The Donald Trump administration’s crackdown on the controversial United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has sent shock waves worldwide. New discoveries about USAID’s past involvement in regime change operations worldwide, efforts to undermine leaders disliked by left-liberals, and funding to terrorist outfits, have raised questions about the agency’s nefarious agenda.
For those who are unaware, USAID is allegedly an independent agency of the US government. Its stated main task was to administer civilian foreign aid and development assistance. This deep-state agency was founded in 1961 by then-President of the United States, John F Kennedy. USAID’s stated mission focused on promoting economic growth, supporting disaster relief, and fostering democratic governance globally. However, the mission remained intact only on paper.
Over the years, USAID managed significant budgets to drive its initiatives, which included toppling governments, establishing favourable regimes, creating hostile environments for political leaders left-liberals dislike, and more. Interestingly, a large chunk of US taxpayers’ money was used for these activities. In the 2023 fiscal year alone, the agency oversaw over $40 billion in appropriations, making up more than a third of the funds allocated to the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and related programs.
As Donald Trump took over the Oval Office in the White House for the second time this January, several major changes were made in the way the US government operates. Several agencies are either being shut down or drastically downsized, including USAID. Several accusations have been made by Elon Musk, the billionaire who is part of the Trump administration and is overseeing the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). In a recent statement on X, he said that USAID had used US taxpayers’ dollars to fund bioweapons research labs abroad, and the COVID pandemic was the consequence of one such research project.
Musk had posted the above message in response to a post claiming that USAID had collaborated with Peter Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance on the PREDICT program, which identified 1,200 new viruses, trained 5,000 people globally in disease detection, and enhanced 60 research labs.
The Atlantic Council and the Global Push for Digital Censorship
Before understanding what the Atlantic Council is, it is essential to understand how it has set the stage in global censorship efforts. Messaging platforms such as WhatsApp and Telegram have always been in the cross-hair of the censorship industry, as information flows freely on these platforms without much intervention from the so-called fact-checking institutes. Such information can even influence the results of elections.
The label of “WhatsApp University” is often used in India whenever some uncomfortable fact emerges against the opposition, especially when it is promoted by those who support the ruling party. There is misinformation and disinformation at play on messaging apps. Specifically targeting only one side and turning a blind eye to misinformation from the other side is what “fact-checkers” have been doing. We’ll come to the reason for this later.
Setting the groundwork for censorship
The seeds of text message censorship were sown in the aftermath of Bolsonaro’s win in Brazil. In June 2019, the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRLab) hosted an #ElectionWatch panel at its global disinformation summit in London, explicitly targeting Brazilian populist voter sentiment expressed through private messaging apps. The Council’s partnership with Facebook in May 2018, which aimed to “counter disinformation,” only intensified its role in monitoring and influencing online narratives worldwide.
By the summer of 2019, the Atlantic Council’s taxpayer-funded censorship coordinators had started focusing on private messaging apps in countries like Brazil and India. Their reasoning? Cultural norms in these countries that emphasise trust in family were seen as undermining faith in institutions. This trust in familial communication was flagged by digital speech monitors as a potential threat to democracy, justifying the push for increased scrutiny and control over private conversations.
The role of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED)
Alongside the Atlantic Council, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) has played a significant role in coordinating global internet censorship efforts. Founded in 1983, NED has long been criticised as a semi-covert facilitator of US-backed coups, with a 1991 Washington Post article famously describing it as a “privatised branch of the CIA.” NED’s co-founder, Allen Weinstein, admitted, “A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.”
In recent years, NED has pivoted towards orchestrating global internet censorship practices under the guise of “countering disinformation.” In 2022, US taxpayers, via USAID, funded a NED operations manual for coordinating digital speech crackdowns, available publicly at counteringdisinformation.org. Promotional materials, co-produced by USAID and NED, highlighted their collaborative efforts in regulating online speech through the Consortium for Elections and Political Process Strengthening (CEPPS).
PM Modi – A major political target of disinformation campaigns
While Trump’s crackdown on the agency continues, experts on several occasions raised concerns about USAID’s involvement in Indian politics and how it was trying to influence elections against Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The targeting of PM Modi has been meticulously designed by several agencies, organisations, and individuals, as his being in power is not favourable to their agenda.
In July 2022, Mike Benz, Executive Director of the Foundation for Freedom Online, wrote a detailed article on how USAID and other government organisations funded censorship initiatives in Brazil via Atlantic Council. The article indicated that US tax dollars, through agencies like USAID, the State Department, and the National Endowment for Democracy, had financed efforts to monitor and suppress private communications on encrypted messaging platforms such as WhatsApp and Telegram. These initiatives aimed to counter “disinformation” by scrutinising private messages, thereby influencing political discourse and potentially affecting electoral outcomes.
Interestingly, Benz shared videos of an event by the Atlantic Council where a panel discussed how to “coordinate digital speech bans in response to what were considered two undesirable electoral outcomes in 2018: the rise of Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, and the consolidation of voter support for Narendra Modi in India.”
In the clip shared, Fergus Bell, a journalist and media innovator, “flagged” the “danger of family WhatsApp groups” in India because people in India tend to trust their own family members over so-called “fact-checkers.” Benz pointed out that Bell had created a global media network to “coordinate social media censorship in target countries all over the world through an alliance of privileged fact-checkers and vetted mainstream media journalists.”
During the discussion, Fergus Bell highlighted the challenges of fact-checking in India, particularly during elections. He pointed out, “The danger of family WhatsApp groups in India is significant because people tend to trust their family members over fact-checkers.” Bell reflected on his experiences working on elections in both Indonesia and India, noting the complexities posed by encrypted messaging platforms like WhatsApp.
He emphasised how these private communication channels shape political discourse, making it difficult to “counter misinformation,” especially narratives that favour the ruling party, BJP. Bell suggested that this trust in personal networks creates an environment where official fact-checking efforts struggle to gain traction.
The event took place after the 2019 Lok Sabha elections. Here, while Bell pointed out that it was difficult to counter narratives in favour of the ruling party, BJP, it is clear that his remarks, though framed as “difficulty in fighting misinformation,” reflected the discontent of individuals like him who were disheartened by their failure to counter narratives favouring PM Modi.
In August 2024, Benz posted an almost 49-minute-long clip of a live stream where he talked in detail about the censorship on social media, with the Atlantic Council being a crucial player in it. He mentioned the article written by him. He pointed out that not only USAID but other government arms, such as the State Department and others, were paying annually to the Atlantic Council, which trains journalists from Reuters, The New York Times, and other publications to flag certain information in Trump’s social media posts.
Take this 45 mins of your life now to watch this segment from last week's stream for my X subscribers and you will never have to wonder that question ever again. https://t.co/eYK8ftEwEP pic.twitter.com/xQOi8BMJAh
— Mike Benz (@MikeBenzCyber) August 30, 2024
He pointed out that the Atlantic Council has seven CIA directors on its board. He said, “A lot of people don’t know that seven of the top chiefs of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) are still alive, let alone all concentrated together on the board of a single institution promoting worldwide social media censorship on politicians like Donald Trump, Yair Bolsonaro, Modi in India, and Marine Le Pen in France.”
What is Atlantic Council
The Atlantic Council is a Washington, DC-based think tank. It primarily focuses on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), transatlantic relations, and global affairs. It has 16 different centres and programs worldwide. Atlantic Council claims to conduct research and provide policy recommendations on topics such as climate change, economic development, democracy advocacy, and security.
Founded in 1961 by a group of former US government officials, including Secretaries of State Dean Acheson and Christian Herter, alongside other policymakers, Atlantic Council’s goal was to strengthen US-European relations following the formation of NATO in 1949. Furthermore, it aimed at promoting active US engagement in international politics. Over time, the Council expanded its influence and established itself as a key player in transatlantic policy discussions.
Initially, its focus was concentrated around public opinion research about NATO and international alliances. In the 1970s, it began publishing essays and books advocating US foreign interventionism. By the 1980s, it introduced training programs for political leaders and hosted high-profile conferences attended by figures like Ronald Reagan and Colin Powell. After the Soviet Union collapsed in the 1990s, its focus shifted to European integration, nuclear policy, and conflicts in the Balkans. Over the years, it has increasingly positioned itself as a thought leader on global governance and digital policy.
What Atlantic Council Does
The Atlantic Council operates through various policy-focused centres that research and publish reports on global issues. Some of its key centres include:
- Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security – Focuses on intelligence and diplomatic strategies.
- Adrienne Arsht-Rockefeller Foundation Resilience Center – Works on climate change policies.
- GeoEconomics Center – Researches global economic trends.
- Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRLab) – Claims to combat misinformation and digital threats.
- Global Energy Center – Studies renewable energy policies.
- Eurasia Center and Europe Center – Promote democratic governance in Eastern Europe.
- South Asia Center – Encourages U.S. diplomatic engagement in Asia.
Funding For The Council
The Atlantic Council is heavily funded by the U.S. government and private entities. Its funding also includes contributions from foreign governments, corporate donors, and philanthropic foundations. It claims to maintain intellectual independence, but its funding sources raise questions about potential influence over its research and policy recommendations.
US Government Funding
The Atlantic Council receives annual funding from US taxpayers through agencies such as:
- Department of State and Department of Defense – Contributed over $500,000 each in 2021.
- USAID and Department of Energy – Each donated between $250,000 and $500,000 in 2021.
Other US government donors include the Environmental Protection Agency, US Air Force, US Marine Corps, US Navy, and the US Embassy in Chile.
A report by the Quincy Institute in 2025 revealed that the Atlantic Council had received over $8 million from the US government since 2019, ranking it among the top government-funded think tanks.
Other Funding
Beyond U.S. government support, the Atlantic Council receives substantial funding from foreign governments, corporations, and private donors:
- Foreign Governments – The Council received $20.8 million from foreign governments since 2019, making it the top recipient of foreign funding among U.S. think tanks.
- Major Donors – Entities such as the UAE Embassy, British Foreign Commonwealth Office, Facebook, Goldman Sachs, and the Rockefeller Foundation have each contributed at least $1 million in recent years.
- Corporate and Philanthropic Backers – Other donors include Chevron, Google, Raytheon, Pfizer, and Open Society Foundations.
Both Rockefeller Foundation and Open Society Foundations being its backers raise serious concerns. OSF, is George Soros’s initiative and is involved in disruptions in governments in several countries including India.
According to its 2022-2023 annual report, the Atlantic Council’s revenue increased from $30 million in 2016 to $70 million in 2022, raising concerns about the extent of its influence and its financial dependencies.
Yearly Funding Breakdown
2019
In 2019, the Atlantic Council received $21.7 million in grants and donations. Its largest contributors included Adrienne Arsht, Facebook, Goldman Sachs, the Rockefeller Foundation, the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and the UAE Embassy. Other notable donors included Chevron, Google, and major defence contractors like Raytheon.
2020
In 2020, top contributors included philanthropist Adrienne Arsht and Goldman Sachs executive John FW Rogers, each donating at least $1 million. Other major donors included Crescent Petroleum, Google, PKO Bank Polski, and the US Department of State. Additionally, organisations such as Chevron, Open Society Policy Center, and the German Federal Foreign Office contributed significant amounts.
2021
In 2021, the Atlantic Council received major donations from the Charles Koch Foundation, Amazon, and Verizon. Other notable contributors included Google, Pfizer, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Council’s growing corporate and government-backed funding sources continued to raise questions about its claimed intellectual independence.
2023
By 2023, the Council’s funding continued to surge, with major donors including Craig Newmark Philanthropies, the UAE Embassy, Goldman Sachs, Meta, and the US Department of Defense. Other donors included Abu Dhabi National Oil Company, Chevron, ExxonMobil, and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, further cementing its deep ties with corporate and governmental entities worldwide.
This extensive funding history raises concerns about the Atlantic Council’s impartiality, particularly given its strong advocacy for US foreign policy interests and its increasing role in shaping digital governance narratives globally.
What is DFRLab
Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRLab), an Atlantic Council initiative, had speakers like Luiza Bandeira, Research Assistant, DFRLab (Latin America), Fergus Bell, Founder, Pop-up Newsroom Karen Rebelo, Deputy Editor, BOOM Live (India) Chris Roper, Deputy CEO, Code for Africa (South Africa).
The Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRLab) at the Atlantic Council was established in 2016. It claims to focus on combating disinformation, analysing digital ecosystems, and promoting digital rights and democracy. On its website, It presents itself as a leader in open-source research on online harms, foreign interference, and platform policies, while also asserting its role in setting research standards and training others globally in digital investigation techniques.
DFRLab claims that it collaborates with governments, tech companies, media, and civil society to craft policy recommendations, supposedly to strengthen democratic institutions and foster digital resilience. However, their actions, impact and impartiality deserve deeper scrutiny.
USAID’s selective approach to disinformation – media silence on friendly narratives
In February 2021, USAID released a document titled Center of Excellence on Democracy, Human Rights and Governance – Disinformation Primer. It was released for internal use. USAID’s disinformation strategy lies in its selective approach to misinformation. While it actively promotes scrutiny and censorship of narratives opposing its interests, the document categorically calls for turning a blind eye to misleading claims from its allies. The document provides insight into the double standard of USAID, specifically in its recommendations for tackling misinformation.
Exposing “alternative” narratives while ignoring mainstream disinformation
USAID’s document discusses the need to “expose disinformation messages” and promote coordinated responses by media organisations, but its approach primarily targets non-mainstream media sources. According to the document, “Discussions on disinformation and misinformation often revolve around assumptions of state actors driving the issue. However, problematic information more regularly originates from networks of alternative sites and anonymous individuals who have created their own ‘alt-media’ online spaces.”
The narrative established in the document positions alternative media as the primary source of disinformation. It diverts attention away from misinformation spread by mainstream, corporate, and associate media outlets. This selective targeting ensures that media narratives aligned with USAID’s objectives remain unchecked.
Encouraging strategic silence on certain narratives
The document also explicitly advises media organisations to adopt “strategic silence” when handling certain types of misinformation. It notes, “Media organisations should collaborate and agree on policies for strategic silence.” This raises concerns about who decides which narratives deserve exposure and which ones should be ignored. By selectively ignoring misinformation from favoured groups while aggressively fact-checking opposition voices, USAID effectively creates an information monopoly.
Fact-checking as a political tool
USAID promoted the use of fact-checking to shape public opinion. At the same time, it acknowledged that fact-checking is not always an unbiased process. The document noted that fact-checking efforts are often mobilised by political campaigns or social movements. They can also identify trends and help trigger an institutional response by regulators, courts, or legislators. By linking fact-checking efforts to political and regulatory action, USAID ensured that disinformation countermeasures functioned as a political tool rather than an objective truth-seeking mechanism.
Targeting the ruling government in India
It is evident that the US deep state has attempted to influence democratic processes in India. When the coordinated efforts of USAID, the Atlantic Council, and their affiliate organisations are examined, it is clear that they have systematically targeted private messaging platforms like WhatsApp and Telegram—critical tools for political discourse in India, especially in favour of the ruling party.
The Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRLab), funded by US taxpayers through USAID and other federal agencies, focused on India in its 2019 disinformation summit. Fergus Bell, a key figure at this summit, flagged the so-called “danger of family WhatsApp groups,” lamenting that Indians trust their family members over ‘official’ fact-checkers. This trust in familial communication was framed as a threat to democracy, justifying increased scrutiny of private messages, particularly those supportive of the ruling BJP and Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
Furthermore, USAID’s Disinformation Primer encouraged strategic silence when addressing misinformation from groups aligned with their agenda, while aggressively flagging narratives that went against their interests—in India’s case, from Modi supporters.
Not to forget, In March 2023, OpIndia, in its extensive coverage of Twitter Files, revealed how Atlantic Council’s DFR Lab wanted to censor Twitter handles associated with BJP.
An analyst named Andy Carvin wrote to top Twitter executives on June 8, 2021, “Hi guys. Attached you will find… around 40k Twitter accounts that our researchers suspect are engaging in inauthentic behaviour… and Hindu nationalism more broadly.”
The DFR Lab analyst flagged over 40,000 accounts, claiming that they were paid employees/ unpaid volunteer’s of India’s largest party, namely, the BJP.
Contrary to the wishes of the DFR Lab, the top Twitter executives refused to act on the flagged Twitter accounts. Yoel Roth, the former Global Head of Trust & Safety at Twitter, noted, “I spot-checked a number of these accounts, and virtually all appear to be real people.”
When OpIndia examined the list, we found at least 66 prominent and verified Indian Twitter handles were sent by US-funded Digital Forensic Research (DFR) Lab to the top executives of the social media giant for censorship.
The reason cited by the organisation was that they were connected to the BJP and the cause of Hindu Nationalism. The names included those of Kapil Mishra, Kuljeet Singh Chahal, Naveen Kumar Jindal, Suresh Nakhua and Tajinder Pal Singh Bagga.
Digging deeper into the Atlantic Council’s functioning has revealed that they trained journalists from major media outlets and embedded so-called fact-checkers aiming to suppress narratives that contributed to vote consolidation for PM Modi, especially during the 2019 Lok Sabha Elections. It is evident that such organisations, particularly those with links to Soros, would have worked during the 2024 Lok Sabha Elections as well to ensure BJP’s defeat. Going by the results, it is safer to say that they might have succeeded to some extent.
