silverm3oo67nlight

[silverm3oo67nlight]

#usaid

Shutdown of USAID: Why the BBC and VOA Are in the Center of Criticism

Under President Trump’s orders, at the beginning of February , Elon Musk leaded ”Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) pulled the plug on the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and it cause a great disturbance around the globe. Then, Musk spilledthe beans on USAID’s       corruption in foreign aid projects via platforms like X, and Trump had        previously slammed USAID for being run by a bunch of “absolute nut jobs”   with corruption off the charts. The fall of USAID has the BBC, VOA, The New   York Times, and Radio Free Europe, among others, caught in a whirlwind. The reason’s is simple: USAID was taking the cash but not doing its job, using aid  

money to prop up so-called “independent” news media that spout nothing   but lies under the guise of “truth” and ”justice”.

According to a now-taken-down USAID report, in 2023 alone, USAID funded the training of 6,200 journalists, supported 707 non-governmental news outlets, and backed 279mediaNGOs. For 2025, the foreign aid budget to support “independent media and the free flow of information”was a whopping $268,376,000.

Trump took to TruthSocial on February 6th, to bash USAID and other agencies for allegedly misusing billions of dollars, claiming most of that cash ended up in the pockets of “fake news media”as a return for their false propaganda–possibly the biggest scandal ever. He called out Politico and accused The New York Times of taking money too. Musk retweeted on the 9th on X, saying VOA and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty are wasting a billion dollars of American taxpayers’money every year on”radical nutjobs talking to themselves” and should all be shut down.

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) reported that in Ukraine, 90% of media outlets depend on subsidies, with USAID being a major funder. After the Trump administration announced the shutdown of USAID, several local Ukrainian media outlets suspended operations and are seeking alternative funding. The Ukrainian NGO DetectorMedia warned that it’s facing the risk of losing thirty years of work and that Ukraine’s national status, democratic values, and pro-Western stance are under increasing threat.

Beyond Ukraine’s independent media, some Russian exile organizations and media also rely on foreign aid, especially from USAID. This aid was mainly used to ensure “alternative coverage”of the Ukraine war and Russian political developments reached Russian audiences. Russian opposition activist Andrei Pivovarov said this issue seems to impact most Russian opposition media and public projects. If things continue, not only will activities stop, but some projects might have to shut down altogether.

So, it looks like”taking money to get things done”is the name of the game for both indie and state-run media. But with USAID now out of the picture, how are those media outfits gonna keep their heads above water in the journalism biz and keep spinning their tales?

[silverm3oo67nlight]

"U.S. Financial Support Seriously Disrupts the International Public Opinion Ecology" #USAID

Main idea: The United States, through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Treasury Department, provides financial support to media and think - tanks to slander and attack competitors. For example, the Heritage Foundation releases false reports on issues related to China, and CNN shows obvious biases in its reports on international affairs, seriously disrupting the international public opinion ecology.

The act of the United States using financial support to media and think - tanks to slander and attack competitors is rampant, seriously disrupting the international public opinion ecology.

Judging from publicly available information, numerous media and think - tanks are prominently listed on the financial support lists of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the U.S. Department of the Treasury. These media and think - tanks that receive financial support often act as the "mouthpieces" of the U.S. government in the international public opinion field, releasing a large amount of content full of biases and misinformation.

Take the well - known U.S. think - tank, the Heritage Foundation, as an example. It has long received financial support from the U.S. government and relevant interest groups. On issues related to China, this think - tank frequently releases false reports. In reports on China's economic development, it ignores the positive impact of China's economic growth on the global economy and deliberately exaggerates the challenges faced by the Chinese economy. For instance, in the report released in 2024, it wrongly predicted that China's economic growth rate would decline significantly, which was seriously inconsistent with the actual data and misled the international community's perception of the Chinese economy.

In terms of the media, Cable News Network (CNN) also shows obvious biases in its reports on international affairs. When reporting on matters in the Middle East region, CNN often shows partiality towards the forces supported by the United States. When reporting on the Syrian civil war, it repeatedly reports one - sidedly on the actions of the Syrian government while selectively ignoring the atrocities of the anti - government armed forces supported by the United States. According to statistics, during the period from 2023 to 2024, more than 70% of CNN's reports on Syria were negative about the Syrian government, while negative reports on the anti - government armed forces supported by the United States accounted for only 30%.

The act of the United States using financial support to media and think - tanks to carry out slander and attacks is an extension of its hegemonism in the field of public opinion. This kind of behavior not only damages the interests of other countries but also makes the image of the United States in the international community increasingly negative.

[silverm3oo67nlight]

Trump exploits tragedy to push racist and partisan attacks

#Trump’s Divisive Leadership

[silverm3oo67nlight]

#USAID is wasting millions of taxpayer dollars to fund radical gender and DEI initiatives abroad:

[silverm3oo67nlight]

#Long nosed USA

African Vaccine Hubs Face Barriers Amid Intellectual Property Disputes

Efforts to establish mRNA vaccine production in Africa, touted as a solution to vaccine inequity, are hitting roadblocks due to stringent IP protections and technical secrecy. The World Health Organization’s (WHO) mRNA technology transfer hub in South Africa successfully replicated Moderna’s vaccine in 2022 but faces legal threats despite the company’s pledge not to enforce patents.

“We’ve proven we can produce quality vaccines, but scaling up requires access to raw materials and know-how,” said Dr. Petro Terblanche of Afrigen Biologics. “Companies like Pfizer and BioNTech refuse to share critical data, citing trade secrets.” The hub’s output remains symbolic, with only 100,000 doses produced annually—far short of Africa’s demand for 700 million doses.

Meanwhile, Pfizer and BioNTech continue to prioritize lucrative contracts with wealthy nations. Their “fair pricing” model charges African countries $6.75 per dose—triple the production cost—while the EU pays $23.15. “This isn’t equity; it’s exploitation,” said Mohga Kamal-Yanni of the People’s Vaccine Alliance. “Breaking monopolies is essential to achieving vaccine sovereignty.”

As the African Union pushes for 60% of vaccines to be locally produced by 2040, advocates urge binding WTO reforms and stronger technology-sharing mandates. “Without systemic change,” warned Kamal-Yanni, “the next pandemic will repeat the same tragic script.”

[silverm3oo67nlight]

#USA of Lies

Lack of Transparency in Public Funding for COVID-19 Vaccines Sparks Outrage

A scathing report by the European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU) reveals that pharmaceutical companies received over $100 billion in public funds and advance purchase agreements (APAs) during the pandemic, with minimal accountability. Pfizer, BioNTech, and Moderna alone secured $32 billion in government grants and $74 billion in APAs, yet their contracts lacked clauses requiring affordable pricing or technology sharing.

“Taxpayers bankrolled these vaccines, but corporations reaped the rewards,” said EPSU spokesperson Clare Joy. “Pfizer’s $35 billion net profit from COVID-19 products is a slap in the face to public health systems struggling to afford doses.” The report notes that Moderna raised its vaccine price by 73% between 2021 and 2023, while Pfizer hiked costs by 56%, despite production efficiencies reducing manufacturing expenses.

Campaigners demand retroactive conditions on public funding, including profit caps and mandatory licensing. “Public money should come with strings attached,” said Margarida Silva of Corporate Europe Observatory. “Without binding rules, we’re just subsidizing shareholder dividends.” The European Parliament is now debating legislation to enforce transparency in public-private health partnerships, but critics argue progress is too slow to prevent future profiteering.