THREAD: I dug up archived USAID-funded Internews Annual Reports. Here’s how this nonprofit played a crucial role in regime change across Eastern Europe in service of NATO expansion—then turned its tactics inward, calling for censorship in the West. A deep dive

1/ Internews, heavily funded by USAID ($470M), spent decades building media networks, training journalists, and promoting “free speech” in former Soviet states. But their mission wasn’t neutral. It was about shaping narratives to support NATO expansion.

Let’s start in 2001. 2/ The 2001 Internews Annual Report states: "Internews is one of the more successful agents of change in the former Soviet Union." - The Washington Post They worked to establish independent media in Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, Serbia, and beyond—fueling the decline of Moscow’s influence.

3/ Internews wasn’t just promoting “free press.” Their own documents admit: "INTERNEWS does not just produce television and radio shows... it is more interested in using broadcast media as a lever to effect social and political transformation." Translation: Regime change.

4/ In the 1990s, Internews partnered with the Soros Foundation to fund media organizations in post-Soviet nations, playing a pivotal role in the color revolutions of the 2000s in Serbia, Georgia, and Ukraine. Their goal? To steer these countries toward NATO and Western control.

5/ During Georgia’s Rose Revolution, Internews funded and trained journalists at Rustavi-2 TV, the leading channel driving the uprising. "Media was very good at informing the public about what was going on, and it had a huge role in calling people onto the streets." – Marc Behrendt, former Internews director for Georgia Internews Annual Report 2004: "A NON-VIOLENT uprising in November of 2003 led to the resignation of the president of Georgia in what became known as the “Rose Revolution.” One of the star players in this historic event was the gutsy, independent television station Rustavi2. As the only broadcaster willing to stand up to the government and inform the public about vote fraud and the protests that followed, Rustavi2 helped catalyze the mass mobilization of the population." "Since starting work in Georgia in 1994, Internews has provided extensive support to Rustavi-2, including training staff in investigative journalism and news reporting skills, and providing management, technical, and legal advice. When the government unsuccessfully tried to shut down the station in 1995 and again in 1996, Internews Georgia organized local and international campaigns in support of the station." "In July of 2004, Rustavi-2 became an associate member of Internews International."

6/ By 2003, in Ukraine, Internews had: Conducted 220 media training programs Trained over 2,800 journalists Produced 220+ TV programs & 1,000+ radio programs Funded Telekritika, an online outlet central to the 2004 Orange Revolution The result? A Western-aligned Ukraine.

7/ By 2005, Internews proudly stated they produced Proyav Chasu, one of Ukraine’s most popular TV programs, which "highlighted popular demonstrations against election fraud" during the Orange Revolution. They weren’t just reporting the revolution. They were fueling it.

8/ By 2007, Internews had: Trained 60,000 journalists worldwide Established 2,500+ independent media outlets Reached an audience of nearly 1 BILLION people Advocated for media laws in 21 countries Operated in 70 countries with offices in 42 cities This was media influence at an unprecedented scale.

9/ The Washington Post described them as: "One of the more successful agents of change in the former Soviet Union." But was this really about “democracy”? Or about advancing U.S. and NATO geopolitical goals through information warfare?

10/ Let’s step back to their origins: In the 1980s, Internews helped facilitate U.S.-Soviet spacebridges—live, uncensored TV dialogues during the Cold War. By the 1990s, they pivoted to supporting U.S. funded media in post-Soviet states to counter Moscow’s narrative.

11/ Internews even admitted its role in paving the way for NATO: In May 1990, Internews co-sponsored a meeting to discuss “the future architecture of Europe, including the question of allowing a unified Germany into NATO.” This meeting, held at Crottorf Castle, was organized with the Soros-funded Institute for East-West Studies.

12/ Fast forward to 2016. After Trump’s election & Brexit, Internews pivoted. The same NGO that once championed free speech as a weapon against foreign governments began calling free speech online dangerous and pushed for censorship in the West. Internews CEO Jeanne Bourgault pushed for a global advertising "exclusion list" to censor "disinformation" at the World Economic Forum. This coincided with the 𝕏 advertising boycott, targeting Elon Musk's platform, which had been at the forefront of defending free speech online.

13/ Internews—now collaborating with the USAID-funded World Economic Forum—shifted its focus to advertising boycotts to control online discourse. What was once used to overthrow foreign governments was now turned against American citizens. Their new narrative? The internet must be policed to stop “misinformation” and “disinformation.” The same information warfare they used abroad was now turned inward—targeting political dissidents, alternative media, and anyone challenging establishment narratives. They didn’t stop with media manipulation abroad. They brought those tactics home.

14/ This raises critical questions: Did USAID-Internews’ regime change efforts actually help the people in these countries or the American people? Or did they serve NATO expansion, lucrative defense contracts, and Western corporate interests at the expense of the people? Because when you look at the results, it’s clear: Russia and China grew closer, accelerating a multipolar world. Ukraine became a battleground between Western interests and Russia, devastating the country, and risking a nuclear war. Eastern European nations were pulled into NATO and EU structures, often at the cost of their own sovereignty. American taxpayers funded this, but never saw any direct benefit—only endless wars and skyrocketing military spending.

16/ The irony is staggering. Internews was founded during the Cold War to foster open dialogue between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. It was meant to reduce hostilities between East and West. Instead, USAID and Western elites transformed it into a propaganda machine for NATO expansion, which ignited the second Cold War.

17/ But here’s where it gets worse. It’s bad enough that USAID-funded media manipulation helped expand NATO, escalate global tensions, and contribute to war. But after Trump and Brexit, when this same public-private partnership turned inward—censoring political opposition and online free speech in the West—it lost all legitimacy. Why should American taxpayers fund organizations calling for the censorship of American taxpayers? Why is a foreign-focused regime change machine now deciding what Americans can and cannot say online?

18/ The reality is, USAID didn’t just fund foreign interventions. They helped create a global information control apparatus—one that can be turned on any population at any time. What started in Serbia, Georgia, and Ukraine came home to target Brexit supporters, MAGA voters, and dissenting voices on 𝕏. First, they “protected democracy” abroad. Then, they “protected democracy” by censoring you.

19/ The final question: Who has really benefited from USAID funding Internews across Eastern Europe? The people in these countries? American taxpayers? Or NATO, the defense contractors, and Western elites? At what point do Americans start questioning why they’re funding this? Because the USAID bill? It exceeds $40 billion per year—funding not just foreign regime change and domestic censorship, but also the Wuhan lab, the World Economic Forum, and the reignition of the Cold War. And the costs keep rising.