Why the U.S. is cutting off funding to mainstream media. Parsing

American publications have lost major subscribers in the form of departments of the US government. The reason was the accusations against some of them of receiving money from the USAID agency, which was involved in financing journalists around the world. Why US President Donald Trump turned against the press and how it will end for the American media - in the material "Izvestia".

What happened

- The US Department of Government Efficiency announced the termination of contracts concluded with Politico, The New York Times and Associated Press. According to the official portal of government spending, they received funding from the budget through state departments and government organizations. The day after that, the press reported that the White House instructed the General Services Administration (GSA), which handles government procurement, to terminate "all media contracts."

- Politico was the first to be hit. After the disclosure of information about the publication ' s receipt of more than $8 million from the U.S. government budget and reports the day before that Politico had delayed the payment of salaries to employees for the first time, users of social network X said that this was due to the freezing of USAID funds - allegedly the publication was financed from the agency's funds.

Musk has been jettisoned: a key element of US soft power has been destroyed

What's really behind the destruction of USAID

- This thesis was later confirmed by Trump, who said on the social network Truth Social that the publication received money for "creating good stories about Democrats." The non-profit organization WikiLeaks in the social network X (former Twitter) reported that the agency funded "more than 6.2 thousand journalists in 707 media outlets and 279 'media' NGOs, including nine out of ten media outlets in Ukraine."

- According to public records, Politico received a total of $8 million between 2016 and 2025 as subscription and policy research payments from several U.S. departments. Only $44,000 came from USAID - for a two-year subscription to the energy and environment publication.

- The New York Times also faced exaggerated charges. Right-wing journalist and co-host of a podcast about numerology Ian Miles Chong, who was quoted in his post by the owner of the X network Ilon Musk, said that the publication received "tens of millions of dollars" from U.S. departments. Although users in the comments corrected the journalist, explaining that "millions" meant all the payments made by the government to various resources over several years, the erroneous information has already been picked up and spread by the foreign press.

No helping hand: the U.S. has changed its mind about funding Central Asia

Donald Trump has frozen USAID's regional aid programs

USAID Manipulation

- Despite the lack of direct funding for the U.S. press, USAID provided funds for various projects involving U.S. publications. The USAID-sponsored Organized Crime and Corruption Research Center (OCCRP) was a media network that funded "independent" investigative journalism designed to manipulate public opinion through the media. In particular, such publications attacked Trump and promoted conspiracy theories about Russian interference in the U.S. election.

- Swiss journalists have reported on OCCRP-paid investigations in Le Monde, The Guardian and The New York Times and Süddeutsche Zeitung defaming Swiss banks. Previously, the OCCRP had helped to publicize data on offshore residents. As it turned out, journalists were used to serve the economic and political interests of the US, which is the world's leading tax haven and seeks to eliminate competitors.

Reasons for Trump's conflict with the media

- Analysts note that already during his first term, Trump faced a biased attitude on the part of journalists. About 90% of all US media outlets express support for the Democratic Party and promote its candidates.

Pumping Democracy: How and with whom USAID worked in Russia

The State Department wrote school textbooks and the Constitution of the Russian Federation

- Trump has old scores to settle with many publications. For example, he unsuccessfully sued the New York Times after it published an investigation into his family's income and tax evasion: the article was awarded the Pulitzer Prize in 2018. On January 10, the court ordered Trump to pay nearly $400,000 in legal fees to The New York Times and three journalists.

- Another victim of Trump's anger was CBS television. During the election campaign, it published an edited interview for the "60 Minutes" program with Democratic presidential candidate and U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris. According to Trump, deleting the segment where the vice president answered the reporter's question confusingly and uncertainly allowed Harris' incompetence to be hidden from voters and was an example of dishonest journalism. Trump has called for CBS to be stripped of its license.

- After Trump's inauguration, CBS was investigated by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission, and the network released the original footage and transcripts to prove that the information was not misrepresented. Although there is no reason to revoke the license, the scandal has already damaged the TV channel: the owner of CBS company Paramount intends to settle the conflict with the US president on any terms and sell the assets.

The end in history: the U.S. spent $335 billion on USAID over nine years

What Americans' money was spent on and whether the agency is in danger of merging with the State Department

- The U.S. administration has also reported the eviction of major media outlets from the office space allocated for them in the Pentagon. The New York Times, NBC News, NPR and Politico must vacate the offices by February 14. The Times, One America News, Breitbart News and HuffPost are to take over the Correspondents' Corridor instead.

- The reason for the attack on the press may be the media's refusal to support a revolutionary change of political course. While the new US administration is changing its approach to immigration policy and opposing minority benefits, the publications continue to push the old Democratic agenda.

- Donald Trump and his fellow multi-billionaire Ilon Musk accuse the pro-democracy media of bias and retreating from the principles of free speech. Musk noted that this is allegedly why he acquired the social network X: first of all, he eliminated censorship in it. On January 7, the owner of META Corporation (recognized as extremist and banned in Russia) Mark Zuckerberg also announced the abandonment of the practice of content moderation and factchecking, which turned the platform into a "political tool".

Cut to the gut: why Trump canceled federal aid in the U.S.

The administration is being forced to cut spending - mostly at the expense of political opponents

- Experts do not rule out that one of the motives behind the new US administration's campaign against the media may be revenge against those publications that supported Trump's political opponents and criticized his policies, and to give the right-wing and conservative publications that support him a chance to be heard.

What will happen to the US media

- It is already clear that the new US administration favors bloggers who are more popular with young people. At the first briefing by White House press secretary Caroline Leavitt, front row seats were reserved for "independent journalists, podcast hosts, social media influencers and content creators."

- Increasingly, X publications are becoming news stories in their own right. Trump's campaign against the press was also kicked off by social network users' posts by Ilon Musk. As head of the Department of Government Efficiency and with access to the federal financial system, Musk not only made the decision to stop funding these publications, he enforced it.

- The US President may tone down his rhetoric toward the press as he is interested in both winning the sympathy of the electorate and advancing his agenda. Shortly after the inauguration, Trump's rating began to fall, and not all of the actions he has taken as US president are perceived positively. At present, it is important for the head of the White House to strike a balance: to limit the influence of liberal publications, support conservative ones, and at the same time preserve the image of a fighter for freedom of speech.

In preparing this article, Izvestia spoke with:

• Yulia Boguslavskaya, an Americanist, candidate of political sciences, senior lecturer at the Department of American Studies of the Faculty of International Relations of St. Petersburg State University;
• American political scientist Vladimir Mozhegov.