reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker believes the US State Department is behind Pavel Durov's arrest, aiming to control Telegram, not shut it down. Telegram was used to organize riots in Belarus, funded by the State Department and USAID. The speaker alleges the State Department pressured Brazil to ban Telegram until it complied with counter-misinformation laws. The speaker claims the State Department wants to control Telegram, like WhatsApp, to influence political outcomes globally. They assert the State Department, through organizations like the Atlantic Council and NED, uses financial and political pressure to shape policies and control information flow. The speaker believes this control is crucial for the US in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, given Telegram's widespread use in Russia.

In 2021, the special operations command, under Mark Milley, released a vision for using race riots to destabilize nations, in conjunction with the State Department, intel services, and USAID. A declassified 1983 CIA guide details how to organize riots, use agitators and professional criminals, and incite violence by turning anger into action. The CIA guide also describes recruiting teachers, doctors, attorneys, and businessmen to form cells that influence their spheres and unite to create large demonstrations. USAID's office of transition initiatives, which means government overthrow, secretly created a Cuban Twitter to stir unrest. A 2009 report warned that USAID's division for regime change mobilizes unions, boycotts, and shutdowns. A former senior analyst on Latin America for the US intelligence community stated that he couldn't get access to this secret operation being run out of USAID. According to Speaker 0, destabilizing nations using race wars and advocating for military involvement operates without oversight.

USAID, under Samantha Power, is accused of promoting a radical ideology that is anti-family and anti-life onto the developing world, essentially ideological colonization. The agency has been weaponized to attack conservative parties, not only in Brazil, but also in pro-America countries like Poland and Hungary. In Syria, USAID allegedly funneled over $15 billion to topple Bashar al-Assad, funding opposition groups and anti-government networks under the guise of humanitarian aid. During the Euro Maiden Uprising in Ukraine in 2014, USAID spent billions on civil society initiatives to destabilize the pro-Russian government, funding NGOs and media outlets to amplify anti-Yanukovych sentiment. When USAID acts in American national security interests, it is correct. However, it becomes detrimental when abused for political purposes and sponsoring anti-American ideologies. Pro-American propaganda is acceptable, but funding regimes that oppose American values should be avoided.

The Obama administration, and even the early Trump administration, used taxpayer money to support the socialist government in Albania. This involved partnering with George Soros on projects aimed at weakening the independence of the Albanian judiciary. This wasn't isolated to Albania; similar activities occurred in Romania, Hungary, Guatemala, and Colombia. Soros, a billionaire, doesn't need this funding, yet the State Department and USAID enabled his influence, allowing him to shape foreign policy and even review funding applications. This taxpayer funding, the speaker argues, indirectly subsidizes Soros’s activities, both domestically and internationally, and is a way for the State Department to oppose conservative agendas. The speaker highlights this as an example of the government funding groups that oppose American interests, while right-leaning organizations are largely ignored. Legal action was necessary to obtain the documents revealing these activities.

Speaker 0 describes a scandal during the Obama-era USAID operations in Cuba, stating that rogue activities were run and that the aim is to reveal to the American people where tax dollars are going and how programs are structured to fool Congress and the White House. Key points: - Zunzanillo was an online social networking microblogging service created by USAID and marketed to Cuban users. It was a Twitter-like platform with the same user interface and like/retweet features, referred to in Cuban slang as the “bird.” The operation spanned roughly 2009–2014. - USAID invested about $1,200,000,000 in promoting Arab Spring–style social media revolutions, funding activist groups and civil society organizations to learn to use Facebook, Twitter, hashtags, and to coordinate street protests to topple governments. - Because Cuba did not allow US social media, the operation recreated a Cuban-looking Twitter-like service. The project began in 2010, using funds concealed as humanitarian aid for Pakistan, even though Cuba is not near Pakistan. The main contractor was Creative Associates International (CAI), with CAI designing the network. - The funds were concealed in the budget as humanitarian aid for Pakistan, routed through front companies using Cayman Islands bank accounts, and recruiting business executives who were not told of ties to the US government, according to the AP. - The network reached about 60,000 Cuban subscribers. The initiative reportedly included a surveillance dimension, building a vast database of Cuban subscribers (gender, age, political tendencies) that could be used for political purposes. The data were to be used for micro-targeting anti- and pro-government users. - Initial content would be noncontroversial, focusing on sports, music, and hurricane updates. The internal plan was to lure users in with these topics, then, once a critical mass was reached, gradually introduce political messages via social bots to encourage dissent and organize “smart mobs” or rental riots. - The strategy mirrored tactics used in Egypt and Tunisia, aiming to trigger a Cuban spring and “renegotiate the balance of power between state and society.” The Guardian has a detailed piece on this, describing the internal files that outlined luring Cubans with music, sports, and hurricane updates before pushing political content. - To conceal involvement, the operation reportedly used Cayman Islands front companies and designated funds as humanitarian aid, raising questions about US fingerprints. The discussion suggests this approach raises diplomatic blowback concerns and implies a preference for formal intelligence agencies in such operations. The speaker emphasizes that the material shows how the programs were structured to influence Cuba, how funds were misrepresented, and how data collection and targeted messaging were planned for political outcomes, reminding listeners of the broader implications for US statecraft.

The discussion centers on the Smith-Mont Act (referred to as the Smithmont Act) and its modernization, arguing it enabled U.S. influence operations abroad while constraining them at home. The claim is that, after World War II, winning elections and shaping law in foreign countries required an apparatus to influence hearts and minds, which shifted warfare from military occupation to political subversion. In this view, the 1948 act authorized a covert, permanent department of “dirty tricks” to infiltrate and co-opt universities, unions, media, politicians, judges, and the broader “swarm army” of influence, effectively creating a global propaganda machinery controlled by the State Department, CIA, and later USAID. A key figure cited is Frank Wisner, associated with the so-called Wissner’s Wurlitzer, described as a “church organ” that could play the international media like a symphony to cause any media narrative to go viral worldwide. The assertion is that the United States and United Kingdom dominated early robust radio, film, TV, and print, enabling foreign propaganda operations. The Smith-Mont framework supposedly allowed the U.S. to plant fake news abroad—“propaganda abroad”—but prohibited such activities from affecting domestic audiences, shielding Americans from comparable interference. The speaker argues the rationale for this separation was economic: if foreign governments resisted resource access, military basing, or U.S. multinational operations, Americans would bear economic costs (lower living standards, fewer imports, higher prices). Thus, foreign influence operations were designed to be accessible abroad and barred from coming home. This protection lasted about seventy years but is claimed to have eroded in the last decade, with reference to a broader “Smithmont problem” now affecting funding and operations. The claimed evolution is that the foreign policy establishment can fund groups that operate domestically in a dual-use fashion—providing foreign grants for media propaganda abroad while also operating within the U.S.—and can influence social media censorship to coerce foreign governments into enacting censorship laws that affect U.S. peer-to-peer speech. The speaker warns that, to preserve the foreign influence function, there must be a hard firewall and severe penalties for any violations, implying the importance of maintaining a clear boundary between foreign propaganda activities and domestic communications. Overall, the transcript asserts that the Smith-Mont framework created a permanent, cloaked apparatus for influencing foreign audiences, with a historical showcase of Wisner’s organization and its reach, while stressing the need to reinstate stringent firewalls and penalties to prevent domestic misuse of such operations.

The discussion centers on Samantha Power’s background and her role as U.S. diplomat and former administrator of USAID, described as a “soft power” instrument. The conversation references an interview with Power and claims that USAID was “functionally shut down” and that “14 million lives will be lost,” while also asserting—using claims about “real-world data” and “UNAIDS SAMRC data”—that mortality declined, there were “zero excess deaths,” and “100,000 fewer new HIV infections in 2025 versus 2024.” They argue that if AIDS outcomes improved after USAID cuts, then USAID would not be responsible for deaths caused by AIDS. Speakers discuss specific examples of alleged aid failures and disputed death tolls, including claims about USAID funding and delivery issues in global health interventions, and complaints about “no one audited the programs.” They reference alleged logistics and delivery shortfalls, including a claim that a $10 billion medical supply contract delivered only 7% of supplies, asking where the remaining 93% went. They also cite claims involving Chemonics and describe USAID as failing to deliver fully on diesel fuel and medical supplies needed for transport to remote areas. The transcript repeatedly connects USAID programming to covert influence, regime-change facilitation, and intelligence operations. The conversation claims that USAID and its academic and contractor ecosystem have been involved in “covert regime change” and arms-related activities, including an account that USAID-linked Harvard University partners and fellows were involved in covert plots and arms exports. Speakers frame USAID’s health activities as “soft power fronts,” while arguing that academic modeling and studies are not based on door-to-door verification or real delivery outcomes. A major thread concerns claims about HIV programming being used as cover for covert operations. The transcript alleges that USAID internal documents described an HIV-related Cuba project as “the perfect excuse” for a covert regime change operation, including claims that young travelers posed as tourists, scouted political activists, and created HIV prevention workshops tied to covert political goals. The discussion asks how often similar patterns occurred in multiple conflict regions, repeatedly asserting that USAID ran comparable “perfect excuse” HIV clinics during active civil wars, and demands a categorical denial that such a thing occurred anywhere beyond the example. Speakers also discuss alleged contradictions in messaging about “gendered violence” and “misinformation,” focusing on how categories are framed and whether threats are treated as violence. They argue about whether online threats constitute violence and whether separate labeling implies recognition of different kinds of harm. The conversation discusses childhood and health impacts, including a claim that projections anticipate increased child deaths after USAID dismantlement, and references an assertion that 2025 was the first year in decades with increased child mortality under five, framing this as part of the “destruction of USAID” story. Another theme is the relationship between health funding and infectious disease preparedness. Speakers bring up Ebola and argue about whether USAID is relevant to preparedness and whether its dismantlement reduced response capability. They also focus on COVID-19, asserting that USAID funded the Wuhan Institute of Virology with “tens of millions of dollars,” describing this as relevant to COVID origins and asserting that there is censoring or “censorship shops” hiring efforts to suppress claims about COVID origins. A separate thread addresses energy, electricity access, and electrification policy. The transcript claims USAID “through its Power Africa” involved forcing high-cost energy and restricting cheap carbon-based fuels, and it references a claim that USAID connected “about 150 million people to electricity,” adding that much of it would not have connected to the grid in their lifetime. The discussion also covers a debate about “hard power” versus “soft power,” with claims that terminating USAID removed “life-saving programs” and “life betterment programs” abruptly, and that this undermined America’s trust. It also discusses the idea that USAID’s work could be replicated through other U.S. agencies, with claims that health programs could be handled by HHS instead. The transcript concludes with questions about Iran nuclear negotiations and how different administrations’ “maximum pressure” strategies relate to policy outcomes. It then shifts into a separate, longer segment addressing behavioral economics and information control. Speakers claim Cass Sunstein—described as Samantha Power’s husband and a Harvard professor—authored ideas related to managing conspiracy theories. The transcript argues that Sunstein’s work informs modern information-control strategies and connects these to USAID’s alleged “cognitive infiltration” and “counter disinformation” efforts. The segment ends with social banter and plans for future streaming and personal messages among the participants.

During the Obama era, this was a scandal about rogue USAID operations in Cuba. Zunzanillo, an online social networking microblogging service created by USAID and marketed to Cuban users, ran from 02/2009 to 02/2014 as a Cuban Twitter clone; the network reached about 60,000 Cuban subscribers. USAID and the State Department pumped $1,200,000,000 to sponsor activist groups to learn Facebook, Twitter, hashtags, and how to coordinate protests, aiming to spark Arab Spring–style social media revolutions. Funds were concealed as humanitarian funds designated for Pakistan; contractors funded by USAID, main contractor Creative Associates International, designed the network and used a Byzantine system of front companies with Cayman Islands bank accounts, recruiting unsuspecting executives, “according to the AP.” Data would be used for micro targeting towards anti and pro government users in Cuba, building a vast database of Cuban Zunzanillo subscribers, including gender, age, and receptiveness and political tendencies. Initial content included “noncontroversial” sports, music, and hurricane updates; once subscriber mass was reached, political messages via social bots would be introduced to encourage dissent in this astroturfing, aiming to organize “smart mobs” and mass gatherings to topple the regime—“renegotiate the balance of power between state and society.” Guardian coverage and internal documents describe the plan, noting “this is classic CIA work.” If US fingerprints risk diplomatic blowback, “we need a formal intelligence agency.”

USAID, often seen as a humanitarian organization, has increasingly acted as a tool for domestic control, particularly through its efforts to censor information online. This shift became evident when USAID began targeting American social media platforms to combat disinformation, impacting domestic politics. They have funneled significant funds to organizations that influence U.S. affairs, including those connected to George Soros. USAID's actions reflect a broader agenda against populism, which they view as a threat to democracy. Their funding has supported initiatives that undermine populist movements globally, including in Brazil, where they contributed to censorship efforts against former President Bolsonaro. Ultimately, USAID's role has evolved into a mechanism for enforcing foreign policy goals by stifling domestic dissent.

I have a picture here of an Al Qaeda leader and they are in a USAID tent. Look who signed the check for the initial $200,000 payment to the Islamic Relief Agency, the United States Agency for International Development. USAID was running a top secret espionage program to undermine Cuba and push people to dissent. Now let me show you how much money we're talking about. It included a billion dollar sovereign loan guarantee, $320,000,000 in general assistance. Judicial Watch found that the US State Department and USAID had been giving millions to the Macedonian arm of George Soros' Open Society Foundation. To train youth movements. So USAID and those are always they're known by anybody who pays attention as CIA fronts. This is you know, the the USAID comes into a country. they start doing things, and next thing you know, we've got a revolution on our hands because that's the CIA.

The U.S. secretly developed a Twitter-like program called Zunzunio to undermine the Cuban government, as revealed by an Associated Press report. Funded through shell companies and foreign banks, the initiative aimed to attract young Cubans by initially sharing non-political content. Once a subscriber base was established, political messages would be introduced to inspire protests. This program, run by USAID rather than a spy agency, has drawn criticism for its covert nature and lack of transparency. Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy expressed skepticism about its effectiveness, while Peter Kornbluh highlighted the program's failure and its detrimental impact on U.S.-Cuba relations. The discussion raises concerns about the broader implications of U.S. covert operations in Cuba and the need for a shift in policy towards normalization.

"This was a scandal, during Obama the Obama USAID, era." "Now we were running a number of of rogue USAID operations in Cuba at the time." "This is an online social social networking microblogging service created by USAID and marketed to Cuban users." "This was a Twitter knockoff." "02/2009, 02/2014." "they took funds, millions of dollars of funds that were concealed as humanitarian funds designated for Pakistan." "The network dubbed the Cuban Twitter reached about 60,000 Cuban subscribers." "The data would then be used for micro targeting efforts towards anti and pro government users in Cuba." "Once they hit a critical mass, they would begin to introduce political messages through social bots and encourage dissent in this astroturfing." "There would be 'smart mobs' and rental riots." "If something has diplomatic blowback and we don't want US fingerprints on it, we need a formal intelligence agency because there's diplomatic blowback."

Hello everyone, and welcome to the weekly report. The USAID website is currently inaccessible, and reports indicate the Trump administration has frozen its activities, potentially moving it under the State Department or shutting it down entirely. Many view USAID as a humanitarian agency, but it plays a significant role in U.S. regime change efforts globally, funding NGOs that undermine elected governments. Recent reports show that 90% of Ukrainian media outlets rely on U.S. funding, creating a propaganda loop that distorts information about the conflict. Additionally, USAID is linked to funding gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab. Americans deserve transparency regarding USAID's actions, and the agency should be audited and ultimately closed. Thank you for listening.

During the Obama administration, USAID reportedly ran rogue operations in Cuba, including a Twitter knockoff called Zunzanillo, marketed to Cuban users. The goal was to create an Arab Spring-style social media revolution. Because Cuba didn't allow US social media, USAID created a platform with the same user interface as Twitter, using the Cuban slang word for hummingbird. Millions of dollars were concealed as humanitarian funds designated for Pakistan and funneled through Creative Associates International (CAI), using Cayman Islands bank accounts and unsuspecting business executives. The network reached 60,000 Cuban subscribers and gathered data on users' demographics and political tendencies. The plan was to initially use noncontroversial content like sports, music, and hurricane updates to build a subscriber base, then introduce political messages to encourage dissent. The aim was to organize "smart mobs" to trigger a "Cuban spring." USAID documents show the US government planned to build a subscriber base through noncontroversial news content, later introducing political content aimed at inspiring Cubans to organize.

The speaker describes a “scandal” involving USAID operations during the Obama era, saying they were aimed at systematically fooling “the American people,” “Congress,” and “the White House,” while stating they are “no fan of the Cuban government” without weighing in on whether regime change is right or wrong. They focus on a USAID-created Cuban social media microblogging service called Zunzunio, described as a Twitter knockoff using the same user interface and like/retweet buttons. They say it was created because Cuba did not allow US social media, so the operation replicated Twitter while being designed to appear as if it was coming from Cubans. Zunzunio is described as a Cuban slang word meaning hummingbird and tied to the “Twitter bird.” The speaker places the initiative in a broader US push during 2010–2014, linking USAID and the State Department’s “Arab Spring” social media strategy to Facebook and Twitter-style “revolutions.” They claim USAID “pumped one point two billion dollars” to sponsor activist and civil society groups to learn Facebook, Twitter, hashtags, and how to coordinate street protests and slogans. They then describe the alleged funding and concealment structure: they say millions in funds were “concealed as humanitarian funds designated for Pakistan,” despite Pakistan not being presented as geographically adjacent to Cuba. They claim contractors funded by USAID, with Creative Associates International described as the main contractor, created a “Byzantine system of front companies” using Cayman Islands bank accounts and recruiting business executives who were not told of ties to the US government, according to the Associated Press. According to the speaker, the idea arose after USAID received “five hundred thousand stolen Cuban cell phones” from the black market. They state the network reached about 60,000 Cuban subscribers and that it had a surveillance dimension, aimed at building a “vast database” of Zunzunio subscribers, including gender, age, and “receptiveness and political tendencies,” using internal documents cited in quotes. They add that the data could be used for future political purposes and micro-targeting efforts toward anti- and pro-government users in Cuba. They also describe the content strategy as starting with “non-controversial” material such as sports, music, and hurricane updates through a humanitarian front, before eventually introducing political messages using social bots and encouraging dissent through astroturfing.

A Substack piece alleges USAID and the CIA helped orchestrate Trump's impeachment. According to the speaker, a CIA analyst leftover from the Obama White House wrote the memo that led to the impeachment based on hearsay. This memo relied heavily on a report by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), an organization funded by USAID. The OCCRP was allegedly created as an extension of the State Department and USAID. The speaker claims USAID was about regime change abroad, a public-facing version of covert CIA operations. The speaker suggests that, similar to censorship tools used abroad being brought home, the predicate for Trump's impeachment was created abroad. The speaker believes this is one of many revelations to come.

Initially, USAID was created with good intentions. However, the agency has broken the trust with the American people and hasn't been transparent about where our taxpayer dollars are going. In 2021, the special operations command put out an instruction manual with instructions and examples on how the military could work with the state department, intel services, and USAID using race riots in order to destabilize nations. They also advocated for setting up job fairs near some of these riots so that disaffected workers could gain employment. These operations are taking place without government oversight, without the authority of the president, without the authority of congress. USAID needs to condemn this and provide oversight to congress on exactly where our tax dollars are going. Do you agree that this is wrong?

Trump's freeze on USAID funds, totaling $268 million, has sparked outrage among liberals. This action cut funding to media outlets in over 30 countries, impacting 6,200 journalists and numerous news organizations. The move exposes how the US government funds foreign media, influencing global narratives. This practice is compared to past controversies involving government manipulation of social media and opinions. The revelation is causing concern, as it highlights the extent of US influence on international media, including major outlets like the BBC, of which the US is the second largest funder. This practice of “manufacturing consent” is now under scrutiny.

The speaker discusses the Smith-Mundt Act, initially designed to prevent the US government's foreign propaganda from being used on American citizens. The act was created in response to concerns about the "Frankensteinian monster" of a permanent covert operation influencing foreign governments through media and other institutions. Frank Wisner, a CIA figure, created "Wisner's Wurlitzer," a media network to spread narratives globally. The Smith-Mundt Act originally allowed such activities abroad to secure economic advantages for the US, but prohibited them domestically. The speaker claims this protection was lost a decade ago and that the US faces a deeper problem with USAID, the Pentagon, and the State Department funding groups that operate both domestically and abroad. These groups allegedly engage in media propaganda and social media censorship, influencing foreign countries to pass laws that target US social media companies and speech. The speaker advocates for a strict firewall and severe penalties for violations.

The US government often touts its aid through USAID, but it primarily serves as a tool for regime change. USAID collaborates with organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy to fund political groups aligned with US interests, supporting propaganda, political organizing, and sometimes violent uprisings. Samantha Power, the current head of USAID, has a history of advocating for US intervention in foreign countries, notably during the Obama administration when she supported the wars in Libya and Syria. These interventions resulted in significant costs and chaos, particularly in Libya, where the aftermath has led to human rights abuses. Much of the aid distributed is likely directed toward groups that align with US economic and political goals, rather than assisting those in genuine need.

The speaker claims that Telegram receives excessive attention from US security agencies. During a US visit, an engineer working for Telegram was allegedly approached by cybersecurity agents attempting a secret hire. The agents were interested in Telegram's open-source libraries and tried persuading the engineer to integrate specific open-source tools that the speaker believes would function as backdoors, potentially enabling government surveillance of Telegram users. The speaker also recounts personal experiences of being met by FBI agents at US airports and visited at their residence. They believe the FBI's interest was in gathering details about Telegram and establishing a relationship to better control the platform. While acknowledging the agents were doing their job, the speaker suggests this level of scrutiny made the US a less-than-ideal environment for running a privacy-focused social media platform.

Speaker 0 discusses a 2021 Special Operations Command instruction manual under Mark Milley, described as a vision for 2021 and beyond that contained instructions and examples on how the military could work with the state department, intel services, and USAID using race riots to destabilize nations, citing “examples of some of the instruction manuals here” as one and two to destabilize nations. Speaker 1 references a declassified CIA guide written in 1983 that trains operatives in how to organize riots in foreign countries. It is described as advocating for using agitators, including hiring professional criminals, to manipulate mass meetings and assemblies of people in person, which can result in general violence. The guide allegedly instructs the case officers that “our psychological war team must develop in advance a hostile mental attitude among the target groups so that at the given moment, they can turn their anger into violence demanding the rights taken away by the regime,” with a goal to make ethnic minority groups mad at their government in a general sense so that, when triggered, they will turn that general anger into physical violence against the state they aim to overthrow. The CIA guide allegedly details getting teachers, doctors, attorneys, and businessmen recruited as social crusaders for the CIA-backed cause, with a plan for gradually building clusters of influence: “these cells,” including “10 super teachers… 10 lawyers… 10 captains of industry… 10 medical professionals,” who will each operate within their spheres of influence and, at an appropriate time, fuse the groups into a united front. It is claimed that with “a force of 200 to 300 agitators,” one can create a demonstration in which “10,000 to 20,000” participate, given access to “200 back channels, 200 human assets” built up to mobilize a large riot. Speaker 0 adds that the guide also recommended setting up job fairs near protests so that disaffected workers could gain employment. The speaker then questions as a member of Congress whether anyone in USAID gets elected to Congress or to a presidency. Speaker 1 asserts that the US secretly created Cuban Twitter to stir unrest in organized smart mobs, likening them to BLM-style mobs. He notes McSpeden, who “worked for USAID’s Office of Transition Initiatives,” and explains that the term “transition” means regime change. He cites a 2009 congressional report stating that the Office of Transition Initiatives runs a program to topple governments through organized political warfare, mobilizing unions, boycotts, and shutdowns of roads, transportation systems, hospitals, and schools, and that a Senate Foreign Relations Committee member Fulton Armstrong warned that even he could not obtain broad access to what USAID was doing, describing it as a secret operation. Speaker 0 closes by saying that acting in the shadows to destabilize nations using race wars and advocating that the military do it jeopardizes future generations who would have to fight such wars and operates without oversight.

The speaker claims that USAID and the CIA helped orchestrate Trump's impeachment. According to the speaker, the House of Representatives impeached President Trump in December 2019 based on a memo written by a CIA analyst held over from the Obama administration. The memo relied heavily on a report by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), an organization initially funded by USAID. The speaker alleges that USAID was involved in regime change abroad and, like censorship tools used abroad, helped create a predicate for Trump's impeachment. The speaker suggests this is one of many revelations to come.

A Substack article claims USAID and the CIA helped orchestrate Trump's impeachment. According to the article, the House of Representatives impeached President Trump in December 2019 based on a memo written by a CIA analyst held over from the Obama White House. The memo relied on a report by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), an organization initially funded by USAID as an extension of the State Department. The article asserts that USAID is about regime change abroad, a public-facing version of covert CIA operations. The speaker suggests that just as censorship tools used abroad were brought back home, these organizations created a predicate for Trump's impeachment.

In 2014, riots known as the rebellion occurred in Ukraine, but it was not widely known that the US was financing these riots. The riots led to a coup against Ukraine's democratically elected government, which refused to align with the West. A month before the coup, a secret call between Victoria Nuland, a high-level official in the State Department, and the US ambassador was recorded and made public. In the call, they discussed choosing a new cabinet for Ukraine, essentially picking a US-backed government before the old one was overthrown. This raises questions about democracy and the role of organizations like USAID and the CIA, which have a history of overthrowing governments, including democracies.