A placard reading "RIP USAID" and a bouquet of flowers placed before the USAID building in Washington, USA. Photo: AP/José Luis Magaña.
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) financed an army of independent media all over the world “to push an agenda suitable to Washington,” political analyst Ingrid Urgelles told Sputnik.
At the beginning of his term, US President Donald Trump decreed a widespread 90-day suspension of foreign development cooperation to evaluate which projects actually contribute to making the US stronger, safer, richer, based on his “America First” doctrine.
Two weeks later, on February 1, the USAID website was suspended without warning.
“The United States Agency for International Development has long strayed from its original mission of responsibly advancing US interests abroad, and it is now abundantly clear that significant portions of its funding are not aligned with core American national interests,” the US State Department announced.
In this context, the Paris-based non-governmental organization Reporters Without Borders (RSF) stated that the freezing of funds plunged NGOs and several media outlets into chaos.
Specifically, RSF detailed that the US agency financed an army of media in more than 30 countries and, in 2025 alone, allocated $268.3 million for:
- 6,200 journalists
- 707 media outlets
- 279 special NGOs created to work with journalists and media.
In the case of Mexico, the Alianza de Medios Mx, a non-profit civil society association that brings together representatives of various Mexican media outlets, detailed that, in 2024, USAID allocated $77.7 million to support programs related to democracy, human rights, and governance.
USAID: aid with interests?
The Trump administration’s decision to temporarily freeze foreign aid, including that dispersed through USAID, has exposed the dependence of the self-styled “independent media” on USAID funding.
Sputnik spoke with Chilean lawyer and political analyst Ingrid Urgelles to investigate the implications of the above on the editorial lines of the press, as well as on the perception of the audiences.
Urgelles argued that, through USAID—a pillar of the “soft power” of the United States, founded in 1961 by President John F. Kennedy—the United States created a way of influencing or manipulating political situations in various countries.
Urgelles pointed out that this was carried out through the sponsorship of NGOs, media, and reporters that champion causes considered to be beneficial or part of the progressive agenda, as long as they are well regarded by society.
“That is, financing issues that are politically seen as good, or socially seen as good, such as the feminist agenda, or the human rights agenda, or the global warming agenda, because, in those cases, of course, apparently, it is seen as something good,” she said.
“The issue is that, in no case, is the aid is without interest,” she continued. “That is, it is not aid that is really seeking to influence these issues; its aim is to position an issue in a certain way in certain media and, in some way, to push the agenda in the direction that suits Washington.”
“If USAID decides to finance feminist media, it is because that media is not against imperialism, not against the United States, because if it were, it would not be convenient for Washington,” she said as an example.
In Urgelles’ words, the most emblematic cases in this regard in Latin America are Cuba and Venezuela, where, according to the authorities of those two countries, USAID has financed extremist opposition leaders and parties.
According to reports published by the US government, between 2014 and 2024, USAID multiplied by 26 times the funds allocated to Caracas. Meanwhile, in the case of Cuba, the financing that the agency extended to so-called “independent” media amounted to $2.3 million in 2024.
In Mexico, Urgelles pointed out, USAID financed the organization Mexicans Against Corruption and Impunity (MCCI), owned by businessman and right-wing opposition leader Claudio X. González. During his term, former President AndrĂ©s Manuel LĂłpez Obrador accused USAID of interference in Mexico’s internal affairs through the financing of MCCI specifically and of other opposition organizations disguised as “civil society” groups.
According to data from the US government, between 2021 and 2024, MCCI received 96 million pesos (or about US $4.7 million) from USAID.
“In the case of Mexico, the aid came as financing of progressive agendas that became entrenched in various media outlets and NGOs,” she said.
A financing model that is no longer sustainable
According to Urgelles, the situation to which the Mexican independent press was exposed indicates that there is a financing crisis, which is not a minor issue.
“The financing issue of the media is a bit critical these days because the model that used to exist, whereby subscribers financed the media, no longer exists. And it does not exist because information is free on the internet and people are not willing to pay for information, because it exists in social media and there is free of charge,” said Urgelles.
For this reason, she added, the press has to resort to different types of financing, both public and private.
“The media, in general, are supported by financing that can be public, through official advertising [from the government and federal and local agencies] or through private advertising, from companies and private contributions that, a lot of times, are confidential,” said Urgelles. “The audience does not have access to know exactly who the contributors are.”
Urgelles also mentioned grants from international agencies, which support independent media and journalists.
However, she said that this model of “living off an agency is clearly not sustainable. I believe that this crisis has taught journalism that it is a model that is impossible to maintain over time.”
“In addition, there is the issue of independence,” she continued. “And here comes another very complex issue: that the media, in general, have not been sufficiently transparent either. And I am referring to all of them, the corporate, the public, the independent, all of them. They are not transparent with the viewer or the reader, in terms of their financing.”
“The media readership, in general, has no knowledge of who finances what,” she added. “And I believe that making financing transparent should be the first step because, in order to be informed in a free and independent manner, one should know who is talking and from where, from what ideological point, with what financing, with what interests, from what project. Because there is no such thing as a neutral media, there is no such thing as an objective media. All the media speak to you from an ideological point of view.”
When asked about how to solve this problem, the analyst considered that, in the first place, audiences have the right to know who finances the media, since, in most cases, it is something that is kept confidential.
Secondly, she said that governments should reconsider to which media they direct the financing of official advertising, since, in the analyst’s opinion, it is desirable to direct those funds to the independent press and not to the corporate press, given that the corporate media does not suffer the same precariousness as the independent press and, generally, belongs to business owners with great purchasing power.
“Rather than giving money to Televisa [Mexico’s largest television network], the governments should be giving money to small media that do not have any other possibility of income, because Televisa is going to have private advertising,” opined Urgelles. “In other words, media like Televisa don’t need it. And these foreign grants have been a necessary evil for many media which, I know, have had legitimate interests.”
(Sputnik)
Translation: Orinoco Tribune
OT/SC/SL
