Guest post by Jonas Greindberg in Germany
In February, a federal judge mandated that healthcare agencies restore websites pertaining to transgender issues, which had been dismantled by an executive order from President Donald Trump. In a twist of irony, Elon Musk took to X to allege that the judge’s spouse had received funds from USAID, branding the judge as “corrupt.”
While USAID has attracted attention in the U.S., its role in subverting democracy in Austria and Germany remains largely overlooked.
What’s more astonishing is that this foreign interference not only erodes democracy abroad but also undermines it on American soil.
International Intrusion
Back in 2017, German journalists Frederik Obermaier and Bastian Obermayer, who had previously unearthed the Panama Papers for the Süddeutsche Zeitung, called for “solidarity” and a “collaborative investigation” against President Trump. These journalists are now part of various USAID-funded networks that contributed to Trump’s first impeachment.
Similar tactics were deployed in Austria and Germany, yielding far greater consequences than the ultimately failed Trump impeachment.
A Complicated Web of Influence
On March 28, 2024, the Slovak daily DennĂk N and Spiegel, both of which work closely with the USAID-backed “Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project” (OCCRP), claimed that AfD’s EU candidate, Petr Bystron, had been bribed by Voice of Europe. This came just a day after the EU had shut down Voice of Europe, a pro-Russian news outlet operating from Prague.
OCCRP reportedly receives 50% of its funding from USAID. Founder Drew Sullivan claimed in an interview with German broadcaster NDR that USAID not only approves key personnel but also the annual work plan, although he insists that OCCRP maintains full editorial independence.
However, NDR’s documentary about OCCRP didn’t seem to enjoy such independence. A report from Spiegel in December 2024 disclosed that Sullivan pressured NDR to withhold the documentary, fearing it would portray him as a CIA agent.
This infringement on free speech during the EU elections aligns with the recommendations of a 2021 Disinformation Primer, co-authored by USAID and George Soros’ Central European University. The primer not only advocates funding for “independent media” but also calls for stricter “internet governance.”
Both DennĂk N and Spiegel based their allegations on secret recordings from the Czech intelligence service BIS, which reportedly captured a meeting between Bystron and Artem Martschewskyj, the former CEO of Voice of Europe. The recordings allegedly reveal Bystron handling euro bills.
Bystron categorically denied these claims when questioned by Spiegel, urging caution about the “information” coming from Prague during the electoral campaign.
He asserted that the accusations stem from a NATO agenda to defame peace-oriented politicians. Meanwhile, Spiegel has received €5.4 million from the Gates Foundation.
Following the lifting of Bystron’s immunity as a Bundestag member ahead of the May 16 EU elections, around 70 police officers raided his parliamentary office and homes in Bavaria and Spain.
In a recent confrontation with a Spiegel reporter, Bystron quipped: “How independent is your reporting when Bill Gates is funding you?” When asked if he received payments from Putin, he retorted: “Why do you intentionally disseminate unverified information?”
The Potsdam Incident
On January 10, 2024, the German investigative network Correctiv claimed that right-wing activists and AfD politicians plotted the “forced deportation of millions” during a private gathering in Potsdam in late 2023.
This espionage operation involved extensive monitoring and surveillance, executed by 18 Correctiv employees.
Later, German public broadcasting reframed Correctiv’s speculative claims, which should be protected as opinions under Article 5 of the German Constitution, into definitive statements.
ZDF anchorwoman Marietta Slomka asserted that the Potsdam conference participants had conspired to strip German nationals of citizenship and force their deportation.
This incited mass protests against the AfD, which many believed was orchestrating a revival of the infamous Wannsee Conference, as suggested by Correctiv. The AfD’s support plummeted from an all-time high of 23% to 16% by August 2024.
Only towards the end of the year were the allegations from ZDF and NDR proven false in court.
Nevertheless, AfD supporters still encounter social ostracism when their beliefs become known to colleagues and friends.
In 2024 alone, 1,031 AfD politicians were victims of crimes.
Correctiv and OCCRP are both members of the Global Investigative Journalism Network, which also includes the “International Consortium of Investigative Journalists” (ICIJ).
ICIJ is partly funded by the U.S. State Department and shares funding sources with OCCRP, receiving backing from George Soros’ Open Society Foundation and Pierre Omidyar’s Luminate Foundation.
In comparison, Correctiv’s reliance on private foundations is even more pronounced. In 2020, the Luminate Foundation emerged as Correctiv’s largest single donor.
Other U.S. benefactors include Google, Facebook, and the Open Society Foundation, positioning Correctiv to potentially withstand the fallout from a USAID shutdown more effectively than OCCRP and ICIJ.
The left-leaning activist Jean Peters, who led Correctiv’s espionage efforts, has a rather flexible interpretation of journalistic integrity. Peters once candidly noted on his blog that he “invents stories” to sway political events—a statement he later deleted.
In 2023, the year of the Potsdam espionage, Correctiv secured €1.9 million from anonymous donors, with the Luminate Foundation contributing €660,000 as the next largest source.
As a signatory to the Code of the International Fact-Checking Network, Correctiv is obligated to disclose any funding source exceeding five percent of total revenue.
The obscured origins of €1.9 million in donations raise questions regarding potential foreign influence within the network.
The Ibiza Scandal
On May 17, 2019, the German newspapers Süddeutsche Zeitung and Spiegel simultaneously released footage that precipitated the collapse of the coalition government between Austria’s centrist ÖVP and the right-wing FPÖ.
The footage featured then-FPĂ– chairman and Austrian Vice Chancellor, Heinz-Christian Strache, offering political favors to the niece of a nonexistent Russian oligarch in exchange for favorable media coverage at a villa in Ibiza.
Unbeknownst to Strache, the wealthy Russian relative was a fabrication, and the villa had been rigged with microphones and cameras for the purpose of entrapping him. The “niece” was, in fact, an actress.
Both SĂĽddeutsche and Spiegel are known for their involvement in meddling with European democracies and collaborate with OCCRP.
In their book Die Ibiza-Affäre, investigative journalists Obermaier and Obermayer elaborate on how their affiliation with ICIJ facilitated their emergence as globally connected journalists.
It was the Panama Papers, extensively covered by Obermaier and Obermayer, that reportedly encouraged their source to trust them with the incriminating material.
However, ethical concerns lingered. The journalists admit in their book that their “source” lured Strache into a trap. They emphasize that a responsible investigative report should reveal facts rather than create them. This ethical dilemma raises a critical question: If they deemed the story unethical, why proceed with publication?
Julian Hessenthaler, the journalists’ “source,” later recounted why he entangled Strache in an interview with Jean Peters of Correctiv. Hessenthaler, a convicted drug trafficker turned “private intelligence” consultant, claimed that he was motivated by fears of Russian interference in European politics. He revealed that the funds for this elaborate setup originated from an individual referred to as Mr. M, a business associate.
This was later corroborated by Iranian-born lawyer Ramin Mirfakhrai in a Spiegel interview, who asserted that he personally financed the operation to the tune of half a million euros.
Mirfakhrai claimed his intentions were solely to combat “extremism,” though Hans-Jörg Jennewein of Freilich Magazin remains skeptical about the absence of personal financial motives in this endeavor.
Jennewein also pointed out chat messages indicating Hessenthaler had instructed a well-known adult film star, to whom he owed €70,000, to be patient until “Spiegel has paid.”
The espionage activities in Ibiza, Potsdam, and involving Voice of Europe illustrate the extent to which U.S.-funded networks have tarnished the reputations of democratically elected officials and executed regime changes.
While Trump’s decision to eliminate USAID is a commendable step forward, the pervasive influence of private foundations, particularly those linked to Pierre Omidyar, Bill Gates, and George Soros, continues to loom large.
This issue transcends the capabilities of a single administration. Only the patriotic forces of Europe, currently championed by Viktor Orban’s Hungary, can effectively counter this unwarranted interference in the European political landscape.
