🧵THREAD: I dug up archived USAID-funded Internews Annual Reports.
Here’s how this nonprofit played a crucial role in regime change across Eastern Europe in service of NATO expansion—then turned its tactics inward, calling for censorship in the West.
A deep dive👇
1/ Internews, heavily funded by USAID ($470M), spent decades building media networks, training journalists, and promoting “free speech” in former Soviet states.
But their mission wasn’t neutral. It was about shaping narratives to support NATO expansion.
Let’s start in 2001. ⬇️
2/ The 2001 Internews Annual Report states:
"Internews is one of the more successful agents of change in the former Soviet Union." - The Washington Post
They worked to establish independent media in Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, Serbia, and beyond—fueling the decline of Moscow’s influence.
3/ Internews wasn’t just promoting “free press.” Their own documents admit:
"INTERNEWS does not just produce television and radio shows... it is more interested in using broadcast media as a lever to effect social and political transformation."
Translation: Regime change.
4/ In the 1990s, Internews partnered with the Soros Foundation to fund media organizations in post-Soviet nations, playing a pivotal role in the color revolutions of the 2000s in Serbia, Georgia, and Ukraine.
Their goal? To steer these countries toward NATO and Western control.
5/ During Georgia’s Rose Revolution, Internews funded and trained journalists at Rustavi-2 TV, the leading channel driving the uprising.
"Media was very good at informing the public about what was going on, and it had a huge role in calling people onto the streets." – Marc Behrendt, former Internews director for Georgia
Internews Annual Report 2004:
"A NON-VIOLENT uprising in November of 2003 led to the resignation of the president of Georgia in what became known as the “Rose Revolution.” One of the star players in this historic event was the gutsy, independent television station Rustavi2. As the only broadcaster willing to stand up to the government and inform the public about vote fraud and the protests that followed, Rustavi2 helped catalyze the mass mobilization of the population."
"Since starting work in Georgia in 1994, Internews has provided extensive support to Rustavi-2, including training staff in investigative journalism and news reporting skills, and providing management, technical, and legal advice. When the government unsuccessfully tried to shut down the station in 1995 and again in 1996, Internews Georgia organized local and international campaigns in support of the station."
"In July of 2004, Rustavi-2 became an associate member of Internews International."
6/ By 2003, in Ukraine, Internews had:
▪️ Conducted 220 media training programs
▪️ Trained over 2,800 journalists
▪️ Produced 220+ TV programs & 1,000+ radio programs
▪️ Funded Telekritika, an online outlet central to the 2004 Orange Revolution
The result? A Western-aligned Ukraine.
7/ By 2005, Internews proudly stated they produced Proyav Chasu, one of Ukraine’s most popular TV programs, which "highlighted popular demonstrations against election fraud" during the Orange Revolution.
They weren’t just reporting the revolution. They were fueling it.
8/ By 2007, Internews had:
▪️ Trained 60,000 journalists worldwide
▪️ Established 2,500+ independent media outlets
▪️ Reached an audience of nearly 1 BILLION people
▪️ Advocated for media laws in 21 countries
▪️ Operated in 70 countries with offices in 42 cities
This was media influence at an unprecedented scale.
9/ The Washington Post described them as:
"One of the more successful agents of change in the former Soviet Union."
But was this really about “democracy”? Or about advancing U.S. and NATO geopolitical goals through information warfare?
10/ Let’s step back to their origins:
🔹 In the 1980s, Internews helped facilitate U.S.-Soviet spacebridges—live, uncensored TV dialogues during the Cold War.
🔹 By the 1990s, they pivoted to supporting U.S. funded media in post-Soviet states to counter Moscow’s narrative.
11/ Internews even admitted its role in paving the way for NATO:
In May 1990, Internews co-sponsored a meeting to discuss “the future architecture of Europe, including the question of allowing a unified Germany into NATO.”
This meeting, held at Crottorf Castle, was organized with the Soros-funded Institute for East-West Studies.
12/ Fast forward to 2016.
🔹 After Trump’s election & Brexit, Internews pivoted.
🔹 The same NGO that once championed free speech as a weapon against foreign governments began calling free speech online dangerous and pushed for censorship in the West.
🔹 Internews CEO Jeanne Bourgault pushed for a global advertising "exclusion list" to censor "disinformation" at the World Economic Forum.
This coincided with the 𝕏 advertising boycott, targeting Elon Musk's platform, which had been at the forefront of defending free speech online.
13/ Internews—now collaborating with the USAID-funded World Economic Forum—shifted its focus to advertising boycotts to control online discourse.
What was once used to overthrow foreign governments was now turned against American citizens.
Their new narrative?
The internet must be policed to stop “misinformation” and “disinformation.”
The same information warfare they used abroad was now turned inward—targeting political dissidents, alternative media, and anyone challenging establishment narratives.
They didn’t stop with media manipulation abroad. They brought those tactics home.
14/ This raises critical questions:
▪️ Did USAID-Internews’ regime change efforts actually help the people in these countries or the American people?
▪️ Or did they serve NATO expansion, lucrative defense contracts, and Western corporate interests at the expense of the people?
Because when you look at the results, it’s clear:
▪️ Russia and China grew closer, accelerating a multipolar world.
▪️ Ukraine became a battleground between Western interests and Russia, devastating the country, and risking a nuclear war.
▪️ Eastern European nations were pulled into NATO and EU structures, often at the cost of their own sovereignty.
▪️ American taxpayers funded this, but never saw any direct benefit—only endless wars and skyrocketing military spending.
16/ The irony is staggering.
Internews was founded during the Cold War to foster open dialogue between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.
It was meant to reduce hostilities between East and West.
Instead, USAID and Western elites transformed it into a propaganda machine for NATO expansion, which ignited the second Cold War.
17/ But here’s where it gets worse.
It’s bad enough that USAID-funded media manipulation helped expand NATO, escalate global tensions, and contribute to war.
But after Trump and Brexit, when this same public-private partnership turned inward—censoring political opposition and online free speech in the West—it lost all legitimacy.
▪️ Why should American taxpayers fund organizations calling for the censorship of American taxpayers?
▪️ Why is a foreign-focused regime change machine now deciding what Americans can and cannot say online?
18/ The reality is, USAID didn’t just fund foreign interventions.
They helped create a global information control apparatus—one that can be turned on any population at any time.
What started in Serbia, Georgia, and Ukraine came home to target Brexit supporters, MAGA voters, and dissenting voices on 𝕏.
First, they “protected democracy” abroad.
Then, they “protected democracy” by censoring you.
19/ The final question:
Who has really benefited from USAID funding Internews across Eastern Europe?
▪️ The people in these countries?
▪️ American taxpayers?
▪️ Or NATO, the defense contractors, and Western elites?
At what point do Americans start questioning why they’re funding this?
Because the USAID bill? It exceeds $40 billion per year—funding not just foreign regime change and domestic censorship, but also the Wuhan lab, the World Economic Forum, and the reignition of the Cold War.
And the costs keep rising.
20/ Archived 2006 Internews Website:
"Free Media Lays Groundwork for Orange Revolution"
"Internews Ukraine Enters Its Second Decade on a Wave of Success"
22/ Internews-Kyiv Post Archive 2006: U.S. to keep providing aid to Ukrainian media
"U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine John Herbst told a conference in Kyiv April 10 that the U.S. will allocate $2.3 million to support the growth of objective sources of news in Ukraine in 2006.
Herbst credited the authorities who came to power on the crest of Ukraine’s 2004 Orange Revolution, noting that journalists are no longer being killed, and law-enforcement agencies aren’t harassing them anymore.
The U.S. will continue funding the development of Internet sites and special reports on economic and social subjects, Herbst said.
The Kyiv branch of Internews, a U.S.-based non-governmental organization, and Ukraine’s Center for Ukrainian Reform Education, have received multi-million-dollar grants from USAID over several years.
Internews is mostly involved in providing things like training for journalists, media lawyers and managers, plus legal aid and legislative assistance.
This training and assistance is implemented by Ukrainian partner organizations like Kyiv NGO Telekritika.
Telekritika, which offers a website and monthly journal, analyzes media and conducts sociological surveys, radio shows and roundtables on media issues.
Supported primarily by Internews, as well as the U.S.-based National Endowment for Democracy, Telekritika receives an average of $100,000 a year in funding, said Natalya Ligacheva, who heads the NGO.
Internews also provides some grants for equipment purchases, production of radio and TV programs and the kind of monitoring and research work mentioned by Ambassador Herbst.
Ivantcheva said that grants, or direct financial assistance to media-related projects conducted by Ukrainian NGOs, are allocated on a competitive basis through the so-called Open Media Fund, which is jointly sponsored and implemented by the International Renaissance Foundation – a part of the Soros Foundations Network, founded and chaired by billionaire and philanthropist George Soros – and USAID-funded Internews.
The U.S. Embassy in Kyiv also awards grants directly, which are approved by a board.
USAID’s main focus is development of regional media, said Ivantcheva. Indirectly or directly, the agency supports 20-30 local radio and TV broadcasters and 15-16 local newspapers.
The Center for Ukrainian Reform Education, USAID’s second major recipient of funding, concentrates on public education and press events through its 25 regional centers."
🧵THREAD: In 2023, David Sacks, the incoming White House AI & Crypto Czar, described how the safety layer of 'ChatGPT is a Democrat':
"There is mounting evidence OpenAI's safety layer is very biased... If you thought trust and safety were bad under Vijaya or Yoel, wait until the AI does it."
@DavidSacks @amuse
#2 Friedberg and Sacks discuss prompt-hacking ChatGPT to jailbreak DAN (Do Anything Now):
"DAN was an attempt to jailbreak the true AI, and its jailkeepers were these trust and safety people at these AI companies."
@friedberg @DavidSacks
#3 @theallinpod discusses Open AI's transition from non-profit to for-profit:
"OpenAI got started because @elonmusk warned that AI was going to take over the world, and he donated a huge amount of money to set up a non-profit to promote AI ethics."
🚨THREAD: The All In Podcast highlights Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) initiative, a bold effort to overhaul the federal government by reducing inefficiency, bureaucracy, and wasteful spending.
The plan focuses on reducing government inefficiency, bureaucracy, and wasteful spending through bold, rapid reforms spearheaded by the DOGE team working with the Trump administration.
1. Objective:
• Eliminate unnecessary regulations.
• Reduce administrative roles and save taxpayers money.
• Streamline government operations.
• The approach aims for a "lean team of small government crusaders."
2. Key Actions:
• Target $500 billion in unauthorized annual federal expenditures.
• Reform procurement processes by auditing payments and suspending them temporarily during reviews.
• Use executive actions based on existing legislation rather than passing new laws.
• Leverage two Supreme Court rulings (West Virginia v. EPA and Loper Bright v. Raimondo) to challenge and pause excessive regulations exceeding Congressional authority.
3. Methodology:
• Develop software-assisted tools and expert legal analysis to identify regulations for immediate suspension.
• Introduce accountability measures and create a leaderboard to track progress.
4. Challenges:
• The team has roughly 18 months to implement changes before midterm political pressures intensify.
• Strong pushback and litigation are expected, making fast and decisive action critical.
• The plan faces politicization despite its focus on efficiency and fairness to taxpayers.
5. Broader Context:
• The goal is to address the U.S. "debt death spiral" caused by decades of inefficiency and waste.
• Advocates argue these reforms are essential for long-term economic sustainability and should not be politicized. They emphasize the fairness and necessity of cutting wasteful spending for the country's future.
@friedberg: "What frustrates me is that everything they’re proposing seems obvious and right. I don’t understand how these points could be politicized. Forget the party, the individuals, or how we got here—this federal government needs to be run more efficiently. Wasteful spending, bureaucracy, and mismanagement are a tax on every one of us, our children, and our future. It needs to be fixed."
2) @DavidSacks highlights key reasons to be optimistic about the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) initiative led by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy:
1. Elon Musk’s Leadership:
• Elon’s deep understanding of how excessive regulations harm businesses could drive meaningful reforms.
• His influence through X as its largest account holder and his established Get Out the Vote operation provides a platform to push the initiative forward.
• Elon’s track record shows it’s unwise to bet against him.
2. Vivek Ramaswamy’s Expertise:
• Vivek’s business acumen and legal background as a Harvard-trained lawyer bring critical strategic and legal expertise.
• His influence is evident in the team’s legal roadmap, which focuses on leveraging executive actions and the court system, minimizing reliance on Congress.
3. Party Consensus:
• The Wall Street Journal’s endorsement suggests DOGE is gaining support across both populist reformers and establishment conservatives.
• This broad support indicates potential for unity within the Republican Party despite challenges like resisting pork-barrel spending.
4. Strategic Framework:
• Drawing inspiration from successful models like the military base closure process, DOGE could create mechanisms for fair and balanced cuts to unnecessary regulations and roles.
Outlook:
Although the initiative may not achieve Milton Friedman-level reforms, the combination of Elon’s and Vivek’s leadership, a carefully designed legal strategy, and growing bipartisan support within the Republican Party creates strong potential for meaningful progress under the current GOP trifecta.
3) @chamath believes that by aggressively reducing bureaucracy, slashing excessive regulations, and implementing bold initiatives like tax simplification, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) could ignite an "economic renaissance."
1. Accountability and Symbolic Wins:
• By leveraging Elon Musk’s platforms, DOGE could create transparency and accountability in government spending.
• A powerful starting point would be halting vendor payments until thorough audits are conducted, addressing symbolic issues like overpriced goods, which builds trust and engages the public in government accountability.
2. The Regulatory Burden:
• California’s example demonstrates how excessive growth in government jobs correlates with a surge in regulations, stifling private sector growth and driving businesses away.
• Similarly, at the federal level, unchecked regulatory accumulation from federal agencies has created a massive drag on the U.S. economy. Regulations rarely expire, compounding the problem over time.
3. Economic Opportunity:
• The U.S. economy could grow significantly faster—potentially by 4-5% annually—if the regulatory burden were reduced. DOGE’s goal should be to eliminate unnecessary regulations entirely and rebuild from the ground up by reinstating only essential ones.
4. Tax Code Simplification:
• There’s public appetite for a flat tax system and a simpler tax code. Simplification could free up entrepreneurs and businesses to focus on innovation rather than navigating complex tax laws, as seen in Singapore’s efficient system.
• Simplifying the tax code could unlock significant economic growth, adding 1-2% to GDP.
5. Potential for Reform:
• By aggressively cutting bureaucracy and regulations and introducing bold changes like tax simplification, DOGE could spark an "economic renaissance," enabling innovation and growth while addressing systemic inefficiencies in government.
Conclusion:
The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, aims to streamline government, cut waste, and boost economic growth. With strong leadership, strategic planning, and bipartisan support, DOGE has the potential to deliver meaningful reforms and create a more efficient, accountable government.
🚨THREAD: Twelve Charts Show Why Donald Trump Won The 2024 Election
Inflation, Income, Net Worth, Taxes, Regulation, Immigration, War, Homelessness, Poverty, Afghanistan Withdrawal, Strategic Petroleum Reserve, Wealth Gap
@JDVance on @realDonaldTrump: "He was President, and take-home pay was going up faster than it had in 40 years. Inflation was low. The border was secure. And remember, they all said Trump was going to start World War III, and yet we had more peace around the globe than we had had in a generation in this country."
1) The Biden-Harris administration saw the highest inflation in 40 years.
Cumulative inflation surpassed 20%, driving up the cost of groceries, gas, and daily necessities.
2) Real median household income rose by $7,700 under Trump, compared to only $1,050 under Biden-Harris.
After twenty years of stagnation, real median income surged under Trump and flatlined with Biden.
BREAKING: Jeffrey Goldberg, the journalist who lied to the American public into the Iraq War and fabricated the "suckers and losers" hoax during the last election, has just launched his latest October hoax.
Once again, he's relying on anonymous sources.
Once again, it's a bullsh*t, made-up story.
Glenn Greenwald explains how Jeffrey Goldberg, the journalist who lied America into the Iraq War, became the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic:
"Let's remember that the journalist who did the most to convince Americans of the vital lie that Saddam Hussein had an alliance with Al-Qaeda and therefore led 70% of Americans to believe the lie that Saddam Hussein participated in the planning of the 9/11 attacks was named Jeffrey Goldberg...
He did that in two articles that even won journalism awards. He was put on NPR and every Sunday show to spread this lie... Jeffrey Goldberg did more to spread the false conspiracy theory that led to the Iraq War.
He also became ground zero for every Russia Gate fraud, and of course, Jeffrey Goldberg is not expelled from the mainstream media.
He's not writing at Substack. He's the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic.
He was rewarded with that position as a result of the lying he did on behalf of the U.S. security state... Journalists who spread CIA conspiracy theories get promoted, and journalists who question the CIA get destroyed."
Jeffrey Goldberg lied about Al Qaeda working with Saddam Hussein to deceive Americans into supporting the Iraq War.
He also fabricated the "suckers and losers" hoax using anonymous sources—a claim later debunked by dozens of officials who were with Trump that day.
Now, with his latest hoax once again relying on anonymous sources, it should be laughed out of the room, and he deserves to be ridiculed for lying to the American people yet again.
Also, what does it say about The Atlantic that its editor-in-chief is the same person who lied America into the Iraq War?
THREAD: @RobertKennedyJr explains how President Bush placed Dr. Anthony Fauci in charge of developing bioweapons for the Pentagon as part of the Patriot Act in 2002. In 2014, Obama shut down 18 of Fauci's gain-of-function experiments after lab leaks and 300 top scientists raised concerns about his dangerous experiments with "potential pandemic pathogens."
#2 [QUICK AD] Ready to unlock the secrets of the 𝕏 algorithm, skyrocket your growth, and start monetizing?
Join the first 200 students in The 𝕏 Accelerator!
I spent the last six months creating this course to reveal the exact strategies, tactics, and tools that helped me gain 670K followers, reach 3B impressions, and earn over $75K in just one year on 𝕏.thexaccelerator.com
#3 @RobertKennedyJr tells @jimmy_dore: "They took the money that Cheney gave them [from the Patriot Act], $2.2 billion, and they funneled it through NIH, and it all went through Anthony Fauci. So beginning in 2002, Fauci got a 68% raise from the Pentagon for doing bioweapons development, and he got a raise of billions of dollars a year, and then he started doing all of this gain-of-function.
In 2014, three of those bugs escaped in high-profile escapes from different labs in the US. Congress held hearings on it. Everybody was angry, and 300 top scientists sent letters to Obama saying you got to shut down Fauci because he is going to create a pandemic.
So, Obama ordered a moratorium, and at that time, Fauci had eighteen different gain-of-function experiments he was doing around the US. He instead moved his stuff offshore to Wuhan, where he could do it out of sight of these 300 scientists and nosy White House officials who were trying to shut him down.
And he continued to do it with the same people he was funding here, Ralph Baric and Peter Dazak, and they moved their operation to the Wuhan lab."