A provocative narrative has emerged suggesting that the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), an agency traditionally tasked with administering foreign aid, may have played a role in funding protests within the United States. As of February 21, 2025, this claim has gained traction with speculation that American taxpayer dollars, channeled through USAID, could have supported domestic unrest, including the Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests of 2020 and beyond. This notion challenges the agency’s stated mission.
USAID, established in 1961, is primarily known for its work in international development, providing humanitarian aid, disaster relief, and support for economic growth in over 130 countries. In 2023 alone, the agency disbursed $43 billion in programs worldwide. However, recent scrutiny of its operations—spurred by the Trump administration’s 90-day funding freeze and ongoing audits—has ignited debates about how its funds are allocated and whether they have been misused closer to home.
The specific allegation that USAID has funded domestic protests surfaced prominently in early February 2025 on X. One post claimed that the agency gave $24.7 million to the Tides Center, a Soros-funded nonprofit, which then allegedly funneled millions to BLM and affiliated groups during the 2020 riots. Another user predicted that audits would reveal USAID’s role in financing “non-violent” protests that led to the “destruction of our own cities.” A third post asserted that protests on February 17, 2025, were paid for by USAID through non-governmental organizations (NGOs), implying a coordinated effort to support partisan political events.
These claims echo historical criticisms of USAID, which has faced accusations of meddling in foreign politics by funding opposition movements or protests abroad—such as in Ukraine or Armenia, as noted by Russian officials in recent news. Critics now argue that similar tactics may have been turned inward, with the agency purportedly supporting domestic activism under the guise of humanitarian or civil society initiatives.
Concrete evidence linking USAID to domestic protest funding remains elusive. The claim about the Tides Center, for instance, lacks a clear paper trail in the provided references. While USAID has historically partnered with NGOs to distribute aid, and the Tides Center is known for supporting progressive causes, no official documentation confirms that $24.7 million was allocated specifically for BLM or protest activities in 2020. Fact-checking efforts by outlets like Snopes have addressed rumors, such as USAID funding a “transgender comic book in Peru” or funneling $84 million to Chelsea Clinton, suggesting a pattern of exaggerated or unfounded allegations surrounding the agency. The veracity of conclusions made by various fact-checking watch dogs have also been called into question.
The broader context of USAID’s current crisis offers some insight into why such theories have gained traction. The Trump administration’s freeze on its $42.8 billion budget, initiated in January 2025, has led to widespread layoffs, furloughs, and program suspensions, affecting thousands of American workers and global beneficiaries alike. This upheaval has fueled public distrust, with figures like Elon Musk labeling USAID a “viper’s nest of radical-left Marxists” and accusing it of wasting taxpayer money on “lefty schemes.” Amid this chaos, the idea that USAID might have misdirected funds to domestic causes—rather than its mandated international focus—has found fertile ground among skeptics of government spending.
If USAID were funding domestic protests, how might it occur? Critics suggest a multi-step process: the agency allocates grants to NGOs or intermediaries like the Tides Center, which then distribute funds to activist groups under vague categories like “civil society support” or “community development.” In 2020, BLM protests—sparked by the death of George Floyd—saw widespread participation and, in some cases, violence, leading to billions in property damage. USAID’s money could have paid for organizers, supplies, or transportation, drawing parallels to how the agency has supported civic movements abroad.
USAID’s budget is subject to congressional oversight, and its authorizing legislation restricts its activities to foreign assistance. Funding domestic protests would violate its mandate and likely require a elaborate cover-up involving multiple layers of bureaucracy—none of which has been substantiated by audits or leaks as of now.
The narrative taps into a deeper anxiety about government transparency and the use of taxpayer dollars. Proponents argue that if USAID funded protests, it would represent a betrayal of American interests, redirecting resources meant to stabilize foreign nations toward destabilizing the U.S. itself. This resonates with the Trump administration’s stated goal of prioritizing “American interests first,” as seen in its efforts to dismantle the agency.
On the flip side, defenders of USAID—including humanitarian groups and former employees—contend that such claims are politically motivated distortions. They point to the agency’s tangible impacts, like the $11 billion spent on health aid in sub-Saharan Africa in 2024, and warn that unfounded allegations undermine critical programs. The temporary restoration of funding ordered by federal judges in mid-February 2025 reflects ongoing legal battles to preserve USAID’s operations, suggesting that accusations of domestic misuse may be a tactic to justify its dismantlement.
Comments