As the administration under former President Trump seeks to reduce the role of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), there’s been an increase in the dissemination of false and misleading information across social media platforms. Much of this misinformation has been linked to officials within the administration, as well as prominent figures, including Elon Musk.
The claims made online raise concerns over the distribution of funds for various projects and organizations, often lacking substantive evidence while alleging inappropriate financial use. On Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt shared with the press that USAID funds had allegedly been allocated to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives around the globe. She specified figures such as “$1.5 million to enhance DEI in Serbian workplaces; $70,000 for a DEI musical in Ireland; $47,000 for a transgender opera in Colombia; and $32,000 for a transgender comic book in Peru.” These assertions quickly gained traction and spread widely on social media throughout the week.
Investigations reveal that only the $1.5 million grant for the Serbian organization Grupa Izadji was indeed issued by USAID, with an objective to promote diversity and inclusion within Serbian workplaces. The other funding amounts cited came from different sources; specifically, the State Department’s Office of the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs. In 2022, for example, €70,884 was granted to an Irish organization to conduct a live musical event accentuating shared American and Irish values focused on DEI and accessibility. Similarly, in Colombia, a $25,000 grant was awarded in 2021 towards an opera aimed at enhancing transgender representation, alongside an additional $22,020 from non-federal sources. Furthermore, a Peruvian organization received $32,000 in 2022 to create a comic featuring an LGBTQ+ hero, highlighting social and mental health issues.
Rachel Bonnifield, a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development, indicated that the discourse surrounding USAID’s activities has become muddled by a plethora of misinformation. “The information climate has reached a challenging point, with much false and misleading data being circulated,” she stated. Bonnifield emphasized the need for adherence to factual information, which is readily accessible, to facilitate constructive conversations about the appropriate roles of USAID.
Sean Roberts, a professor specializing in international affairs at George Washington University, clarified that the funded initiatives were aligned with the goals of the under secretary’s office, demonstrating a commitment to outreach with local organizations and communities. He pointed out that while these initiatives reflect U.S. values, they do not stem from USAID itself, which fosters distinct priorities centered on international development.
Responding to inquiries regarding the administration’s portrayal of USAID’s financial allocation, Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly stated that the reported misuse of taxpayer funds highlights the reason President Trump paused foreign aid on his first day in office, aiming for alignment with U.S. interests. Notably, she did not address the specific mischaracterization of the grants mentioned.
Mainstream media outlets have also fallen victim to such misrepresentations, including unwarranted claims against organizations like the Associated Press. For example, the BBC was reportedly said to have received around $3.2 million (or £2.6 million) for the 2023-2024 fiscal year, which it clarified did not contribute to its news division but rather went to BBC Media Action, a charitable entity that operates separately from the news branch. BBC Media Action’s budget was noted, where the given funds constituted roughly 8% of its financial resources for that year.
Concerning Politico, erroneous posts circulated on social media stating that it had received up to $34.3 million from USAID. In actuality, USAID paid Politico $44,000 across 2023 and 2024 for subscription services, while other government-related payments were coordinated through separate channels.
Regarding the Associated Press, it was incorrectly stated to have received funding from USAID. Although the AP has received a total of $37.5 million from various government agencies since 2008, none of that came from USAID specifically, as per government spending records. An AP representative explained that various administrations have contracted for its non-partisan journalism, akin to many news organizations around the globe that engage in such arrangements.
Experts in foreign aid note that it is not uncommon for new administrations to reevaluate funding allocations to ensure alignment with their prevailing values. “It is entirely typical for a new administration to assess how aid is distributed based on its policy priorities; elections carry consequences,” Bonnifield remarked. Nonetheless, she noted that the current discourse around USAID funding reflects a significant misunderstanding of the agency’s operations.
Roberts criticized the current administration’s method, dubbing it a “shoot now, ask questions later” approach. He suggested that this escalation of shaky funding figures and incendiary claims hampers rational discussions concerning USAID’s objectives and the overall purpose of foreign aid. Both Bonnifield and Roberts concurred on the need for in-depth analysis to fairly evaluate whether any wasteful or inappropriate expenditures exist, independent of political biases.
For over six decades, USAID has stood as an independent agency delivering humanitarian and developmental assistance globally. According to its latest annual report, the agency continues its work across more than 100 countries, with key focus areas that include global health promotion, humanitarian aid provision, stability support, innovation and partnership facilitation, and empowering women and girls.
