In the last part of our series on Deep State (Link), we shed light on key faces associated with USAID. Through notorious agencies like the OCCRP, NED, USAID and others, the Deep State ‘assets’ have been exploiting people’s sympathies and their kinder side to go after Nationalist politicians. This article pieces exposes the modus operandi through which these organisations go after politicians, countries, and nationalistic voices in their target nation.
Covert Operations
The U.S. government has a long history of using covert operations to influence foreign governments and impact changes in local societal makeups. The CIA is considered the kingpin of these operations, but it cannot execute them without the help of soft assets created with the help of USAID and other agencies, who work as sleeper cells stationed at local tea shops to big media platforms.
From the Second World War, covert operations have included everything—from funding opposition groups and media outlets to orchestrating coups and assassinations with the help of intelligence agencies.
While USAID’s primary mission is humanitarian, its operations have occasionally intersected with U.S. intelligence activities. A recent investigation revealed that USAID inadvertently funded the education of Anwar al-Awlaki, who later became a prominent al-Qaeda figure. In the 1990s, al-Awlaki received a grant from USAID for his college tuition after USAID failed in its background check regarding his birthplace.
He subsequently used his education to recruit and radicalise jihadists involved in terrorist activities, including the 9/11 attacks. Now that USAID’s spending patterns and nefarious designs are out, is it not worth asking whether it was a genuine bureaucratic mistake or something else? Won’t those people whom the deep state loves to term ‘conspiracy theorists’ ask whether Osama bin Laden and his allies were not funded by the CIA or USAID? There are already such questions in the U.S.
At many places, USAID’s programmes have been used as tools for political influence. For example, in the former Soviet bloc, authoritarian leaders have seized upon USAID’s initiatives to undermine civil society organisations and pro-democracy movements. Governments in countries like Georgia and Slovakia have demanded data on grant recipients, accusing them of foreign influence and threatening legal action.
Media Manipulation
The U.S. government has used media manipulation as a key tool in shaping public opinion and influencing foreign governments. The methods include funding media outlets, training journalists, paying influential people to change their stances on key topics, and producing propaganda, among others.
Organisations like Internews and the Atlantic Council have been instrumental in these efforts, and more often than not, they work in tandem with the CIA and other government agencies.
Even when someone speaks against American interests, the deep state ensures that such intellectuals work in a controlled environment, often termed as controlled opposition.
One of the most outrageous and frankly unnecessary wars going on in modern times could not be fuelled without the help of USAID and the entities it funds in coordination with other U.S. government agencies. During the days when the U.S. and its allies were busy revealing that China had bought Australian politicians in hordes, the country was busy buying Ukrainian sources of information.
While it was certain that the U.S. was funding Ukrainian outlets, its extent was revealed only after Musk’s announcements. Oksana Romaniuk, director of the Institute of Mass Information (IMI), said that 90% of Ukrainian media is indirectly controlled by the money poured in by the U.S. 66% of these media outlets are certain to face financial crises after the U.S. stops their paychecks, while the credibility crisis is much bigger.
This level of control allowed the U.S. to steer the Maidan Revolution of 2014, ensuring that a pro-Western government replaced the pro-Russian leadership. Victoria Nuland openly admitted that USAID and its sister organisations funnelled $5 billion into Ukrainian civil society groups, directly influencing the country’s political landscape.
In Bangladesh, USAID collaborated with the International Republican Institute (IRI) to destabilise Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s government by funding protest groups affiliated with political parties, university student unions, labour unions, and even rap groups that produced protest-inciting music.
The campaign targeted youth, ethnic majorities, cultural minorities like rap singers and sexually disoriented people not in sync with policy, and of course, opposition groups—ultimately leading to civil unrest and a decline in the stature of Sheikh Mujib-ur Rehman, founding father of Bangladesh.
In Latin America, USAID-backed media and political operations have played a major role in shifting discussions around toppling governments that resist U.S. interests. In Venezuela, leaked documents suggest that U.S. and Colombian organisations were hand-in-glove with Venezuela’s political opposition to create unrest and provoke international intervention—just like Iran constantly alleges the U.S. of doing on its own soil.
In 2013, the Bolivian government expelled USAID, accusing it of conspiring against the country’s stability. However, assets created by it kept working through back-channel deals, and ultimately President Evo Morales was undermined to the extent that he had to take political asylum in 2019. Declassified U.S. government documents have revealed a consistent policy of U.S. intervention in Bolivia’s internal affairs, including support for media initiatives.
In Nicaragua, USAID has supported opposition media outlets, especially during periods of political unrest. Reports indicate that in the run-up to the 2018 protests, USAID was supporting key opposition media outlets. Americans feel so empowered and not scared of consequences that when Hugo Rodriguez, a possible appointee to Nicaragua, was questioned by U.S. Congress, he openly said that discontinuing work with USAID and other NGOs was not on the cards.
The Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), a USAID-funded initiative, selectively investigates political figures opposed to U.S. influence. USAID’s unaccounted investment in OCCRP led to over $10 billion in fines, 820 government actions, 736 arrests, warrants, or sentences, 430 official investigations, 261 civic actions, 145 corporate actions, and 135 resignations or dismissals of key figures and policy changes across Eastern Europe and Eurasia.
Turning its focus inwards, OCCRP played a key role in the impeachment of U.S. President Donald Trump by investigating Rudy Giuliani’s dealings in Ukraine. Giuliani was targeted because of his proximity to Trump. In total, USAID is said to be funding 6,200 journalists across 707 media outlets all across the world.
Imagine 6,200 people having a readership of 500,000 (minimum) per person engaged in publishing paid news designed as a hit job intended to malign public figures. Where is the truth? Not in mainstream media for sure.
USAID’s influence has traditionally extended to social media too. In the past (before Musk took over), it has worked with platforms like Twitter (now X) to regulate speech under the guise of combating misinformation. The agency partners with think tanks and NGOs like the Atlantic Council to push pro-U.S. narratives while suppressing dissenting viewpoints.
Rap Music and LGBTQIA+ Activism
The U.S. government, through USAID and related organisations, has actively used rap music, LGBTQ activism, and transgender identity politics as tools for influencing foreign governments and fuelling political discontent. These strategies focus on installing creative people where strong democracy is in action and using their amplifying powers to promote regime change and societal division under the guise of supporting democracy and human rights.
Generally, most rap musicians and LGBTQ activists feel themselves at the fringes of society, asking for their voices to be heard. What USAID does is pour money into helping LGBTQ people gather crowds in support of their rights. Rap and other pop culture specialists add flavour to it by mixing words like democracy, freedom, empowerment, marginalised, and diversity into their slogans as well as rap songs.
When such protests take place outside universities or key institutions, paid media comes, takes bites, and broadcasts it as an anti-government protest. The world is shown that it is the government of the day which is not enjoying popular support, even though electoral data says something else.
Currently, Alternative for Germany (AfD), called far-right, is facing protests from this community. In a recent Joe Rogan Podcast, it was pointed out that when the camera turns to these people, they are seen fighting for their rights. German singer and musician Herbert Grönemeyer is also supporting them. This is the state of affairs when AfD is not in charge, and USAID-backed groups do not want it to come to power.
A similarly striking example of this tactic was seen in Bangladesh, where USAID worked with the International Republican Institute (IRI) to successfully destabilise and topple the government of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina.
Leaked documents reveal that USAID and IRI identified specific demographic groups—LGBTQ communities, ethnic minorities, and student activists—as key targets for fostering political unrest. They noted that rap music was gaining popularity among Bangladeshi youth and subsequently funded local rap groups to produce protest-themed songs and music videos.
These songs carried messages encouraging street demonstrations, with some lyrics directly inciting riots under the banner of peaceful protest. The IRI directly funded the musical career of Towfique Ahmed, a Bangladeshi barrister and rapper.
His 2020 track “Tui Parish” (You Can Do It) was created under IRI’s small grants programme, marking the first of two music videos funded by the U.S. government. Ahmed gained prominence during anti-Hasina protests, offering free legal aid to anti-Hasina demonstrators.
His second IRI-funded music video highlighted issues like rape, poverty, and workers’ rights. IRI also assisted in making these songs viral, aiming at fuelling dissatisfaction with the government and pushing the American agenda.
Art is indeed political, and in Bangladesh, the U.S. government essentially weaponized music, making it a medium for anti-government sentiment.
Cuba saw a similar approach as the US government trusted Serbian contractor Rajko Bozic to lead the initiative. Under his direction, loads of Cuban musicians were recruited under the guise of cultural programmes, while in reality, they were finding ways to create a sense of disillusionment against the Castros.
Cuban hip-hop artists were asked to create politically charged music that criticised the Cuban government. Breakdancing diplomacy programmes and hip-hop exchange visits were conducted under the pretence of cultural collaboration, when in reality, they were designed to cultivate opposition voices within Cuba’s youth.
Rap groups such as Los Aldeanos were given platforms to spread messages against the Cuban regime. Their song “Long Live Free Cuba!” carried strong anti-government messages, with lyrics like:
“People marching blind, you have no credibility.
Go and tell the captain this ship’s sinking rapidly.”
On a side note, “Sadda Haq Aithe Rakh” from the movie Rockstar has similar meanings and visuals.
Venezuela also became a target of USAID’s culture-based influence strategies. Documents reveal that USAID, in collaboration with U.S. intelligence agencies, assessed that the transgender population in Venezuela was a particularly effective demographic for undermining the government.
In the Tucker Carlson Podcast, Mike Benz suggested that the agency funnelled $2.7 million into transgender dance festivals and other LGBTQ initiatives, leveraging these groups to challenge Nicolás Maduro’s administration. The logic behind this was that individuals who identified as transgender or supported transgender rights were more likely to vote against the government, making them ideal recruits for USAID’s regime change efforts.
This kind of funding also included financial support for social movements that painted the Venezuelan government as oppressive toward LGBTQ communities, increasing domestic and international pressure on the leadership. Benz termed it as “cynical, self-serving, cold-hearted and calculated decision.”
In Eastern Europe, USAID-backed LGBTQ activism has been a key tool for political influence. LGBTQ rights movements in Hungary and Poland have been heavily funded by U.S. agencies, despite strong cultural resistance in these countries. The goal was not simply to promote LGBTQ rights but to use these movements to erode nationalist governments that resisted the influence of the European Union (EU), U.S., and NATO.
Polish and Hungarian governments saw it coming, and they responded by tightening laws against foreign-backed NGOs. At a time when mental illness is going past tolerance levels in the U.S. and other Western countries, the resistance to their efforts has helped Poland and Hungary remain sane in their attitude.
In the aftermath of America’s shameless exodus from Afghanistan, in which they left weapons worth more than $85 billion behind, news surfaced that the U.S. was spending enormous sums on promoting gender studies in Afghanistan, which is no doubt a reckless, absolutely wasteful, and fruitless exercise.
New evidence reveals that this was part of broader strategies of demographic segmentation. U.S. intelligence and USAID manipulated messaging to justify prolonged intervention.
A CIA Red Cell memo in 2010 revealed that European nations—especially affluent ones like Germany and France—were more likely to support military funding in Afghanistan if the conflict was framed as a struggle for ensuring equal rights for women rather than a security concern.
USAID, its organisations, and even the United Nations (UN) subsequently amplified gender-based narratives, pushing women’s rights issues as a primary reason for continued foreign involvement—effectively treating women as pawns in a patriarchal struggle for power.
European nations—especially Western European ones—continue falling for this narrative to this day. Even a country like Australia has come under the influence and refuses to play against Afghanistan men’s cricket team because the Taliban has banned cricket for women. ‘Brain Fade’ phenomenon permeates all of Australian cricket, but this is the paid version of that.
