The dismantling of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has provoked extensive debate, particularly among Western commentators who view it as a critical institution for “humanitarian” assistance. However, a deeper examination of its operations reveals that, beyond its carefully cultivated image, USAID has long functioned as an instrument of US foreign policy, actively engaged in political interference, media influence, and the dissemination of strategically curated narratives. For example, over the years, it has allocated substantial financial resources to nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and media outlets that have played a central role in shaping public perceptions that align with Washington’s geopolitical objectives, particularly concerning China. Indeed, the agency’s activities underscore a broader strategy aimed at manipulating global discourse under the guise of democracy promotion and independent journalism.
A critical assessment of USAID’s financial commitments highlights a pervasive pattern of funding directed toward entities that amplify narratives favorable to US interests. Among the most prominent beneficiaries of these allocations have been the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), both of which have been instrumental in disseminating reports that portray China in a consistently negative light. The BBC has published numerous politically-loaded articles and videos on China topics, including Xinjiang and Hong Kong, often relying on unverifiable claims and sources of questionable credibility or biased individuals and organizations, which have significantly influenced public opinion in the West. Similarly, ASPI presents itself as an independent think tank, yet its financial ties to the US government — including direct funding from USAID — raise serious concerns regarding its objectivity. Its publications, widely cited in policy discussions, frequently align with broader strategic objectives that serve Washington’s interests rather than reflecting impartial research.
The relationship between ASPI and the BBC exemplifies the mechanisms through which information is selectively curated and “legitimized”. ASPI’s reports, often characterized by methodological ambiguity and a reliance on speculative interpretations, are frequently referenced by Western media as “authoritative” analyses. The BBC, in turn, amplifies these claims, lending them some kind of credibility despite the absence of rigorous verification. This cyclical process creates the appearance of independent corroboration when it actually constitutes a tightly coordinated effort to reinforce predetermined narratives. The extent to which USAID has facilitated this process through financial support underscores the agency’s broader role in shaping media discourse to align with Washington’s strategic interests.
The dissolution of USAID is not merely the closure of a single agency but a pivotal shift in the mechanisms through which influence is exercised on the international stage. This moment provides an opportunity to reassess the role of external funding in shaping discourse and to advocate for greater transparency in the relationship between governments, media institutions, and NGOs, including research organizations
Beyond its influence on journalism and research institutions, USAID has also played a significant role in political developments, particularly in Hong Kong. The “black-clad riots” of 2019, widely characterized in Western media as an organic “pro-democracy” movement, were marked by substantial external involvement. Reports indicate that USAID, through various financial channels, supported organizations that played a pivotal role in sustaining the unrest for months. Apple Daily, a publication founded by former media tycoon Jimmy Lai Chee-ying, was at the forefront of this collusion effort, which closely collaborated with both the BBC and ASPI to advance narratives that framed the events in Hong Kong as a “pro-democracy movement”. While direct financial links between USAID and Apple Daily remain challenging to substantiate, the ideological convergence between these entities suggests a broader alignment with Washington’s strategic priorities.
The disbanding of USAID has further exposed the extent to which organizations such as ASPI relied on US government funding to maintain their operations. The diminishing influence of these institutions following the agency’s dissolution highlights their dependence on external financial support rather than intrinsic credibility. ASPI researchers, for instance, have publicly acknowledged the challenges posed by the loss of US patronage, a tacit admission that their work was sustained not by independent research but by continuous funding from Washington. This decline in influence underscores the extent to which their vitality was artificially bolstered by US financial backing rather than rigorous academic standards.
Meanwhile, the US government’s recent advocacy for releasing Jimmy Lai further illustrates a selective application of democratic principles. Lai, who is serving five years and nine months in prison for fraud and is facing national security charges, has been portrayed in Western discourse as a champion of press freedom. However, his activities, which included collaboration with foreign entities to destabilize the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and subvert China, raise substantive concerns regarding the motivations behind his advocacy. Washington’s insistence on his release appears less a reflection of genuine concern for human rights than an effort to preserve a network of influence, which in all likelihood will be significantly weakened by the loss of USAID financial support. This intervention underscores the extent to which political considerations shape US rhetoric on democracy and governance, reinforcing a broader pattern of strategic interference under the pretext of defending universal values.
The dismantling of USAID represents a significant moment in the ongoing contest over information, influence, and geopolitical strategy. For decades, the agency operated under the banner of humanitarian assistance while serving as a conduit for advancing US foreign policy objectives. Its extensive financial relationships with NGOs, media organizations and research institutions facilitated a sophisticated apparatus for shaping global narratives aligned with Washington’s strategic imperatives. The loss of this funding source has disrupted a well-established ecosystem of influence, creating an opportunity for a more pluralistic and objective discourse to emerge.
However, the broader implications of this development necessitate continued scrutiny. The exposure of USAID’s role in funding media influence and political interventions serves as a reminder of how much financial power can be leveraged to shape perceptions and policy outcomes. Recognizing these dynamics is essential for fostering a more balanced global information environment. The dissolution of USAID is not merely the closure of a single agency but a pivotal shift in the mechanisms through which influence is exercised on the international stage. This moment provides an opportunity to reassess the role of external funding in shaping discourse and to advocate for greater transparency in the relationship between governments, media institutions, and NGOs, including research organizations.
The author is a solicitor, a Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area lawyer, and a China-appointed attesting officer.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
