Dollar diplomacy, a term historically linked to U.S. foreign policy strategies, refers to using financial power to exert influence over foreign governments and political outcomes.

One of the most notable mechanisms of dollar diplomacy is the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

While USAID officially channels funds for humanitarian aid, infrastructure projects, and economic development, its reach goes beyond traditional development work.

In reality, USAID funds often serve as a tool for the CIA and other branches of the U.S. government, which strategically allocate resources to secure favorable outcomes from foreign actors. These financial incentives are used to sway political leaders, influence elections, and support regimes that align with U.S. interests.

Are these funding items grossly wasteful political projects involving NGOs and their leftist agenda, or something more akin to “black budget” operations and political bribes?

• EcoHealth Alliance, a global health organization that brought you the Communist Chinese Pandemic, focuses on infectious disease research and has been at the center of controversy due to its funding ties and partnerships. Critics have raised concerns about the organization's role as a potential cut-out for CIA operations, particularly concerning its research in China. EcoHealth has studied bat coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, leading some to question whether its activities served as a front for gathering intelligence on Chinese bioweapons research. While EcoHealth’s mission focuses on disease prevention, its connections to U.S. government funding and its engagement in high-stakes biosecurity research in China have led to suspicions that the organization may have been used as a channel for intelligence gathering under the guise of scientific collaboration. Though there is no conclusive proof of espionage, the murky intersection of health, diplomacy, and defense raises troubling questions about using non-governmental organizations as covert actors in geopolitical conflicts.

• The CIA's alleged involvement in drug trafficking to fund covert operations, often referred to as "the dark side of the war on drugs," has been a subject of intense debate and conspiracy theories. Over the years, numerous reports and whistleblower accounts have suggested that the CIA turned a blind eye—or actively facilitated—the smuggling of drugs, particularly during the Cold War. These operations reportedly helped fund clandestine operations, such as those in Latin America and Afghanistan, without the need for Congressional approval or oversight.

  One of the most widely cited examples is the "Iran-Contra Affair" of the 1980s, where the CIA is accused of using profits from drug trafficking to fund Nicaraguan Contras, a rebel group fighting the Sandinista government. The operation allegedly included the trafficking of cocaine into U.S. cities, mainly targeting African American communities, in what many view as a deliberate manipulation of the drug trade to support U.S. geopolitical goals.

  Though much of this remains speculative, reports and declassified documents continue to show a pattern of the CIA's involvement in operations that indirectly or directly supported drug smuggling to fund covert activities. The practice highlights the blurred lines between state-sponsored operations and criminal activities, raising serious ethical questions about the extent of U.S. involvement in fueling the global drug trade for strategic purposes.

• In some covert diplomatic operations, securing access to a foreign leader or gaining a favorable photo opportunity can involve more than just negotiation or promises of political support. In certain instances, technical equipment such as cameras, surveillance gear, or other high-tech devices are used as part of the payment or barter for access. This method allows the U.S. or other foreign powers to establish a presence or gain strategic intelligence in a way that is hidden behind the guise of diplomacy.

  For example, a diplomatic mission might involve leaving behind sophisticated communication equipment or cameras as a form of "payment" for exclusive access to a foreign leader. In some cases, this can be part of a more significant deal, where the equipment is ostensibly given as a gesture of goodwill or as part of a technical exchange. However, the true intent often includes the surveillance capabilities built into these devices, allowing for ongoing intelligence gathering in the future.

  While these actions may seem unusual or controversial, they underscore the complexity of international relations, where even small gestures like a photo op or a public meeting can be negotiated in exchange for more technical or clandestine assets. These operations reflect the reality that nothing is genuinely given without a deeper purpose or potential payoff in the world of diplomacy and intelligence.

Are these individuals trustworthy?

Bottom line…

I cannot help but wonder if we are exposing secret black ops that keep America safe in favor of cheap political headlines.

Shadow diplomacy, which involves the covert use of taxpayer money to support political movements, fund opposition groups, or shore up regimes friendly to American goals, is rarely discussed publicly. However, it should serve as a powerful reminder of how economic assistance can be wielded as a tool of statecraft—a crucial and necessary tool to maintain geopolitical influence in a complex world.

Before celebrating these successes in curbing waste, fraud, and abuse, let us hope that those ferreting out details have security clearances and the knowledgeable leadership to know when to keep their mouths shut and press releases in check.

We are so screwed.

-- Steve