According to Benz, Americans deserve answers about USAID’s connections to organizations that were deeply involved in efforts to monitor and police online speech during the Trump years.
At the center of his criticism is the Atlantic Council, a prominent foreign policy organization that has worked closely with governments, technology companies, and international institutions on combating so-called misinformation.
Benz argues that USAID funding helped support initiatives linked to the Atlantic Council at a time when the organization was involved in developing programs that identified and flagged content online, including posts from then-President Donald Trump.
The issue has become especially controversial among conservatives who believe federal agencies and their partners crossed a dangerous line by influencing content moderation decisions on major social media platforms.
For years, Benz has investigated what he describes as a vast network connecting government agencies, nonprofit organizations, academic institutions, and technology companies. He has repeatedly argued that taxpayer-funded programs intended for foreign policy objectives were repurposed to influence political discourse closer to home.
His criticism intensified following the release of the Twitter Files and other disclosures that revealed communication between government officials and social media companies regarding content moderation.
Supporters of Benz’s position say those revelations exposed an unprecedented effort to shape online conversations and suppress viewpoints that challenged the political establishment.
Power, however, has consistently defended USAID’s mission and maintains that the agency’s work focused on humanitarian relief, democracy promotion, and international development.
Critics are not convinced.
Questions have also been raised about meetings Power held during her tenure with major philanthropic organizations, including those connected to billionaire financier George Soros and Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates.
Conservatives argue that those relationships fueled concerns that taxpayer-funded programs were operating alongside powerful ideological networks that exert significant influence over global policy debates.
While there is no evidence that such meetings were improper, opponents say they highlight how closely connected government agencies can become with well-funded advocacy organizations that share similar policy goals.
Power has previously argued that USAID became a target of foreign adversaries precisely because it was effective.
In one interview, she suggested that propaganda efforts from China and Russia frequently attacked USAID because the agency’s programs threatened authoritarian interests abroad.
Her critics see the situation differently.
They argue that the agency’s leadership spent years portraying itself as a purely humanitarian operation while avoiding serious public discussion about its partnerships with organizations involved in combating alleged misinformation and disinformation.
The broader debate comes as Secretary of State Marco Rubio oversees the Trump administration’s restructuring of America’s foreign aid apparatus.
The administration has defended its decision to replace USAID with a new approach that places greater emphasis on direct government-to-government agreements and increased oversight of how taxpayer dollars are spent overseas.
Supporters say the changes are designed to eliminate bureaucracy, reduce waste, and prevent taxpayer funds from flowing through networks of nongovernmental organizations that operate with limited public accountability.
For Benz, the controversy surrounding Power is about much more than one former administrator.
He argues that USAID became part of a larger system that blurred the line between foreign policy operations and domestic information management.
Whether Americans agree with that assessment or not, the debate is unlikely to disappear anytime soon.
As lawmakers continue examining government involvement in online speech issues, questions surrounding USAID’s partnerships, funding decisions, and relationships with outside organizations are expected to remain a major point of contention.
Power continues to defend her record and the agency she once led. But critics such as Benz believe the public still has not received a full accounting of how federal dollars were used, who benefited from those programs, and whether institutions originally created to advance American interests abroad became involved in shaping political conversations at home.
That battle over transparency, accountability, and government influence may ultimately prove to be one of the most significant legacies of the USAID debate.
