validate their ability to compromise Tor users.
At the time, the U.S. government—through agencies like the NSA, FBI, and DEA—had been working on methods to correlate Tor traffic, analyze hidden service vulnerabilities, and even introduce exploits that could de-anonymize users. The arrest of Ulbricht provided an opportunity to operationalize these techniques in a live environment. Given the scale of Silk Road’s operations, its reliance on Bitcoin transactions, and the use of Tor to obfuscate user identities, it was the ideal test case to see whether law enforcement could dismantle an entirely anonymous darknet-based economy. (there may be documents that validate Ulbricht was an exercise)
Unmasking the “Anonymous”: Traffic Correlation and Live Testing
One of the most suspicious aspects of the Silk Road investigation is how authorities identified the hidden marketplace’s server location. The FBI claimed they accidentally discovered Silk Road’s IP address due to a misconfiguration on the login page, which leaked data outside Tor’s protection. However, cybersecurity experts have disputed this claim, arguing that no such vulnerability existed in the version of Tor that Silk Road was using at the time. (there may be documents that validate Ulbricht was an exercise and they named the Operation)
The more likely scenario is that government agencies conducted a traffic correlation attack, where they monitored entry and exit nodes on the Tor network and used timing analysis to match encrypted traffic entering Tor with decrypted traffic leaving Tor. This method aligns with NSA’s XKEYSCORE program, which was leaked by Edward Snowden and revealed specific targeting of Tor users for mass surveillance. Additionally, the FBI had access to zero-day exploits that could infect Tor users’ devices and reveal their real IP addresses. This technique later became public knowledge through cases like Operation Torpedo and Operation Pacifier.
Ulbricht was a LIVE TEST to prove the paper above. In other words, the Silk Road takedown was a “live test” of these capabilities. In that case, Ulbricht’s arrest demonstrated how far intelligence agencies had come in compromising the so-called “anonymous web.” More importantly, if such techniques were deployed in 2013, they likely would have evolved into even more advanced forms today, potentially rendering Tor functionally compromised for high-value targets.
Silk Road as a Proof of Concept: Setting the Precedent for Future Darknet Crackdowns
Following the Silk Road case, other major darknet markets—like AlphaBay, Hansa, and Wall Street Market—were similarly infiltrated, compromised, and taken down in highly coordinated global operations. These cases showed a progression in law enforcement’s ability to track darknet transactions, monitor cryptocurrency movements, and de-anonymize Tor users.
The suspicious similarities in how these markets were dismantled suggest a pattern:
- Law enforcement already knew the operators’ identities long before the final takedown.
- The takedown process followed a “honeypot” approach, where sites ran under government control to collect user data before being shut down.
- Compromised exit nodes and metadata analysis were used to link transactions back to real-world identities.
In my opinion, the Silk Road case was indeed a live test. Its purpose was not just to arrest Ross Ulbricht but to validate and refine the techniques that could later be used against larger darknet operations and political dissidents.
By allowing the Silk Road to operate while covertly monitoring and infiltrating its network, authorities created a controlled environment to test and perfect their investigative methods—ensuring that when they finally moved in, the case would serve as both a conviction and a blueprint for future entrapments.
Ross Ulbricht was not merely arrested; he was ensnared in a meticulously orchestrated exercise where law enforcement played an active role in sustaining the Silk Road long enough to justify sweeping surveillance tactics that could later be deployed against more significant targets.
Ross Ulbricht, the founder of the Silk Road online marketplace, received a full and unconditional pardon from President Donald Trump on January 21, 2025.While the pardon restores certain rights and forgives the conviction, it does not erase the fact of the conviction itself. Entrapment is a defense used in criminal law, arguing that law enforcement induced an individual to commit a crime they otherwise would not have committed. Too bad no one gave him this information during his trial and he had to be imprisoned.
Individuals who believe they were wronged by entrapment can pursue claims against law enforcement for misconduct under certain circumstances. One potential avenue is filing a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows individuals to sue state actors for violating constitutional rights. Given that Ulbricht has been pardoned, pursuing a civil lawsuit on the grounds of entrapment would be complex and unprecedented but it’s 2025 and everything today is unprecendented.
Implications: If Tor Was a Testbed, Who Else Has Been Tracked?
The implications of treating the Silk Road as a government testbed for surveillance extend far beyond darknet markets. If the U.S. government successfully exploited Tor vulnerabilities to track Ulbricht, then the same techniques could have been applied to:
- Journalists using Tor to communicate with whistleblowers (e.g., WikiLeaks, Edward Snowden)
- Dissidents in oppressive regimes who rely on Tor for political activism
- Corporations and financial institutions attempting to use Tor for privacy in transactions
If this was a controlled experiment rather than a simple criminal investigation, then no Tor user is truly anonymous when facing an adversary with nation-state surveillance capabilities.
HARVARD is an Academic Laundering System for Intelligence Operations on USAID funds
Harvard has long stood as an intellectual fortress, a premier institution that serves as both a breeding ground for U.S. intelligence recruitment and a hub for the most influential foreign policy think tanks. From its deep connections with the CIA, NSA, and other intelligence branches, Harvard has shaped narratives, directed policy, and been at the forefront of technological research that often finds its way into government and military applications. But beyond the prestige of its academic excellence, the university also operates as a conduit for covert research partnerships—ones that serve the dual interests of intelligence agencies and private sector benefactors.
In recent years, however, Harvard’s academic stronghold has been compromised by the encroaching influence of Chinese state-backed entities. What once functioned as an American stronghold of soft power has now been infiltrated by Chinese intelligence, operating under the guise of research collaborations and financial investments in U.S. institutions. The implications are staggering. Not only has Harvard facilitated technology transfers that may have undermined American security, but the university may also have directly aided Chinese intelligence in leveraging U.S. surveillance exploits—specifically those related to Tor and anonymity networks.
At the center of this is a possible explosive revelation: if WikiLeaks or any investigative organization were to uncover proof that Harvard was acting as a backchannel between U.S. intelligence and China, it would confirm that Tor was never truly anonymous—that it was always subject to non-attribution destruction via co-opted exit nodes and compromised infrastructure. Harvard, through its cyber-research initiatives, may have provided both the NSA and their Chinese counterparts with the very techniques necessary to unmask dissidents, journalists, and political activists worldwide. This would not be an isolated scandal but rather a geopolitical conspiracy of mutual surveillance and technological collusion between two rival superpowers.
For decades, Harvard has played an essential role in shaping U.S. intelligence strategies through its think tanks and government-funded programs. Institutions like the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society have long been deeply intertwined with intelligence-backed research. While publicly, these centers advocate for “internet freedom” and “privacy protections,” their backdoor partnerships with the U.S. intelligence apparatus suggest a more insidious reality. These programs are not merely about open-source security or academic curiosity—they are testing grounds for digital control mechanisms.
Harvard knowingly received USAID and intelligence-backed funding for “internet freedom” projects while simultaneously accepting CCP-backed research grants; it would indicate that the university was knowingly playing both sides of a technological arms race. On the one hand, it was helping refine and operationalize U.S. government surveillance methods under the guise of cybersecurity research, while on the other, it was facilitating technology transfers to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)—not just in the name of academic collaboration but as part of a larger political and economic strategy.
Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center has long been involved in privacy and cybersecurity research, particularly in its work on Tor and anonymity tools. If it can be proven that Harvard facilitated the transfer of key surveillance capabilities to China,(there may be emails and documents) it would mean that the so-called tools of internet freedom were, in reality, instruments of oppression and control. This goes beyond traditional espionage—this is a case of an elite academic institution aiding in constructing a global surveillance apparatus under the illusion of “free and open research.”
Tor as a Live Experiment: The Silk Road Case and Beyond
The Silk Road takedown remains one of the most explicit indications that Tor’s infallibility was always a controlled illusion. Ross Ulbricht’s arrest was not just about dismantling an illicit online marketplace but a public demonstration of how the U.S. government could pierce the veil of Tor’s supposed anonymity at will. But what most people fail to realize is that this operation was a live test—a controlled execution of government capabilities designed to showcase and refine its ability to unmask users on a large scale.
The official story is that the FBI “stumbled” upon an IP address leak on the Silk Road’s login page, which allowed them to track the location of the hidden service. However, cybersecurity experts have long disputed this claim, pointing out that no such vulnerability existed in the Tor framework at the time. The far more likely scenario is that intelligence agencies were already running compromised exit nodes, performing correlation attacks, and using malware injection techniques to identify and trace users.
Tor’s architecture has always depended on the integrity of exit nodes—the final relay points where encrypted traffic emerges onto the open internet. Whoever controls these exit nodes can see and manipulate traffic. If U.S. intelligence was using Silk Road as a testbed for these capabilities, then the real objective wasn’t just catching Ulbricht but refining their ability to perform mass de-anonymization operations.
And this is where Harvard’s role becomes even more troubling.
Harvard’s Collaboration with China: The Transfer of Surveillance Capabilities
If Harvard researchers participated in refining traffic correlation techniques, node infiltration, and passive surveillance on Tor—even under the guise of academic research—then that knowledge could have been quietly transferred to China. And we know that, unlike the U.S., China has no pretense of protecting free speech or political dissent.
The CCP has a long history of exploiting Western technology to enhance its internal surveillance state, from AI-powered facial recognition to sophisticated internet censorship tools. But its biggest weakness has always been its ability to track, de-anonymize, and disrupt political dissidents using Tor and other anonymity platforms. Harvard’s access to U.S. intelligence-backed research gave it the perfect leverage point to provide China with what it needed most—industrial espionage tools that doubled as instruments of oppression.
Imagine, through Harvard, China was given access to the Tor de-anonymization strategies that U.S. agencies tested during the Silk Road case. This would mean that every Chinese dissident, journalist, or activist who relied on Tor for protection was walking into a controlled honeypot, their real identities exposed to both the NSA and Chinese state security. In addition, it provided real-time capabilities and advancements to our enemy nation, which were conducted with our federal tax dollars.
The vulnerabilities in the Tor network, as exposed by U.S. intelligence agencies, raise serious concerns about similar or even more advanced exploitation by foreign intelligence services. Among the most capable actors in the field of cyber espionage is China, a nation known for its extensive cyber warfare capabilities, internet censorship apparatus, and relentless tracking of dissidents. Suppose the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) have successfully found ways to compromise Tor users. In that case, there is little doubt that China’s cyber agencies—such as the Ministry of State Security (MSS) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Strategic Support Force—could either develop their own exploits or leverage backdoors already discovered by Western intelligence. This raises an alarming possibility: Chinese activists, journalists, and whistleblowers who believed they were protected under Tor’s anonymity may have been under surveillance the entire time.
China has invested heavily in cyber espionage and surveillance, boasting one of the most sophisticated hacking operations in the world. Given the Chinese government’s deep interest in controlling information, the Great Firewall of China is not just a censorship tool but a highly advanced system for tracking online activities, monitoring encrypted traffic, and deploying artificial intelligence-driven surveillance.
The Chinese government is all about control and censorship; therefore, information control is at the top of their list, and in turn, there are multiple ways to do so by exploiting Tor.
Given China’s expertise in cyber warfare, mass surveillance, and internet censorship, it is not only plausible but highly probable that Chinese intelligence agencies have either developed their methods to exploit Tor’s weaknesses or have acquired them through intelligence-sharing mechanisms, cyber theft or repurposed Western exploits.
For activists, journalists, and dissidents in China, this represents a potentially catastrophic breach in what they had assumed to be a secure anonymity tool. Suppose Tor has been compromised, even partially. In that case, countless individuals who relied on it for protection may have unknowingly exposed their identities, locations, and sensitive communications to a government infamous for its ruthless suppression of dissent. Given that China has imprisoned, tortured, and even disappeared political dissidents in the past, the implications of such a surveillance capability are beyond alarming.
China is not just a leader in internet censorship—it is an aggressive global player in cyber espionage and surveillance. While widely known as a censorship tool, the Great Firewall of China is also an advanced mechanism for detecting, tracking, and flagging users attempting to bypass state controls. Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) allows the Chinese government to analyze internet traffic at an unprecedented level, potentially identifying Tor users even when they employ obfuscation techniques like meek or obfs4 bridges.
China’s cyber units, particularly those under the Ministry of State Security (MSS) and the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) Strategic Support Force have likely dedicated extensive resources to reverse-engineering Tor, monitoring its traffic, and hunting for exploitable weaknesses.
Even though Tor has been officially blocked in China since 2009, Chinese intelligence services are fully aware that dissidents still attempt to use it through circumvention tools. However, many do not realize that merely trying to connect to Tor can be flagged and logged by the Great Firewall—even if the connection is unsuccessful. This means that any dissident trying to reach Tor from within China is essentially registering themselves as a “person of interest” to state surveillance agencies.
UKRAINE – CENSORSHIP CENTRAL (run by FVEY)
The surveillance of journalists covering Ukraine between 2016 and 2024 follows the same playbook as the Silk Road takedown and the broader de-anonymization strategies used to compromise Tor users. While Western governments have loudly condemned authoritarian regimes for suppressing press freedom, their intelligence agencies have actively monitored, tracked, and even compromised the communications of journalists operating in war zones, particularly those covering Ukraine.
From the Maidan uprising and Crimea’s annexation in 2014 to the full-scale Russian invasion in 2022, Ukraine has been ground zero for cyberwarfare, intelligence infiltration, and mass digital surveillance. Western journalists reporting from the region—especially those covering government corruption, covert NATO operations, and foreign intelligence involvement—have been subject to extensive traffic analysis, metadata tracking, and endpoint infiltration. The primary mechanism? The same Tor-based non-attribution destruction techniques were used in Silk Road but scaled up into a full-spectrum surveillance apparatus.
Journalists relied on Tor, VPNs, encrypted chat apps, and burner phones to communicate securely. However, as early as 2016, leaked intelligence reports indicated that Western agencies, alongside Ukrainian cyber units, had gained the capability to correlate “anonymous” connections. Just as Silk Road exit nodes were compromised to track financial transactions, the same tactics were applied to monitor journalist movement, sources, and communications. By deploying malicious exit nodes, agencies could inject spyware into data streams, monitor content, and even identify encryption fingerprints unique to a journalist’s device.
The evidence is overwhelming. In 2018, a cybersecurity investigation uncovered targeted phishing attacks and traffic injection attempts on Western journalists covering Ukraine, suggesting high-level state-backed interference. Between 2021 and 2024, multiple reports surfaced indicating that reporters using Tor or encrypted messengers in Kyiv, Mariupol, and Donbas had been unknowingly exposed due to compromised relay nodes—ironically, some of which were set up under the pretext of “supporting press freedom.” The same NSA and CIA-backed exploits used to track darknet criminals were now being repurposed against investigative journalists and war correspondents. The US Embassy in Ukraine was make-shift HQ for these operations in 2014 and I know this as first hand knowledge.
Even more damning is the role played by Harvard-affiliated cybersecurity projects in this process. Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center, which has worked on digital privacy initiatives since the early 2000s, was indirectly involved in developing anonymity tools later repurposed for intelligence gathering. If, as suspected, U.S. intelligence agencies shared their Tor infiltration methods with the Ukrainian Security Service (SBU), it would confirm that the very networks journalists believed were shielding them were instead exposing them to Western intelligence monitoring.
Between 2022 and 2024, as the war escalated, primary intelligence operations targeting pro-Russian, anti-NATO, and independent war correspondents became increasingly apparent. Western journalists who questioned narratives about the war investigated corruption in Ukraine’s military-industrial complex, or exposed illicit arms shipments to paramilitary groups often found themselves shadowbanned, doxxed, or subject to suspicious malware infections. The seamless ability to de-anonymize their Tor traffic strongly suggests that the network was never genuinely secure for high-value targets—it was simply a controlled tool that could be weaponized against anyone stepping outside the acceptable narrative.
By 2024, it became clear that the surveillance methods tested in the Silk Road takedown had evolved into a wartime intelligence weapon. Tor was no longer a haven for journalists—it had become a honeypot for the very agencies they sought to avoid.
Foreign intelligence can capture keystrokes, steal documents, and compromise communications on our tax dollars. Thanks, Harvard!
One of the most effective attack vectors is fake Tor browser updates. Chinese intelligence agencies have allegedly created and distributed counterfeit versions of Tor that come preloaded with backdoors, allowing them to spy on users under the guise of a secure tool. Dissidents who download these versions, thinking they are protecting themselves, may be handing over their digital footprint to state authorities.
This technique mirrors past FBI tactics seen in Operation Pacifier, where U.S. law enforcement deployed malware to de-anonymize Tor users engaged in illegal activities. If Western agencies have successfully weaponized Tor’s exploits, China has done the same through its research, Harvard collaborations, and or by repurposing leaked NSA cyber tools (probably Harvard).
A Surveillance Monopoly Disguised as Internet Freedom
If WikiLeaks or any other whistleblower possesses documents proving that Harvard’s Tor research was compromised for intelligence-sharing purposes, it would shatter the credibility of the entire digital privacy movement. It would confirm that Tor was never meant to be an unbreakable tool for anonymity but rather a controlled system where the most powerful entities—American or Chinese—held the keys to the backdoor.
According to the amateur cryptographer grapevine, Alex Halderman’s “Tap Dance” research was sold to the Chinese after it was perfected (not by him). It was related to censorship, which USAID also allegedly paid to expand on at Harvard. His internet censorship resistance work was reverse-engineered to aid in censorship. This was fine-tuned in Ukraine and Romania with federal taxpayer dollars and the alleged cooperation of Chinese Intelligence. How else did they deploy such great censorship models? Eric Schmidt was in Ukraine at some point during the deployment during the comedown of the Maidan event to see how Google can fine-tune it for consumer censorship in their products. Someone should ask him about that. Algorithms built with anti-censorship tools to perfect censorship.
LINK TO DOCUMENT
At its core, this is about power, control, and deception. Harvard, long seen as the pinnacle of academic excellence, may instead be the epicenter of a vast intelligence laundering operation—where research is disguised as academic inquiry but is, in reality, a front for intelligence exploitation. If proven true, this would be one of the greatest betrayals of digital privacy ever exposed.
This would mean that dissidents, journalists, and privacy advocates who relied on Tor were never genuinely anonymous. Their movements were tracked, their identities were logged, and their anonymity was a carefully curated illusion of control. In the end, Harvard’s greatest trick was convincing the world that it was an academic institution when, in reality, it was the most sophisticated intelligence front in modern history.
The Silk Road takedown exposed the false sense of security many Tor users held. It provided intelligence agencies with a real-world case study on how darknet operators function, how anonymity can be broken, and how law enforcement can effectively exploit the system. If Ross Ulbricht was the “test subject,” then the real goal of the operation was proving that the anonymous web could be controlled, monitored, and, when necessary, dismantled.
But Harvard was only one piece of the puzzle. If the university was the intellectual brain of this machine, USAID was its financial circulatory system, pumping billions into projects that were marketed as humanitarian aid but, in reality, served as a clandestine intelligence pipeline.
USAID has operated under the veneer of altruism for decades, funding democracy-building initiatives and humanitarian efforts in politically sensitive regions. But the agency’s history tells a different story. Time and again, its footprint can be found in covert operations, intelligence gathering, and regime change efforts, acting as a more palatable front for what the CIA and other intelligence arms could not accomplish openly. The model is simple: flood a country, an institution, or an academic research center with massive funding, ensuring that projects align with U.S. geopolitical goals while maintaining the illusion of independent, humanitarian-driven work. If this structure remained intact, it would have operated in relative secrecy. Still, the WikiLeaks revelations threaten to expose the sheer magnitude of USAID’s role in intelligence operations—one that ties directly into China, Harvard, and the grand deception surrounding TOR.
Allegedly, WikiLeaks possesses documents that show USAID was funneling money into Harvard-backed research projects that directly or indirectly benefited the Chinese Communist Party (CCP); it would reveal one of the most stunning intelligence failures in modern history. It would mean that U.S. taxpayer dollars, funneled through USAID, were being laundered through academic institutions, ultimately serving the interests of a foreign government that the U.S. has positioned as its greatest geopolitical adversary. Worse still, it would mean that Harvard—long suspected of being an incubator for elite intelligence assets—was not just compromised by U.S. agencies but had also allowed itself to become a beachhead for Chinese intelligence infiltration. The implications of this go far beyond mere corruption; it would mean that the highest levels of American academia had been weaponized against itself, with both U.S. and Chinese intelligence using Harvard as a shared battlefield for influence operations. No wonder they wanted to “drone him” but opted for Fernando Villavicencio and funded him to “get” Julian Assange.
RELATED: IC Series| USAID, NED, and OTI as The Soft Power War At Home
This would not be the first time academia had been used as a covert intelligence hub. Harvard has deep historical ties to the CIA, the State Department, and the world of intelligence-backed research, and the institution has long been a magnet for foreign influence operations. But if USAID were knowingly funding projects that enabled CCP-aligned researchers to gain access to U.S. technological advancements, classified digital privacy research, or national security-related data, then the implications would be staggering. It would mean that a government agency tasked with fostering democratic resilience abroad was, in reality, a Trojan horse being used to smuggle influence into the institutions responsible for shaping American policy.
What makes this even more explosive is the potential role of TOR in this entire operation. If WikiLeaks has evidence that USAID was funding TOR-related projects while simultaneously using them for surveillance, the entire edifice of digital privacy collapses. TOR has long been heralded as the last bastion of true online anonymity, a tool that dissidents, journalists, and whistleblowers depend on to evade authoritarian crackdowns. If it turns out that USAID-backed research into digital privacy was a front for intelligence agencies to monitor and deanonymize users, then the implications are terrifying. Not only would it mean that the U.S. government was tracking those who sought refuge in anonymity, but if Chinese intelligence had access to the same exploits, it could mean that dissidents operating under the illusion of security were delivering themselves straight into the hands of their oppressors.
The connections between USAID, Harvard, China, and TOR paint a picture of a global intelligence apparatus that has been hiding in plain sight, operating under the guise of academia, digital rights advocacy, and humanitarian assistance. If WikiLeaks is about to release emails, intelligence briefings, or classified documents confirming these suspicions, the consequences could be unprecedented. It could mean the destruction of TOR’s credibility, the exposure of Harvard as an intelligence-ridden institution that played both sides in the U.S.-China intelligence war, and the collapse of USAID’s legitimacy as anything other than a covert operational tool. The entire framework of how academic research is funded, how digital privacy is managed, and how intelligence agencies manipulate global information networks would be blown wide open.
If such documents emerge, the fallout will be immediate and severe. Congressional investigations would be inevitable, with lawmakers forced to ask how USAID funding benefited a foreign adversary. The revelations would ignite distrust in the academic world as the public realizes that elite universities have functioned as intelligence outposts rather than neutral centers (everyone knows they are not, thanks to the 1619 Project by the NYTimes that gave us George Floyd) of knowledge. The exposure of TOR as a compromised network would shatter faith in digital privacy, forcing journalists, activists, and even intelligence assets to rethink their entire approach to online security. But perhaps most importantly, it would expose the grand illusion that Western academia, U.S. government-funded research, and digital privacy initiatives have operated independently of geopolitical warfare. In reality, these institutions have been battlefields, and if WikiLeaks has the proof, the entire structure of global information control may be on the brink of collapse.
If WikiLeaks or any investigative group were to obtain concrete evidence proving that Tor was compromised as part of a government surveillance program, it would shatter the entire narrative of privacy and anonymity sold to users for decades. It would confirm what many have long suspected—Tor was never genuinely designed for anonymity but rather as a tool of controlled opposition, allowing intelligence agencies to observe and track those who believe they are hiding.
SOLUTION
DOGE holds the key to unraveling one of the most sophisticated intelligence operations ever orchestrated under the guise of academia, digital privacy, and humanitarian aid. The connections between Harvard, USAID, TOR, and China point to massive, systemic infiltration of global institutions, where intelligence agencies have operated unchecked, funding research that served foreign adversaries, surveilling those who thought they were anonymous, and weaponizing academia for geopolitical control. If @doge possesses the documentation to confirm that USAID funneled money into CCP-linked Harvard projects while using TOR as a backdoor surveillance tool, then the world needs to know. This is no longer about leaks—it’s about exposing an entire ecosystem of deception that has compromised the integrity of information, privacy, and national security. If DOGE acts now, the consequences will be irreversible, forcing institutions to answer for their complicity and making it impossible for them to maintain their illusions of credibility.
The world is watching, and the moment for truth is now.
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
