After his presidential inauguration, one of the first actions Donald Trump has taken was to immediately cut back on unnecessary government spending; first freezing payments from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and then ordering a comprehensive review of all the funds that were spent under the flag of the USAID. In recent years the US government has spent billions of dollars worldwide to gain political influence through NGOs and other organizations. Hungary is no exception from the list of countries where American influence has been more than obvious for years now, but at last we have an officially appointed government commissioner whose job is to shed light on these endeavours. Member of the European Parliament András László is now in the process of investigating the circumstances surrounding the USAID funds and how the EU is trying to make up for the loss of them.

***

You were appointed as a government commissioner responsible for investigating the USAID activities in Hungary almost a month ago. What have you learned so far about USAID funding in Hungary?

We currently know that USAID had a specific programme aimed at Hungary and the Eastern–Central European region to support left-wing organizations, left-wing media, and to construct a network of political parties and movements in this region. However, this left-wing corrupt globalist machinery is no news for us; this is what we have been fighting against for many years now. To give you a very concrete example: several million dollars’ worth of funding, mostly from the US, was channelled to Hungary in 2022 in order to support the campaign of left-wing parties during the national elections.

So basically it is safe to say that the USAID funded the opposition’s 2022 election campaign?

We do not know the exact source of the money yet, but we are sure that it originated in the United States. However, Hungarian authorities have concluded that it was a case of illegal campaign financing. Leaked recordings suggest that George Soros played a significant role in financing, while the left failed to substantiate their claims about micro-donations. Interestingly, USAID also operated a programme very similar to this one. They created a Central European programme with a $35 million budget and set specific objectives that include, but are not limited to, what they called building civil movements and networks, strengthening the state of the rule of law, and supporting their favoured media outlets.

How did USAID select whom to support?

They assigned coordinating agencies to each of the listed objectives. Those agencies then developed their own programmes, functioning like subcontractors. Some of these coordinating agencies are well-known due to their public activities, while little information is available about others. Organizations like the German Marshall Fund, the National Democratic Institute, the lesser-known Zinc Network, the International Research and Exchanges Board, and the Dexis Consulting Group have surely received such assignments.

Additionally, they identified and established national-level coordinating entities that ultimately decided how the funds were disbursed. We have a general idea of how much money was spent in Hungary within the framework of these initiatives. We also know which organizations were the coordinating agencies: the Hungarian Helsinki Committee, the Power of Humanity Foundation, Ökotárs (which played a similar role in distributing Norwegian Fund money a decade ago), DemNet, and in some cases, even Hungarian individuals were involved instead of an organization.

Would you say that supporting civil organizations in the region was a way for the Democratic Biden administration to exert political influence?

It is hard to conclude otherwise. Just think about it: why was such a programme created in the first place? The programme originally targeted eight countries, all of which are NATO and EU members—thus, allies of the United States. Yet in Hungary, these programmes were carried out without as much as consulting the Hungarian government. The funds were deliberately channelled through multiple organizations so that, in the end, the USAID logo would not have to be displayed, and USAID would not appear as the contract signatory. So, when anti-government media and political activism are funded without consulting the allied country’s government, it is difficult to see this as development aid provided in good faith and not as political interference.

‘One thing is very clear, and that is the political intent: they want to replace the missing USAID funds with EU money’

German MEP Daniel Freund previously suggested that if USAID payments were suspended, the European Union should take over and replace the lost funding for civil organizations. Do you think this would be feasible?

There is a clear overlap between the coordinating organizations USAID worked with and those the European Union has worked with before—and likely still does. Therefore, I expect that the EU budget will be used as a tool to compensate the NGOs and media outlets that will now lose USAID support. This has already been discussed in multiple meetings in the European Parliament.

Where will the money come from?

EU decision-makers refuse to speak about this. I have personally asked this exact question twice in the European Parliament, at two different hearings, with the aim to learn how much money the EU can mobilize, from what sources, and how much they estimate USAID spent in EU countries on various projects. No one provided any specifics or figures. They are intentionally trying to obscure and conceal this information. However, one thing is very clear, and that is the political intent: they want to replace the missing USAID funds with EU money. One European agency director stated that such payments had already begun.

What do you think is the purpose of this proceeding?

We need to understand that the left-wing corruption network is not limited to USAID or American organizations and American politics; it is a global corruption machinery.

USAID’s healthcare programmes have also funded initiatives that can be crucial, such as AIDS and HIV therapy in Africa. Wouldn’t cutting such programmes be harmful?

USAID and the US government, through other sources as well, have indeed conducted genuine international development activities. The US Secretary of State’s announcement that 83 per cent of these programmes would be suspended suggests that there were programmes even this administration deems useful and will continue, as they were not deeply rooted in political motivation or corruption.

There were few occasions when Hungary also collaborated with USAID. Was that of a similar nature?

The left-wing media is attacking the Hungarian government by accusing the Hungary Helps Program of cooperation with USAID. But this is absurd, to say the least. Contrary to left-wing fake news, the Hungarian organization did not receive American funding. USAID and Hungary Helps had a common goal: supporting Iraqi Christians. However, this was conducted separately, using Hungarian and American resources. There was no interference in Hungary, as these projects took place in Iraq. When we rebuild a church, a school, a clinic, homes, streets, or a water supply system in a devastated area, that is classic international development activity.

On the other hand, funding anti-government media and NGOs in developed countries, organizations that cannot operate or struggle to continue their activities without American government funding, that is not genuine development activity but political interference. The term ‘NGO’ literally means ‘non-governmental organization’. However, practice shows that thousands of European NGOs struggle without American government money.

Related articles: