According to ForeignAssistance.gov, in 2024, Ukraine received $6.05 billion in financial aid through U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) programs, with $3.9 billion allocated as direct budgetary support.
The remaining $2.15 billion was distributed among various government institutions (officials), non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and private companies (profit-oriented businesses). The largest portions of these funds went to economic development ($1.05 billion), humanitarian aid ($580 million), and democracy promotion and human rights protection ($340 million).
In January 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump's administration suspended all USAID programs worldwide, including in Ukraine, for 90 days to audit their compliance with American taxpayer interests.
Does the Ukrainian economy need such funding? No doubt. However, the suspension sparked public debate, with heated discussions over the effectiveness and proper allocation of these funds.
Ukrainian business journalist and media expert Serhiy Lyamets, who has experience with grant-related processes, shared his insights on the suspension with Mind, shedding light on some of the behind-the-scenes complexities.
USAID projects are a mixed bag – some are beneficial (transformers, generators, medicine, batteries), while others have questionable results (activism and reforms). By the author's estimate, the ratio is about 60/40.
Restructuring this system independently was nearly impossible due to the sheer number of projects funding government institutions. Even a small donor contribution often grants influence over reform processes and even operational management within state bodies. This might explain why Ukraine’s public administration has been deteriorating over the years, while officials eagerly accept and sustain grant funding. More on the benefits for those distributing donor aid below.
Thanks to Donald Trump, there is now an opportunity to eliminate certain projects. Whether this will be beneficial remains to be seen, but the status quo was far from ideal for the country as a whole.
The author of this opinion expects that after the review, some USAID projects will return, while others will not. A new wave of reforms and "messianic" ambitions will likely emerge. However, the author is confident that the golden age of so-called grant-feeding is behind us.
It's not just about specific aid projects for farmers, energy workers, and others. The real impact is on the lower-level executors, who received far less from grants than it might seem.
The author of this opinion is somewhat familiar with the inner workings of grant organizations, where strict discipline prevails. For very limited pay, workers are expected to handle an overwhelming amount of tasks under constant supervision, with reminders that they should be grateful for the funding. Naturally, the higher one is in the hierarchy, the larger the financial benefits. Each subsequent level below gets significantly less. This is no surprise – the same logic applies in corporations and state institutions.
Sources indicate that, in the case of USAID, 50-70% of the funds never leave the U.S. but instead go to general contractors. From there, the money trickles down through several layers. At the bottom are the executors, often doing 100% of the work while receiving only about 10% of the budget. This isn't publicly acknowledged, but in reality, lower-level grant workers earn salaries that are around the national average in Ukraine. They may be labeled as grant-feeders, but in truth, they see no extraordinary profits.
The real grant-feeders are those higher up the chain. They are the ones fueling the media outcry, claiming, "You don’t understand the consequences of stopping USAID grants." It's understandable – people are simply protecting their financial interests.
Following the suspension of USAID programs, a wave of social media posts appeared from those who had received funding. The reactions varied – some highlighted genuinely important projects, such as veteran assistance. However, others resorted to clear manipulations.
One person called anyone supporting the pause foolish. Another urged people to repent. A third claimed that without grants, nothing positive would ever happen in Ukraine. A fourth started compiling blacklists of those who mocked the suspension, promising future retaliation.
The author of this opinion does not claim to have a definitive explanation for such behavior but offers a perspective based on personal experience. One clear observation is that grant-sector workers are often highly ideologically charged. And this is not accidental.
When speaking with high-ranking grant-feeders, one encounters seasoned political players who say what is expected. But at the lower levels, true believers dominate – people who genuinely see their work as a vital mission.
This belief isn’t just encouraged; it is actively cultivated. Conversations, values, and daily tasks are infused with a strong ideological component. The management approach used here relies on intangible motivation – workers must feel a deep personal commitment to their cause. Older generations might recognize a similar strategy from the Soviet Union, where the party elite instilled unwavering faith in Lenin’s mission to distract people from everyday struggles.
As for the more experienced grant recipients – those who have been in this space for years – they are fully aware that this is a game. Their motivations, however, are another story.
At this moment, grant networks have mobilized all their resources. Across global media and social platforms, countless articles and posts have emerged on the same theme. The central message: People do not understand the consequences of suspending funding.
Speaking as someone with media expertise – this is a classic media campaign. And a massive one at that. Thousands of outlets and individuals are pushing the same narrative. The goal? To drive home one conclusion: Restore all funding. Bring back all projects – or at least most of them.
Notably, those leading the charge are not distinguishing between necessary and questionable projects. They demand everything back in one package. In other words, alongside funding for transformers, generators, and medicine, they want to restore activism and reform initiatives.
As a reminder, the ratio of beneficial vs. questionable projects is estimated at 60/40.
As always, public opinion is divided into three groups:
A suggestion: Don’t take an extreme position. Instead, recognize that this is a rare opportunity to observe how a powerful system operates – one that shapes not only aid distribution but also preferences and values. This is simultaneously a business, an ideology, and a practical tool of deep state influence.
Maybe this is all for the best. Ukraine’s government was once deeply infiltrated by Russian influence. Moscow shaped not only the worldview of Ukrainian elites but also the composition of Ukraine’s security services. Now, a comprehensive Western influence (extending beyond USAID to the EU and other actors) has largely erased Russian control over Ukrainian politics.
That is a positive development.
But what has Ukraine received in return? Has it truly transformed into a European state? The author believes that goal is still far off.