In early 2025, the Trump administration, with backing from Elon Musk, moved to dismantle USAID, the U.S. government’s key agency for overseas development. Recent revelations show that the agency has been using foreign aid for political ends—manipulating NGOs, media, and journalists to support groups aligned with U.S. interests and destabilise governments opposed to U.S. policies.
Why did they do this?
My hypothesis is that this is part of an ongoing U.S. strategy since 1991 to secure its prosperity and security by reshaping the world in its image. This strategy, while unethical, is clever. Therefore, I have used Wardley Mapping (Creative Commons 4.0) to show how I see this strategy more clearly. This is part of a series using Wardley Maps to understand the moves that rivals are making so you can counter their strategies with smarter moves of your own.
Why did they do this?
My hypothesis is that this is part of an ongoing U.S. strategy since 1991 to secure its prosperity and security by reshaping the world in its image. This strategy, while unethical, is clever. Therefore, I have used Wardley Mapping (Creative Commons 4.0) to show how I see this strategy more clearly. This is part of a series using Wardley Maps to understand the moves that rivals are making so you can counter their strategies with smarter moves of your own.
Notes to map
- To secure its prosperity and national security the United States Government (USG) appears to want to remake the world in its image.
- To achieve this it has a strategy of ’narrative construction’ — that portrays itself in a favourable light (which all nations do) but, at the same time, portrays rivals in a less favourable light to increase pressure on them.
- The USG ‘chooses narratives’ (axis of evil, democracies v autocracies) — dividing the world into good guys and bad guys based on current strategic imperatives (who to contain, who to extend, who to overthrow).
- However, in a world of global travel and digit connectivity many people can draw their own conclusions. Therefore, the USG needs ‘evidence’ to back up their chosen narratives.
- ‘Independent civil rights agencies’ have spent decades building reputations fighting injustices. But no country is perfect and the choice about which country should be in the spotlight next can be politically motivated.
- Independent agencies need ‘funding’ and USAID is a major funding source. This may not influence short-term decisions but, over time, strategically important agencies will be infiltrated by activists for a higher cause (e.g. spreading the American way). As such people rise through the ranks the focus of the agency can shift in ways favourable to their main donors.
- In regions where the USG requires immediate influence ‘astroturf agencies’ are created and funded to push the narrative (e.g. Georgia, where USAID spent over $40million trying to influence its 2024 general election).
- However, these new entities may lack ‘credibility’. This deficit in legitimacy has prompted the USG, through USAID, to develop sophisticated methods of building institutional authority and public trust for these organisations.
- Many ‘traditional media’ outlets, not only in the US but also abroad (e.g. the BBC) receive regular funding from USAID and lend their credibility to USAID’s astroturfed agencies as reliable sources of evidence for what’s happening in foreign locations where they often have only a part-time correspondent on the ground. This is not journalism, but state-sponsored activism and the extent to which this negatively influences the impartiality of traditional media should be investigated — but, by whom?
- Traditional media, facing financial constraints (making it susceptible to USAID funding or takeovers by oligarchs) lack resources for investigate journalism. Consequently, they rely on ‘research’ from experts, often accepting their statements without any scrutiny as they are considered authoritative and do not need to be doubled-sourced, let alone questioned.
- Yet research itself relies on ‘academics’ whose work is often funded by USAID, which preferentially supports research which aligns with the chosen narratives. Manny academics face a stark choice — produce research that supports the narrative or risk losing finding. This systematic influence over knowledge production potentially has one of the most damaging effects on society, as research priorities and conclusions are increasingly shaped by unaccountable forces..
- This brings us to the second part of the USG strategy — ‘narrative enforcement’. While foreign governments and independent voices can challenge these narratives through digital platforms and global networks, the USG has developed sophisticated countermeasures.
- The USG pre-emptively shapes discourse through 'think tanks', which have proliferated with USAID funding in recent decades. Lucrative appointments are dangled in front of all narrative enforcers — from prime ministers and ministers to journalists and military personnel — as incentives. These prestigious voices are then amplified by traditional media, reinforcing the narratives through repetition and appeals to authority.
- Many ‘journalists’ too have become tools of USAID funding, some unwittingly, other willingly so. Journalists need evidence for stories and tap into the ecosystem we’ve described above that has been designed to support the narratives chosen by the USG. As well-paid jobs in traditional media decline (especially for independent voices) many accept USAID funding, often because they believe the narratives this long-standing manipulation of the public discourse by the USG has created.
- One of the internet's early promises was the emergence of genuinely 'independent media' (though this space has become increasingly populated by USAID-backed outlets masquerading as independent voices).
- However, the reliance of independent media on ‘social media platforms’ owned by oligarchs to reach audiences has a critical weakness.
- ‘Permission to play’ in the lucrative US market is set by the USG (witness the threats to ban TikTok in late 2024). This has led to independent media being de-monetised and banned for daring to voice unapproved narratives (Palestine genocide, Russian victory in Ukraine, Chinese advances in AI) — showing that what the USG can’t do with funding, it will do with force.
How to counter this strategy:
At the moment, we can heed Sun Tzu’s advice about not interfering with an enemy while they are making mistakes. However, it's certain that these moves are part of another strategy at play. Understanding that would require mapping out the moves the Trump administration might be making to “Make America Great Again” (MAGA). That’s an interesting exercise, but one for another time.