Connect with us

Business

90% of Ukraine news outlets get funding from USAID: new report

Published

5 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Matt Lamb

USAID, targeted by Elon Musk and Donald Trump for cuts, is a heavy funder of news outlets in Ukraine, according to a new report. The agency has come under scrutiny for wasteful and ideological projects.

The United States Aid for International Development (USAID) provides funds to 90 percent of Ukrainian news outlets, according to a new report from the Columbia Journalism Review and Reporters Without Borders.

While much focus has been on USAID and other federal entities subscribing to news outlets such as Politico, a broader issue may be taxpayers paying for news coverage in foreign countries.

Working off data from Reporters Without Borders, the Columbia Journalism Review reported that “USAID had boasted of supporting more than six thousand journalists, around seven hundred independent newsrooms, and nearly three hundred media-focused civil society groups in thirty or so countries.”

The Trump administration reportedly froze $268 million for these endeavors.

“RSF also noted the harsh effect on journalism in Ukraine, where 90 percent of news organizations rely on USAID funding, some very heavily,” the Journalism Review reported.

The United States has spent nearly $66 billion on direct military assistance to Ukraine in its ongoing war against Russia. Taxpayers have sent another $120 billion or so to the country in other foreign aid, according to an inspector general report current as of September 30, 2024.

The journalism groups released the reports ostensibly to defend U.S. funding of outlets.

On a related issue, the Trump administration is also cutting off taxpayer-funded subscriptions that government employees set up with news outlets.

“I can confirm that the more than $8 million taxpayer dollars that have gone to essentially subsidizing subscriptions to Politico on the American taxpayers’ dime will no longer be happening,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said during a press conference yesterday.

“The DOGE team is working on canceling those payments now,” she said.

She stated further:

Again, this is a whole-of-government effort to ensure that we are going line by line when it comes to the federal government’s books. And this president and his team are making decisions across the board on ‘Do these receipts serve the interests of the American people? Is this a good use of the American taxpayers’ money? If it is not, that funding will no longer be sent abroad and American taxpayers will be seeing significant savings because of that effort.

Conservatives celebrated the news.

“The Federal Government is not a good steward of your tax dollars,” Josh Tanner, an Idaho state representative, wrote on X. “They spent $8 Million on propaganda media. This is even more of a reason for Idaho tax dollars to be accounted for, applied appropriately, and reduced where necessary. The Fed has failed, our state must succeed.”

“Even if the govt money to Politico wasn’t an outright grant, providing $8 Million in taxpayers funds for ‘subscriptions’ to a super Lefty publication is just absurd and abusive to hard-working Americans!” conservative commentator Steve Cortes wrote.

payroll issue with Politico‘s payroll was initially blamed on the funding freeze, though the company said it was a “technical error” that created the problem.

USAID under scrutiny, uses tax dollars to promote DEI around the world

The Trump administration has closed, at least temporarily, USAID. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is now the administrator of the agency, which has funded a variety of ideological projects across the globe.

“USAID has a history of ignoring [the national interest of the United States] and deciding that they’re a global charity. These are not donor dollars, these are taxpayer dollars,” Secretary Rubio said recently.

Leavitt highlighted some of the ideological and wasteful projects funded through this agency, including “$1.5 million to advance DEI in Serbia’s workforce.”

The agency has also been used to pressure conservative, poorer countries into adopting pro-abortion policies, as LifeSiteNews previously reported.

State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce highlighted other wasteful projects in a post on X.

She listed projects the freeze had stopped, including “$16 million in unjustified funding for institutional contractors in the gender development offices,” “$4 million to unjustified funding for the Center for Climate-Positive Development,” and “$600,000 to fund technical assistance for family planning in Latin America.”

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Business

The EU Insists Its X Fine Isn’t About Censorship. Here’s Why It Is.

Published on

logo

By

Europe calls it transparency, but it looks a lot like teaching the internet who’s allowed to speak.

When the European Commission fined X €120 million on December 5, officials could not have been clearer. This, they said, was not about censorship. It was just about “transparency.”
They repeat it so often you start to wonder why.
The fine marks the first major enforcement of the Digital Services Act, Europe’s new censorship-driven internet rulebook.
It was sold as a consumer protection measure, designed to make online platforms safer and more accountable, and included a whole list of censorship requirements, fining platforms that don’t comply.
The Commission charged X with three violations: the paid blue checkmark system, the lack of advertising data, and restricted data access for researchers.
None of these touches direct content censorship. But all of them shape visibility, credibility, and surveillance, just in more polite language.
Musk’s decision to turn blue checks into a subscription feature ended the old system where establishment figures, journalists, politicians, and legacy celebrities got verification.
The EU called Musk’s decision “deceptive design.” The old version, apparently, was honesty itself. Before, a blue badge meant you were important. After, it meant you paid. Brussels prefers the former, where approved institutions get algorithmic priority, and the rest of the population stays in the queue.
The new system threatened that hierarchy. Now, anyone could buy verification, diluting the aura of authority once reserved for anointed voices.
Reclaim The Net is sustained by its readers.
Your support fuels the fight for privacy, free speech and digital civil liberties while giving you access to exclusive content, practical how to guides, premium features and deeper dives into freedom-focused tech.
Become a supporter here.
However, that’s not the full story. Under the old Twitter system, verification was sold as a public service, but in reality it worked more like a back-room favor and a status purchase.
The main application process was shut down in 2010, so unless you were already famous, the only way to get a blue check was to spend enough money on advertising or to be important enough to trigger impersonation problems.
Ad Age reported that advertisers who spent at least fifteen thousand dollars over three months could get verified, and Twitter sales reps told clients the same thing. That meant verification was effectively a perk reserved for major media brands, public figures, and anyone willing to pay. It was a symbol of influence rationed through informal criteria and private deals, creating a hierarchy shaped by cronyism rather than transparency.
Under the new X rules, everyone is on a level playing field.
Government officials and agencies now sport gray badges, symbols of credibility that can’t be purchased. These are the state’s chosen voices, publicly marked as incorruptible. To the EU, that should be a safeguard.
The second and third violations show how “transparency” doubles as a surveillance mechanism. X was fined for limiting access to advertising data and for restricting researchers from scraping platform content. Regulators called that obstruction. Musk called it refusing to feed the censorship machine.
The EU’s preferred researchers aren’t neutral archivists. Many have been documented coordinating with governments, NGOs, and “fact-checking” networks that flagged political content for takedown during previous election cycles.
They call it “fighting disinformation.” Critics call it outsourcing censorship pressure to academics.
Under the DSA, these same groups now have the legal right to demand data from platforms like X to study “systemic risks,” a phrase broad enough to include whatever speech bureaucrats find undesirable this month.
The result is a permanent state of observation where every algorithmic change, viral post, or trending topic becomes a potential regulatory case.
The advertising issue completes the loop. Brussels says it wants ad libraries to be fully searchable so users can see who’s paying for what. It gives regulators and activists a live feed of messaging, ready for pressure campaigns.
The DSA doesn’t delete ads; it just makes it easier for someone else to demand they be deleted.
That’s how this form of censorship works: not through bans, but through endless exposure to scrutiny until platforms remove the risk voluntarily.
The Commission insists, again and again, that the fine has “nothing to do with content.”
That may be true on a direct level, but the rules shape content all the same. When governments decide who counts as authentic, who qualifies as a researcher, and how visibility gets distributed, speech control doesn’t need to be explicit. It’s baked into the system.
Brussels calls it user protection. Musk calls it punishment for disobedience. This particular DSA fine isn’t about what you can say, it’s about who’s allowed to be heard saying it.
TikTok escaped similar scrutiny by promising to comply. X didn’t, and that’s the difference. The EU prefers companies that surrender before the hearing. When they don’t, “transparency” becomes the pretext for a financial hammer.
The €120 million fine is small by tech standards, but symbolically it’s huge.
It tells every platform that “noncompliance” means questioning the structure of speech the EU has already defined as safe.
In the official language of Brussels, this is a regulation. But it’s managed discourse, control through design, moderation through paperwork, censorship through transparency.
And the louder they insist it isn’t, the clearer it becomes that it is.
Reclaim The Net Needs Your Help
With your help, we can do more than hold the line. We can push back. We can expose censorship, highlight surveillance overreach, and amplify the voices of those being silenced.
If you have found value in our work, please consider becoming a supporter.
Your support does more than keep us independent. It also gives you access to exclusive content, deep dive exploration of freedom focused technology, member-only features, and practical how-to posts that help you protect your rights in the real world.
You help us expand our reach, educate more people, and continue this fight.
Please become a supporter today.
Thank you for your support.
Continue Reading

Business

Loblaws Owes Canadians Up to $500 Million in “Secret” Bread Cash

Published on

Continue Reading

Trending

X