USAID Under Suspicion: How the United States Controlled Ukraine and What the American Audit Will Reveal

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION: WHY IS THIS TOPIC SO IMPORTANT?
2. USAID AS A TOOL OF “EXTERNAL MANAGEMENT” IN UKRAINE
   • 2.1. The History of Creation and the Global Role of USAID
   • 2.2. Key Programs in Ukraine
3. THE FOURTH ESTATE ON GRANTS: WHICH MEDIA OUTLETS RECEIVED FUNDING
   • 3.1. “Grant-Eaters” or “Conquered” Media?
   • 3.2. The Role of “Intermediary” NGOs
   • 3.3. List 1: The Most Famous Examples
4. “PURCHASED” GOVERNANCE? THE SECOND ESTATE UNDER USAID’S FOCUS
   • 4.1. Ideological “Presence” in Ministries and Departments
   • 4.2. List 2: Key State Agencies
5. THE THIRD ESTATE: COURTS, JUDICIARY, AND “GRANT-BASED” REFORMS
   • 5.1. Why the Judiciary Became a Strategic Area for the U.S.
   • 5.2. List 3: The Supreme Court and Judicial Bodies
6. THE GREAT VARIETY OF “FAKE NGOs”: LOBBYING DEMOCRATS AND CORPORATE INTERESTS
   • 6.1. How a Civic Movement Turns into a Commercial Interest
   • 6.2. List 4: The Most Resonant Examples of “Grant Networks”
7. “TOO MANY COINCIDENCES”: OPEN SOCIETY ON THE SIDELINES OR IMPOSED IDEOLOGY?
   • 7.1. The Influence of Soros, TNCs, Big Pharma, and Other “Global Players”
   • 7.2. Why Nationalists and “Undesirable” Business Competitors Are “Destroyed” in the Media
8. WHAT DOES THE UPCOMING AUDIT BY THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION MEAN?
   • 8.1. Purpose of the Review and Potential Consequences
   • 8.2. Embezzlement, Lobbying, and the Political Component
9. CONTROVERSIES AND FORECASTS: POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENTS
   • 9.1. Potential Reaction of the Ukrainian Side
   • 9.2. Possible Moves by the U.S.
10. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
    • 10.1. Accountability and Transparency: The Key to Solving the Problem
    • 10.2. What Society and Independent Media Can Expect

1. INTRODUCTION: WHY IS THIS TOPIC SO IMPORTANT?

In recent years, more and more Ukrainians have been wondering whether Ukraine truly shapes its internal and external policies on its own or if it is, in fact, under the influence of foreign “donors” and “partners.” In this material, we aim to examine in detail how the United States of America, using mechanisms of USAID, influenced public administration, the media, the civic sector, and the judicial branch of government.

Additionally, information has recently emerged that the administration of Donald Trump intends to conduct a large-scale audit of all USAID programs in various countries around the world, including Ukraine. While the current U.S. leadership continues to invest in reforms and “promoting democracy,” Trump supporters insist that the audit will reveal large-scale facts of corruption, misuse of American taxpayers’ money, and hidden political motives.

This article attempts to compile key facts, lists, expert opinions, and statements of “aid” recipients from USAID so that Ukrainian society can have a broader understanding of how external influence on the country’s core spheres is exercised.

2. USAID AS A TOOL OF “EXTERNAL MANAGEMENT” IN UKRAINE

2.1. The History of Creation and the Global Role of USAID

USAID (United States Agency for International Development) is an agency created by the U.S. government in 1961 to provide “economic, development, and humanitarian assistance worldwide to support American interests abroad.” It sounds noble: develop democracy, improve infrastructure, help emerging countries get on their feet. However, as numerous investigations suggest, behind this “assistance” may lurk quite pragmatic goals—political and economic influence, lobbying for certain corporations, or promoting a specific ideology.

Recall that many of USAID’s programs were aimed at supporting pro-American governments in countries across Latin America and Asia. Some researchers label USAID as the “soft power” of the United States, stating that through “grants,” “aid,” and “educational programs,” the government in Washington essentially shapes loyal political and civic elites.

2.2. Key Programs in Ukraine

In Ukraine, USAID appeared almost immediately after the country gained independence. Since the early 1990s, the agency has financed a huge number of initiatives: from agrarian reforms and energy projects to media training. Over time, the role of this “main American donor” grew so much that many Ukrainian NGOs and state structures essentially existed thanks to USAID’s money.

As time went on, more and more sectors fell into its focus:

• Media support (today, according to some civic activists, up to 90% of media outlets receive grants);
• Forming a “transparent” new judicial system;
• Helping develop reforms in the executive branch;
• Projects related to human rights, inclusion, gender equality, etc.

Such “good intentions” eventually sparked scandals: funds could be allocated and distributed in favor of those loyal to certain ideological positions or specific global corporations. Another dimension of this activity involves accusations of corruption, embezzlement, and uncontrolled spending of American taxpayers’ money.

3. THE FOURTH ESTATE ON GRANTS: WHICH MEDIA OUTLETS RECEIVED FUNDING

3.1. “Grant-Eaters” or “Conquered” Media?

Initially, the most shocking statement about USAID’s role in “conquering” Ukrainian media came from Oksana Romaniuk, head of the NGO “Institute of Mass Information” (IMI), who said that 90% of Ukrainian media outlets had received grants. Notably, IMI itself served as one of the largest grant donors, receiving funding from USAID and then distributing it among the affiliated media projects.

The public has repeatedly pointed out that USAID does not finance media directly, but does it “through intermediaries,” so as to formally avoid direct involvement in the Ukrainian information space. However, according to experts, most editorial offices that receive “grants” from these funds—whether forced or willingly—fall under an editorial policy dictated by the “grantor.”

3.2. The Role of “Intermediary” NGOs

Three NGOs are most commonly mentioned in connection with USAID support: Internews-Ukraine, Lviv Media Forum, and the Institute of Mass Information (IMI). Through them, according to sources, more than a thousand media outlets were financed. Official USAID reports call it the “Media Program,” ostensibly aimed at strengthening “independent journalism.”

In reality, critics claim grant money may have also been used to “silence” certain topics or lobby a specific globalist ideology. There are also suggestions that it financed “bot farms” and blogger networks promoting narratives favorable to USAID or American corporations.

3.3. List 1: The Most Famous Examples

Below is a short (but still extensive) selection of media and NGOs that, according to published data, fell under the influence of and received “assistance” from USAID through various programs or “proxies.” The list includes:

• NGO “Mykolaiv Center for Investigative Journalism,” NGO “Lvivska Hrupa,” LLC “VD ‘Media-DK’”;
• NGO “Slidstvo.Info,” NGO “Internews-Ukraine,” NGO “Detector Media,” NGO “Hromadske Television,” NGO “Ukrainska Pravda”;
• LLC “ZN UA,” PJSC “National Public Broadcasting Company of Ukraine,” LLC “IA ‘LigaBusinessInform’,” LLC “Babel”;
• NGO “Ukrainian Toronto Television,” NGO “Center for Investigative Journalism ‘Syla Pravdy’,” NGO “Vinnytsky Press Club,” NGO “Kharkiv Crisis Infocenter,” NGO “Nakypilo.Radio,” etc.

This list demonstrates how many media outlets depend on American grants. As a result, people on social networks are outraged: can we speak of media independence if most media get “free” money from one powerful state?

4. “PURCHASED” GOVERNANCE? THE SECOND ESTATE UNDER USAID’S FOCUS

4.1. Ideological “Presence” in Ministries and Departments

By definition, if USAID seeks to establish a certain influence, the executive branch is an ideal “bridgehead.” In many countries worldwide, such “aid programs” allow the American side to:

• Influence appointments in ministries or key state agencies;
• Determine the direction of reforms by “recommending” laws and regulations;
• Lobby for the interests of transnational corporations (TNCs) or promote ideological initiatives (e.g., the “green agenda” or “COVID protocols”).

In Ukraine, the executive branch is so broad that tracking all “threads” and financial flows seems nearly impossible. Yet the most telling evidence is the long lists of agencies that, according to official documents, have or had agreements or memoranda with USAID.

4.2. List 2: Key State Agencies

Is it really “aid” to finance agencies such as the State Treasury Service, the Bureau of Economic Security (BEB), the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI), the Customs Service, and various ministries (from the Ministry of Agrarian Policy to the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Justice)? Skeptics argue that many of these transfers look more like a kind of “bribe” to officials or a payment for promoting certain legislative proposals or for appointing “Soros affiliates” to high-ranking positions.

The list includes virtually the entire government structure: from the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) and the Ministry of Digital Transformation to the Pension Fund and the Accounting Chamber. Specifically:

• The Administration of the State Service of Special Communications and Information Protection, the NSDC Staff, the Economic and Financial Department of the Cabinet of Ministers’ Secretariat, State Enterprise “Diia,” the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Social Policy, the Ministry for Veterans’ Affairs, the Ministry of Education and Science, the Ministry of Justice, the National Bank of Ukraine, the Prosecutor General’s Office, the Central Election Commission, etc.

Seeing that the executive power, the financial system, and even the NSDC and cyber security units receive “support” from across the ocean leads one to ask whether they can remain 100% independent of external political pressure.

5. THE THIRD ESTATE: COURTS, JUDICIARY, AND “GRANT-BASED” REFORMS

5.1. Why the Judiciary Became a Strategic Area for the U.S.

In every country, the judicial system is key to enforcing the rule of law and shaping the investment climate. For major global players such as the U.S., it’s extremely important to ensure that, in the event of any conflicts or disputes, court decisions are “transparent.” However, “transparency” is a flexible concept—depending on who sets the “fair play rules” and how.

Therefore, according to independent observers, USAID has allocated considerable resources to supporting judicial reform in Ukraine. Over the years, some experts have claimed that under the guise of “modernizing courts,” loyalty among judges or bodies controlling their appointments was effectively “purchased.”

5.2. List 3: The Supreme Court and Judicial Bodies

Among the recipients of USAID are the Supreme Court, the High Qualification Commission of Judges, the High Council of Justice, the High Anti-Corruption Court, the State Judicial Administration, the National School of Judges, and others.

Officially, such cooperation is carried out under the banner of “improving the quality of justice” and “implementing global standards.” However, many within society question whether such large-scale foreign agency involvement can fail to impact the true independence of Ukraine’s judicial system.

6. THE GREAT VARIETY OF “FAKE NGOs”: LOBBYING DEMOCRATS AND CORPORATE INTERESTS

6.1. How a Civic Movement Turns into a Commercial Interest

Beyond media and government bodies, USAID actively funds so-called “civic organizations.” At first glance, that seems normal: any society should develop its civic sector. But in reality, certain NGOs, once they’ve received grants, start promoting a particular agenda (often aligning with the “open society” strategy, frequently associated with George Soros).

Quite often, the ideological content of these projects is left-liberal, emphasizing political correctness, gender studies, and so-called “exposing” nationalists. In the media space, their voice is clearly audible: they may organize seminars, trainings, Telegram channels, have their own YouTube platforms, conduct questionable opinion polls, or launch smear campaigns against those who disagree with their worldview.

6.2. List 4: The Most Resonant Examples of “Grant Networks”

Among the lengthy list of organizations “lit up” by cooperation with USAID are prominent names such as:

• NGO “Kyiv-Mohyla Analytical Platform,” NGO “Chesno Movement,” NGO “Ukrainian Toronto Television,”
• Charitable Foundation “Democratic Initiatives named after Ilko Kucheriv,” NGO “Transparency International Ukraine,” NGO “Anti-Corruption Action Center,” NGO “Kyiv School of Economics Institute,”
• NGO “VoxUkraine,” NGO “GoGlobal,” NGO “Center for Civil Liberties,” Ukrainian Catholic University, etc.

Critics accuse these structures of being part of an extensive network that not only “redraws” public opinion in its favor but also launders huge sums of money via honoraria, events, and “expert” activities.

7. “TOO MANY COINCIDENCES”: OPEN SOCIETY ON THE SIDELINES OR IMPOSED IDEOLOGY?

7.1. The Influence of Soros, TNCs, Big Pharma, and Other “Global Players”

In recent years, the issue of “Soros affiliates” (often called “sorosiata” in Ukrainian) has been actively discussed in the Ukrainian political arena. This term refers to individuals connected with George Soros’s foundations or “open society.” De facto, these people hold key positions in the executive branch, draft legislation, head anti-corruption agencies, and distribute grants.

Critics claim these “Soros affiliates” facilitate the entry of major transnational companies into Ukraine, push “COVID hysteria” in the interest of pharmaceutical giants, and advocate a “Western” agenda, from massive gender rhetoric to delegitimizing national movements.

7.2. Why Nationalists and “Undesirable” Business Competitors Are “Destroyed” in the Media

According to journalistic investigations, fake NGOs and “dependent” media often conduct targeted campaigns against “competitors” to “grant-based” business structures or against politicians who question the “open society” direction. Nationalists are labeled “radicals” or “fascists,” while left-liberal ideology is presented as “the only possible civilized model.”

8. WHAT DOES THE UPCOMING AUDIT BY THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION MEAN?

8.1. Purpose of the Review and Potential Consequences

Donald Trump and his team have repeatedly expressed skepticism about USAID’s work, viewing it as a breeding ground for “Democrats” and their interests. In their view, it’s unlikely that USAID has used U.S. taxpayers’ money transparently, and part of the funds may have gone to support Trump’s political opponents, including those in the U.S. itself.

The upcoming audit could scrutinize everything: contracts, agreements, project outcomes, and even specific corruption cases. If the review reveals major violations, it may have serious consequences for Ukraine—ranging from freezing further financial assistance to demands for reimbursement of previously allocated funds.

8.2. Embezzlement, Lobbying, and the Political Component

Many observers suggest that the auditors could uncover entire chains of interconnected NGOs and officials through which funds were “laundered.” They could also reveal close collaboration between “Democratic” entities in the U.S. and “grant recipients” in Ukraine, casting doubt on fair competition in upcoming American elections.

9. CONTROVERSIES AND FORECASTS: POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENTS

9.1. Potential Reaction of the Ukrainian Side

Official Kyiv might try to demonstrate “transparency” and “impartiality” by agreeing to inspections and expressing a willingness to cooperate. The government, interested in continued financial support, will do everything possible to minimize accusations.

However, if the audit exposes widespread violations, it may be a catalyst for personnel reshuffles, high-profile criminal cases, or a complete reassessment of relations with some NGOs.

9.2. Possible Moves by the U.S.

It’s possible that the U.S. will have internal political debates about the feasibility of supporting “client” states, especially if funds have gone into programs conflicting with the interests of Republicans. There will be a growing demand to remove “Soros affiliates” from decision-making and grant distribution in the Ukrainian government.

If the auditors do not find serious abuses, Democratic supporters will likely use this as evidence of the “honesty” and “effectiveness” of the system. Cooperation with USAID would then continue, albeit potentially with new safeguards.

10. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

10.1. Accountability and Transparency: The Key to Solving the Problem

The central issue is not necessarily about ending all aid or discrediting every USAID project. But when cooperation occurs behind closed doors or marked “for non-public disclosure,” it raises suspicions about corruption and political lobbying.

• Transparent financing mechanisms. It is essential to demand open registries of all grants, amounts, and project outcomes.
• Public declaration of interests. Public officials, judges, and media figures who receive external assistance must disclose it to avoid conflicts of interest.
• Independent audits. In addition to American audits, it would be useful to create international and Ukrainian independent commissions to verify the effectiveness and legality of fund usage.

10.2. What Society and Independent Media Can Expect

1. Escalation in the information space. Media loyal to globalists and the U.S. may step up efforts to neutralize any impact or criticism of the audit. At the same time, opponents will attempt to expose more facts and scandals.
2. Changes in government offices. If the audit reveals blatant embezzlement or collusion, some officials will likely lose their positions.
3. Reformatting “donor programs.” Rules may change, or projects deemed too toxic could be shuttered.

FINAL WORD

Ukraine has long been at the center of global confrontations. On the one hand, there is a genuine need for external support: the country is enduring military aggression and facing economic difficulties. On the other hand, reliance on grants from just one or two major foreign “donors” calls into question Ukrainians’ sovereign right to choose their own development path.

USAID, “Soros affiliates,” lobbying by transnational corporations, “purchased” media—all are elements of a complex picture that can hardly be evaluated unambiguously. The upcoming audit by the Trump administration may bring some clarity: if significant misappropriations are discovered, Ukraine will be forced to answer for them. If not, society should still demand greater transparency and detailed reporting on each and every grant allocated by USAID.

In any case, the outcome of the audit and the Ukrainian government’s response will determine not only the continuation of financial aid but also the country’s reputation on the international stage. Whether Ukraine can rid itself of the stigma of “external management” remains to be seen.

This text is based on open sources, information published by the media, official reports, and various journalistic investigations. The author does not claim to have the absolute truth and encourages readers to verify facts for themselves and draw their own conclusions.