Protection Racket Media Update: USAID Funded NY Times, BBC Too

Well, well, well. So much for the value of an “independent press.” It turns out that even the most vaunted organizations within that industry covertly sucked at the taxpayer teat while supposedly reporting without fear or favor on the bureaucratic state that supports them. And they did that while the bureaucratic state targeted debate and dissent everywhere else. 

Now that the US DOGE Service (USDS) — its actual name, which will become important later — has begun number-crunching federal outlays, this corrupt arrangement has become much clearer. Beege wrote about Politico’s income from its absurdly priced Politico PRO subscriptions, but a new pass through the data shows that both the New York Times and even the BBC had seven-figure income streams from USAID, too:

USAID funding:

New York Times $3.1M
Politico $32M
BBC $3.2M (approximate)

h/t @StormTorx pic.twitter.com/3AKQydP4Oo

— David Procino (@APBIOonly) February 5, 2025

The BBC? Why is a state-owned media outlet in the UK receiving American government funding at all? The UK forces British subjects to underwrite the BBC through license fees, which calls the BBC’s credibility into question as a watchdog already. American taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to participate in that activity, too. 

Here’s another, far more inscrutable look at this data on the NYT:

When using the upcoming tools to search for media outlets, note that LLCs and PACs are not included in the data. To find relevant results, search for prominent media names, the names of editors or owners, or nonprofits affiliated with the media outlet. Grok or ChatGPT can assist… pic.twitter.com/2MgOZe7dbl

— DataRepublican (small r) (@DataRepublican) February 5, 2025

Charts like these are why DOGE uses twenty-something geniuses rather than sixty-something bloggers. And the Department of Defense also sent millions of dollars to Reuters, although not to their news division:

This isn’t Reuters’ news agency, by the way. It’s their special services, which was also awarded for DOPPLER, MASS EFFECT, and a bunch of other weird stuff, which I can only assume is some advanced weapons technology. Hard to make sense of what DARPA is working on here. pic.twitter.com/yQpSDTXZt0

— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) February 5, 2025

Reuters is actually a very large conglomerate, but don’t be surprised if we find money that went to their news org. 

Let’s not forget the context in which all of these funds have flowed to the supposedly “independent” news media. The State Department actively worked to suppress criticism of news orgs like the NYT and Politico through its Global Engagement Center and the Global Disinformation Index it produced to scare advertisers away from truly independent platforms that challenged the Biden administration’s policies and positions. Now we know that USAID and the State Department provided funding for the Protection Racket Media through various guises, including in Politico’s case $12,000 subscriptions to their paywalled articles. 

We knew about the racket. Now we see the payoff.

Small wonder that the media and the Left are screaming over DOGE and Elon Musk’s attempts to expose the funding. This is very reminiscent of the screaming that took place when Musk exposed the Big Brother-Big Tech Censorship Complex after purchasing Twitter. The motives are the same — to keep the corruption from getting fully exposed.

Is all of this legal, however? Has Musk somehow usurped executive or legislative power and illegally accessed confidential data in this effort? Speaker Mike Johnson scoffed at the idea this morning, calling it an exercise in executive stewardship over public spending:

“This is not a usurpation of authority in any way. It’s not a power grab.”

Speaker Mike Johnson defends influence of Elon Musk and DOGE, saying the group’s oversight over government agencies is a “much welcome development.” https://t.co/mCMmD8pSxa pic.twitter.com/1X4mcEyvB3

— ABC News (@ABC) February 5, 2025

As for Musk and usurpation, attorney and activist Tom Renz points out that the Trump administration planned carefully for this effort. Trump took an existing agency from the Obama era that focused on software development and tasked it instead to do a deep data dive on federal spending. He then made Musk a partner to the US DOGE Service — told you it would be important — to facilitate the effort (via Twitchy):

The USDS was an Obamacare office created to make government software better. They were essentially software development for the bureaucracy. Trump renamed the United States Digital Service (USDS) the United States DOGE Service which even kept the acronym the same. Not only did… pic.twitter.com/Pl7kRTn1Vz

— Tom Renz (@RenzTom) February 5, 2025

At the same time Trump also wanted to bring in @elonmusk (and at the time @VivekGRamaswamy) and his team for an initial major audit/clean sweep. To do this Trump referenced another law 5 USC 3161. This law governs the creation of and staffing for what is known as a “temporary… pic.twitter.com/W2JD4IZzX2

— Tom Renz (@RenzTom) February 5, 2025

The last part of the post is all important boilerplate. Trump orders all agencies to support the DOGE initiative, disclaims any other prior EOs that could interfere with this order, and makes a conflict of laws statement. This was further insulation to make this harder for… pic.twitter.com/URtqBq8f4i

— Tom Renz (@RenzTom) February 5, 2025

Assuming this checks out, the real lesson from this is that the executive branch has too much authority over too-huge amounts of discretionary spending. That also means that the executive branch can rescind those spending decisions unilaterally, however. So far, it appears that the USDS has been careful to avoid spending that Congress specifically directs in statute or in budget line items, and instead is taking aim at everything else. That has been the case in every single department that DOGE has touched, especially at USAID, where spending is not only discretionary but has never been effectively checked by executives at State or the White House. 

All of the screaming misses the point. None of this funding should have been kept under wraps, especially not the USAID or other government funding directed toward domestic media orgs. This should not have needed a DOGE to provide long-overdue transparency. Even Congress appears to have been kept in the dark about the nature and targets of this funding, just as they apparently were on the targeting of Americans for their speech and dissent. 

And rather than hold power to account, the Protection Racket Media is screaming for cover. Now we know why. 

Addendum: Once again, we are reminded why we desperately need truly independent voices to combat the Protection Racket Media’s bureaucratic-state propaganda. Join us in the fight. Become a HotAir VIP member today and use promo code FAKENEWS to receive a 50% discount on your membership.