Scandal Around USAID: Why Doesn’t Zelensky Tell Trump About ‘Grain Schemes’ and Corruption Threatening Ukraine?

Introduction: Why Is the Topic of USAID Corruption So Explosive?

In a situation where, during the first year of the full-scale war, about 35 billion dollars have been taken abroad by Ukrainians themselves (as President Volodymyr Zelensky stated), growing voices suggest that even larger sums may vanish through shady grain export schemes. Against this backdrop, a question arises: why does the President of Ukraine not complain about the “criminal and corrupt” activities of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) directly to U.S. leaders, particularly Donald Trump, who openly criticizes his opponents in the Democratic Party?

Commentator Alex Marik advances a series of sensational accusations against USAID, claiming it allegedly develops and covers up “black” (illegal) grain export schemes, lobbies the interests of offshore grain traders, and that, as a result, Ukraine’s budget receives not a single penny. Could this be true, or is it simply a conspiratorial fabrication? And why is official Kyiv silent?

In this article, we will try to assemble in one place all the theses voiced either in political circles or among experts, and add facts and context that allow for more balanced conclusions.

1. Zelensky’s Statement About 35 Billion Dollars: What Prompted New “Corruption” Theories?

During one of his public addresses, Volodymyr Zelensky said that in the first year of Russia’s full-scale invasion, Ukrainians took about 35 billion dollars out of the country—money that did not return, dealing a blow to the economy.

This statement immediately sparked discussions:

• Some experts say that people simply massively protected their assets amid the war, fearing for the safety of their deposits and capital.
• Others claim that part of this money could be linked to shadow schemes, primarily in the agricultural sector.

Proponents of the theory about “criminal activities by USAID” see the 35-billion figure as merely the tip of the iceberg. They argue the real losses are greater because there exist entire grain export schemes where the state gets neither taxes nor foreign currency revenue.

2. USAID and the Agrarian Market: Accusations of Lobbying for “Shadow” Traders

2.1. Who Are the “Recipients” of USAID in the Grain Sector?

According to Alex Marik, there are more than a hundred different entities in Ukraine—from farming enterprises to large grain traders and related NGOs—receiving financial or consultative assistance from USAID. Indeed, on official USAID program websites, one can find information about support for small and medium-sized agricultural producers, grant programs for business development in agriculture, etc.

What are the accusations?

• That USAID allegedly promotes the interests of its own partners—large grain traders—helping them avoid taxes and funnel their profits offshore.
• That the agency initiated or at least lobbied for the absence of export duties on Ukrainian grain (a zero rate).
• Because of this “zero” tax system, the Ukrainian treasury supposedly loses significant revenue, as domestic exports are “clean” on paper, and foreign currency proceeds do not return to Ukraine.

2.2. “Black Schemes” at Various Stages: From Sowing to Sale

The main point of accusation is “black” exports, which are concealed by shell companies registered to front persons or even to entities that have already been liquidated. Such allegations sometimes find partial confirmation in certain journalistic investigations (for example, by OCCRP), where references were made to intricate chains of grain resale. However, direct proof of USAID’s role in these schemes has not been publicly presented: usually, journalists and prosecutors refer to shell firms without focusing on American aid programs.

Among the most common corruption scenarios:

1. “Virtual” transfers of grain. On paper, grain passes through a chain of companies, each of which “confuses” its origin, effectively negating the obligation to return revenue to Ukraine.
2. Offshore structuring of traders. Owners of large agri-holdings register companies in countries with low taxation and accumulate profits there, avoiding paying taxes in Ukraine.
3. Tax minimization through “agro-chemistry.” There is talk of various manipulations with VAT, preferential loans, or state compensation for seed material, etc.

Critics of USAID argue that the American agency supports agro-programs through grants and consultations and therefore “turns a blind eye” to the fact that large sums of money do not reach Ukraine’s budget.

3. The Polish Angle: The Grain Dispute and the Role of “Sorosiata” in the Ministry of Economy

Amid the Polish-Ukrainian conflict over grain exports to the EU (when Poland banned the import of Ukrainian agricultural products and even blocked the border), a new context emerged.

• Poland’s Defense Minister Mariusz Błaszczak stated that the grain dispute involves the interests of “Ukrainian oligarchs.”
• Volodymyr Zelensky at the UN General Assembly expressed outrage that “someone in Europe” was helping Moscow, referring in part to the blocking of Ukrainian grain.
• Taras Kachka, Ukraine’s deputy minister of economy, called Poland’s actions a violation of European principles and threatened reciprocal measures against Warsaw.

Opponents of the current leadership at the Ministry of Economy call Kachka a “Sorosiatko” (a derisive term for someone allegedly linked to George Soros) and accuse him of aggressively lobbying for the interests of offshore grain traders, who do not want to pay taxes or duties. According to Alex Marik, USAID together with such “Sorosiata” “determines the rules of the game in the grain market” and “blocks all legislative attempts” to close loopholes.

4. How Does the “Cheapness of Ukrainian Grain” Affect Blockades?

Poland has repeatedly explained its bans by stating that Ukrainian grain is too cheap, which discriminates against Polish farmers. But why is it cheaper?

• Official view: because of the low cost of production (cheap labor, proximity to borders, various aspects of state support).
• Theory of “black schemes”: because grain is taken out of Ukraine practically tax-free, with zero export duties, while wages in the agricultural sector remain minimal.

Adherents of the theory about USAID corruption say that if Ukraine truly had transparent tax mechanisms, Ukrainian grain prices would not be so “cheap.” Then Polish farmers would not suffer from dumping, and Kyiv would receive real returns from exports.

5. Ties to the “Big Construction” Program and the “Zernova Sdielka” (“Grain Deal”)

5.1. Roads for Traders?

Critics link the accusations against USAID to the “Big Construction” program. The hypothesis is that even during the war, road building and repairs were partly carried out for the convenience of grain traders so they could more quickly transport grain to the ports.

Critics emphasize that “for civilian needs,” considering the destruction of infrastructure by Russian strikes, road building might not be a priority, while rebuilt routes to the ports of Mykolaiv, Odesa, or even to the western borders are essential precisely for grain exporters.

5.2. The Mysterious “Deal” with Russia and the UN

Some conspiracy-minded observers believe the so-called “grain agreement” (often referred to by its Russian name “sdielka,” meaning “deal”) was reached not only to save African countries from hunger but also via backroom agreements.

• The question arises: “Why did Putin get angry and start regularly shelling ports in the Danube region and Odesa?”
  • One version: the aggressor is simply pressuring Ukraine and the world to “force” concession of sanctions or guarantees for Russian exports.
  • Another version (believed by, among others, Alex Marik): Russia was “cheated” in the negotiations, promised certain conditions but ultimately got something else. Allegedly, Putin is taking revenge for the breakdown of what was beneficial for both him and some circles in Ukraine.

5.3. The Role of “Nibulon” and Its Tragic Consequences

“Nibulon” is one of the largest Ukrainian grain producers and exporters, which, according to various sources, received significant support from USAID for business development. During one of Russia’s missile attacks, the general director of “Nibulon” was killed (the missile struck right into his dwelling).

A widespread view is that the Russians were deliberately destroying port infrastructure and the leadership of grain companies in order to undermine Ukraine’s export potential. At the same time, supporters of the “USAID involvement” theory ask whether this might be connected to some “betrayal” in the grain agreements.

6. Attempts to Clean Up the Market: The Appointment of Oleh Kiper and the Immediate Reaction of “hromadske”

In May 2023, the Head of the Presidential Office, Andriy Yermak, appointed Oleh Kiper (former Kyiv prosecutor) as Head of the Odesa Regional State Administration. One of the priorities became fighting shadow schemes in the grain sector.

• As soon as Kiper called on exporters to be transparent and disclose supply chains, a “hromadske” investigation (funded by USAID) appeared. In it, Kiper was accused of “taking manual control over 85% of Ukraine’s agro-exports.”
• Supporters of the “Kiper conspiracy” claim that the investigation was a contracted “exposé” aimed at discrediting any efforts by the authorities to clean up the grain market.

7. The U.S., Soros, the CIA, and Biden: A Global Conspiracy Puzzle or Reality?

In Alex Marik’s statements, one can see the argument that USAID is a “shadow tool” not just of economic but also political influence by the U.S., particularly the Democratic Party. Cited among the arguments are:

1. George Soros — a major sponsor of the Democratic Party. His Open Society Foundations often coordinate with USAID programs.
2. CIA Director William Burns and President Joe Biden allegedly gave Putin a “green light” to invade so as to keep Ukraine dependent and prevent it from winning too quickly (a conspiracy theory).
3. Donald Trump has repeatedly criticized excessive U.S. spending abroad and emphasized that the approach to Ukraine should be “negotiated” differently. Against this background, it seems strange that Zelensky, understanding the potential benefits of talking to Trump, does not tell him about USAID’s corruption schemes.

Opponents of these theories refute any direct connection between USAID and the CIA, explaining that the two structures operate in different spheres and often have no close interaction. There is no official evidence of any “conspiracy.”

8. Why the President of Ukraine Remains Silent: Possible Versions

1. He is unaware of the “black schemes.”

   • The President’s Office receives information mainly from official government bodies, while real criminal deals may be hidden from leadership.
   • If the Ministry of Economy or other relevant agencies have interested parties (“Sorosiata”), they are not eager to reveal illegal operations.

2. Political dependence on grant-funded media and funds

   • Many Ukrainian media outlets, which serve as a platform for the authorities, are funded by international sources, including USAID.
   • If Zelensky or his entourage goes into conflict with USAID, they risk facing a massive “information war” against them.

3. Fear of losing U.S. support

   • Amid the war with Russia, Ukraine is extremely dependent on Western financial and military aid.
   • While USAID does not directly provide weapons, it is part of the overall U.S. support “package.” Conflicts with USAID could affect military assistance programs.

4. Foreign policy games: waiting for the results of the U.S. elections

   • If Donald Trump returns to power, he may radically change U.S. policy toward Ukraine.
   • Zelensky may be trying “not to quarrel” prematurely with the Biden administration and does not want to jeopardize their current support. At the same time, he might be waiting for the elections to deal with potential scandals from a more advantageous geopolitical position.

5. The Version About Markarova (the Ukrainian Ambassador to the U.S.)

   • Ukraine’s Ambassador to the U.S., Oksana Markarova, is seen by some as a “liaison” with American institutions, including USAID.
   • According to Alex Marik, Zelensky does not dismiss her despite multiple hints of corruption because he is “completely dependent on the support” of grant-funded entities.

9. Existing Investigations and the Position of Official Bodies

• The Prosecutor’s Office and the SBU periodically announce they have exposed corruption schemes in grain exports. Official statements sometimes mention hundreds of companies “moving grain between shell entities.” However, almost none of these statements have included accusations or even suspicions regarding USAID or its projects.
• OCCRP and other investigative journalists have found that in many cases, questionable companies registered under “fictitious” persons export grain. But the connection with USAID was not confirmed in any published materials directly.

This indicates that even if some illegal schemes exist, it is not easy to tie them specifically to American development programs.

10. Is the Grain Sector the “Motor of Corruption” in Ukraine?

Ukraine has traditionally ranked among the world’s leading grain exporters. Significant profits, along with the urgent need for food (especially during wars), make this sector vulnerable to corruption and international manipulations.

• Positive side: The agricultural sector remains one of the few economic engines that generates foreign currency revenue and constitutes a significant share of GDP.
• Negative side: Because of non-transparency, a lack of strict oversight of offshore activities, tax breaks, and large-scale foreign investments, there are strong temptations for abuse.

Many experts emphasize that the problem is not so much with USAID as with the absence of a systematic tax and customs reform in Ukraine. As long as legislation allows tax minimization through shell companies, the blocking of currency repatriation, and zero export duties, corruption space will remain.

11. What to Expect Next?

1. Possible pressure on the Ministry of Economy
   • If scandals about “criminal USAID schemes” continue to spread, international and public organizations—as well as officials—may need to provide clearer answers.
2. The Role of the U.S. Post-Elections
   • Depending on who wins the 2024 U.S. presidential election, policy toward Ukraine could change drastically. If Trump returns, he has promised to “reach an agreement with Putin in 24 hours.” For Kyiv, this poses the risk of a frozen conflict or conditions being imposed, within which grain schemes may get a new twist.
3. Increased Attention from European Partners
   • The EU is becoming more critical of transparency in Ukrainian exports and anti-corruption measures, considering Ukraine’s potential EU membership. Any “black schemes” in the agricultural sector may become a serious obstacle on its path to Euro-integration.
4. Media War
   • The conflict around appointing regional governors and investigations by outlets like hromadske or Bihus.Info could intensify if officials in the regions continue fighting shadow deals.

12. Summary and Conclusions: Many Questions, Few Direct Proofs

• Fact #1: Ukraine’s economy suffers enormous losses during the war. Some money is indeed taken abroad, partly through agricultural export operations.
• Fact #2: USAID implements many aid programs in Ukraine, including in the agricultural sector, providing grants and consultations, but there is no public evidence that USAID “organized” corruption schemes.
• Fact #3: In the context of grain exports, there are numerous shell companies and known investigations about tax evasion. But whether this is specifically “the American hand” remains debatable.
• Assumption: Zelensky might not raise this topic with Republicans because he fears losing the support of the current Biden administration. Or he might simply lack sufficient (or any) verified information to directly accuse USAID on the international stage.

For now, there remain more questions than answers. Enormous sums revolve around the agricultural sector, so it is logical that there is a shadow side. On the other hand, drawing automatic conclusions about USAID’s control over all “black schemes” remains, for now, more an assumption fortified by the political interests of various groups.

Could President Zelensky reveal this issue to Donald Trump?

• If he has ironclad evidence, it would be a powerful geopolitical move that could irreparably damage relations with the current U.S. administration.
• If there is no proof, such statements would be a political gamble with unpredictable consequences for the future of Ukraine’s military and political partnership with the United States.

If Trump does indeed get the chance to return to power, we may witness new “revelations” about USAID’s activities in Ukraine. At that time, this story may reach the global stage, and we will learn how real all the accusations of corruption and manipulations with grain truly are.