Last Monday (3), which conducts the Department of Government Efficiency (Doge) in Trump management, the main US government agency responsible for managing international aid and development programs.
The president, resulting in the closure of the USAID website and attempting to integrate it into the state department.
This event quickly turned into a central discussion theme at the Brazilian Boconist Right Messaging Ecosystem, where more than 100,000 public groups of WhatsApp and Telegram monitored by the Palver platform have been intensifying a narrative that associates the USAID with alleged interference with scammer intentions in political directions of Brazil.
According to, the agency would be involved in maneuvers to influence decisions of the Superior Electoral Court () and even to silence critical voices through censorship in social networks and messaging applications.
This narrative maintains that Usaid divert resources from taxes to finance influence and censorship operations that favor certain political interests.
Thus, the advocates of this thesis state that if the agency were not “financing” such networks, the outcome of the polls would be another and the president, portrayed as a victim of external interference, would have remained in power.
It is possible to detect wide spread through messages from a speech by Mike Benz, a former state department employee of the first Trump administration. His speech is used as a central proof of this interference, stating that “if USAID did not exist, Bolsonaro would still be president.”
The Federal Supreme Court () and the TSE are accused of adopting decisions that, in collusion with USAID, contributed to silence Bolsonaro supporters, while described as an instrument of this apparatus, supported by agents linked to the agency.
The supposed network of influence also extends to international figures such as George Soros, named the great financier behind a NGO network that collaborate with USAID to promote a globalist agenda, and Bill Gates, whose foundation is cited as a source support for controversial projects aligned with this alleged censorship policy.
The Biden government is accused of maintaining and funding institutions that facilitate this external interference as opposed to Trump and Musk’s initiatives. Victoria Nalland, in turn, is cited as a key piece that she would have participated in interventions in foreign governments, “choosing” new offices even before overthrowing the old ones.
This rhetorical articulation is reinforced by an intensely emotional language, with aggressive terms such as “worm” and “blow to the blows”, which divide the political debate into two antagonistic fields: “us”, the patriots defenders of sovereignty, and “they”, the supposed agents of a global conspiracy.
The incessant repetition of links and references to videos and articles – most of the time without verification – contributes to a polarization that weakens public debate, mixing distorted information to legitimate criticism of foreign influence on politics.
In reflecting on these accusations, it is essential to remember that the narrative that puts USAID as ae of censorship is, first and foremost, an adaptation of ancient conspiracy theories, now recontextualized to adapt to the extreme right discourse.
At a time when trust in institutions is essential for the consolidation of democracy, public debate should be based on verifiable evidence, not rhetorical alarmists that only expand polarization.
After all, true sovereignty is not conquered with conspiracy theories, but with the strengthening of institutions and the democratic spirit.
Gift Link: Did you like this text? Subscriber can release seven free hits from any link per day. Just click on F Blue below.
