logo
Paranoid Elon Musk Says That USAID Has Been Constructing a False Reality Around Us

Paranoid Elon Musk Says That USAID Has Been Constructing a False Reality Around Us

Yahoo08-02-2025

Elon Musk is making a wild new claim: that USAID — and untold other regions of the American federal government, apparently — has constructed a false, "Truman Show"-esque reality around us.
Keyword: saying. It means nothing, and Musk — who's currently knee-deep in a digitally-driven power grab within the federal government — has offered no proof of the wild claim that we're living in an intentionally constructed false reality built by the foreign aid agency he's bragged about feeding into a "woodchipper."
The United States Agency for International Development, or USAID, is America's primary provider of all foreign aid. It's a complex agency that does a lot of things, from treating and preventing the spread of disease to delivering food and medical supplies in war-torn or famine-stricken areas, to sometimes providing disaster relief. It also played a significant role in advancing democratic interests in post-Soviet-era Europe and battling Apartheid in South Africa.
While USAID does a lot of good work, it's not exactly a charity: USAID is considered the soft arm of American foreign policy, working to advance American interests globally without the use or need for military force — in short, promulgating American influence and combatting that of adversaries like Russia and China. It's the friendlier face of the empire, basically.
But according to Musk, USAID is bad. Evil, actually! Since forming the so-called Department of Government Efficiency and crashing the agency's headquarters, Musk has, without coherent evidence, characterized USAID as a "viper's nest of radical-left Marxists who hate America," and a "corrupt" and "criminal" organization.
He's also made allegations, again without evidence, that USAID is corruptly pouring money into the pockets of politicians he disagrees with, among too many other paranoid claims to count. Real investigations into wrongdoing take time; there's no way that Musk and his crowd of boyish DOGE staffers — one of whom just resigned after his racist tweets were discovered, by the way — could have conducted a thorough, nonpartisan audit of USAID's records to determine large-scale and malicious criminality in a space of less than two weeks.
Much of Musk's USAID ire appears to be stemming from one Mike Benz, a former State Department official from the first Trump Administration. Benz is a right-wing media influencer with a large following on X-formerly-Twitter, and was revealed by NBC News last year to be the person behind the online pseudonym "Frame Game," an account from which Benz engaged with and promoted antisemitic and white nationalist conspiracy theories, and said Adolf Hitler "actually had some decent points." (Benz later confirmed the account was his, claiming it was all actually an effort to "get people who hated Jews to stop hating Jews.")
The former government official is also the driving force of a movement against what he refers to as the "Censorship Industrial Complex," which — successfully — targeted the Stanford Internet Observatory, a nonpartisan group that tracked misinformation narratives, with a particular focus on protecting election integrity.
Benz, for his part, has been one of the more prominent voices in the alt-right online world's push against USAID. The former official notably railed against the agency during an appearance on "The Joe Rogan Experience" in December, and Musk has repeatedly and publicly engaged with Benz's anti-USAID X posts and theories since. One of those nutty theories, by the way? The outrageous declaration that USAID has somehow built and contained us in a simulation-like world.
"I've been telling you guys forever that you've been living your whole in a carefully constructed USAID Truman Show," Benz wrote in a frenzied X post yesterday, "where none of the institutions you meet — from the media, to public health, to universities, to NGOs, to terrorists — are the institutions you think you are."
This, apparently, spoke to Musk, who responded: "It's more than just USAID, but... yes."
At the time of publishing this article, the posts have a combined near-50 million views.
What does this even really mean? Who's to say! The web is currently awash with piles of USAID conspiracies that — if someone is attempting to provide any proof at all — are either affixed to out-of-context one-liners or galaxy-brained idiocy, as more influencers and even politicians pile on.
It's tempting to just look away from bonkers outbursts like this, but the impacts have been real: USAID has halted operations worldwide. Clinical trials have been halted, food isn't being delivered, and a lot of people could genuinely die. And asked if he would go through with a pause on USAID operations, president Donald Trump said he would — and repeated similar threads spouted by the likes of Musk, referring to the agency as a cohort of "radical left lunatics," without any further support for the statement. (A spokesperson for his administration has later offered up some provocative-sounding USAID efforts that touched on various culture wars as reason for the halt, some of which were shown to be false.)
USAID is surely one of the many forces — some quiet, some loud — that shape our world. But Musk's embracing of this preposterous 'Truman Show" theory seems to veer much further into Andrew Tate-esque "Matrix" rambling than any legitimate criticism or insight into the various factions of global power struggles.
That said, if we look at the actual known facts, here, we do know one thing: USAID was investigating Starlink, the Musk-owned satellite internet provider under SpaceX, for its activities in Ukraine amid the ongoing Russian invasion. So maybe USAID was impacting Musk's reality — in a way a little too concrete for his liking, leading him to take refuge in these paranoid fantasies.
That's the thing, though. Musk, equipped with a massive amount of both financial and cultural power, is building his own reality, as he often does, in real time. There's a chance that USAID's shuttering might be reversed in the courts. But in the meantime, real harm has already been done — real consequences, pulled largely out of thin air.
"Do online conspiracy theories have any impact?" Georgetown University associate research professor Renée DiResta, a former Stanford Internet Observatory researcher and a frequent past target of Benz's rage, remarked yesterday in a rhetorical Bluesky post. "Do disinformation campaigns work?"
More on Elon Musk: Official Warns That Elon Musk Is Poised to Kill "Thousands, If Not Hundreds of Thousands" of People

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Is a $5,000 DOGE stimulus check a real thing? What we know
Is a $5,000 DOGE stimulus check a real thing? What we know

Yahoo

time34 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Is a $5,000 DOGE stimulus check a real thing? What we know

In February, President Donald Trump said he was considering a plan to pay out $5,000 stimulus checks to American taxpayers from the savings identified by billionaire Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Are they happening? No official plan or schedule for such a payout has been released, and a decision on the checks would have to come from Congress, which has so far been cool to the idea. And there have been questions as to how much DOGE has actually saved. The idea was floated by Azoria investment firm CEO James Fishback, who suggested on Musk's social media platform X that Trump and Musk should "should announce a 'DOGE Dividend'" from the money saved from reductions in government waste and workforce since it was American taxpayer money in the first place. He even submitted a proposal for how it would work, with a timeline for after the expiration of DOGE in July 2026. "At $2 trillion in DOGE savings and 78 million tax-paying households, this is a $5,000 refund per household, with the remaining used to pay down the national debt," he said in a separate post. Musk replied, "Will check with the President." "We're considering giving 20% of the DOGE savings to American citizens and 20% to paying down the debt," Trump said in a during the Saudi-sponsored FII PRIORITY Summit in Miami Beach the same month. DOGE has dismantled entire federal agencies, wiped out government contracts and led the firings of tens of thousands of federal workers, leaving many agencies struggling to continue operations. DOGE checks? Elon Musk dodges DOGE stimulus check question during Wisconsin rally: Here's what he said. Fishbeck suggested that the potential refund go only to households that are net-income taxpayers, or households that pay more in taxes than they get back. The Pew Research Center said that most Americans with an adjusted gross income of under $40,000 effectively pay no federal income tax. They would not be eligible. If DOGE achieves Musk's initial goal of stripping $2 trillion from U.S. government spending by 2026, Fishback's plan was for $5,000 per household, or 20% of the savings divided by the number of eligible households. If DOGE doesn't hit the goal, Fishback said the amount should be adjusted accordingly. 'So again, if the savings are only $1 trillion, which I think is awfully low, the check goes from $5,000 to $2,500,' Fishback said during a podcast appearance. 'If the savings are only $500 billion, which, again, is really, really low, then the [checks] are only $1,250.' However, while Musk talked about saving $2 trillion in federal spending during Trump's campaign, he lowered the goal to $1 trillion after Trump assumed office and said in March he was on pace to hit that goal by the end of May. At a Cabinet meeting in April, Musk lowered the projected savings further to $150 billion in fiscal year 2026. Musk left the White House at the end of May when his designation as a "special government employee" ended. DOGE, the advisory group he created, is expected to continue without him. That depends on who you ask. On its website, DOGE claims to have saved an estimated $175 billion as of May 30, "a combination of asset sales, contract and lease cancellations and renegotiations, fraud and improper payment deletions, grant cancellations, interest savings, programmatic changes, regulatory savings, and workforce reductions." The site says that works out to $1,086.96 saved per taxpayer. However, many of DOGE's claims have been exaggerated and several of the initiatives to slash agency workforces have been challenged in court. DOGE has been accused of taking credit for contracts that were canceled before DOGE was created, failing to factor in funds the government is required to pay even if a contract is canceled, and tallying every contract by the most that could possibly be spent on it even when nothing near that amount had been obligated. The website list has been changed as the media pointed out errors, such as a claim that an $8 million savings was actually $8 billion. On May 30, CNN reported that one of its reporters found that less than half the $175 billion figure was backed up with even basic documentation, making verification difficult if not impossible. Some of the changes may also end up costing taxpayers more, such as proposed slashes to the Internal Revenue Service that experts say would mean less tax revenue generated, resulting in a net cost of about $6.8 billion. Over the next 10 years, if IRS staffing stays low, the cumulative cost in uncollected taxes would hit $159 billion, according to the nonpartisan Budget Lab at Yale University. The per-taxpayer claim on the website is also inflated, CNN said, as it's based on '161 million individual federal taxpayers' and doesn't seem to include married people filing jointly. This article originally appeared on Florida Times-Union: DOGE dividends: Will American taxpayers get a $5,000 check?

Alberta resumes buying U.S. alcohol, months after pause meant to fight tariffs
Alberta resumes buying U.S. alcohol, months after pause meant to fight tariffs

Yahoo

time37 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Alberta resumes buying U.S. alcohol, months after pause meant to fight tariffs

EDMONTON — Alberta is buying American alcohol and gambling machines again, three months after Premier Danielle Smith announced restrictions aimed at fighting back against U.S. tariffs. Service Alberta Minister Dale Nally says the move signals a "renewed commitment to open and fair trade" with the United States. Smith said in March that the province would no longer buy U.S. alcohol and video lottery terminals, or sign contracts with American companies. That came a day after U.S. President Donald Trump slapped heavy tariffs on Canadian goods and energy. Nally says the decision to resume buying U.S. alcohol and gambling machines "sets the stage for more constructive negotiations" ahead of a renewal of the Canada-U.S.-Mexico trade agreement. The minister says Albertans are encouraged to continue supporting local producers, even as more U.S. options return to store shelves. Nally said in April that the province was pausing its policy around procurement from U.S. companies "in the spirit of diplomacy." He said since the province's retaliatory measures were first announced in early March, the Trump administration had put a hold on further tariffs. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 6, 2025. The Canadian Press Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

Perspective: From Trump v. Musk to Carlson v. Levin, are Republicans losing sight of the mission?
Perspective: From Trump v. Musk to Carlson v. Levin, are Republicans losing sight of the mission?

Yahoo

time40 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Perspective: From Trump v. Musk to Carlson v. Levin, are Republicans losing sight of the mission?

What started as something like a barroom brawl devolved quickly into a cage fight, which was distressing for those of us who don't drink and don't enjoy mixed martial arts. The symbolism, however, was rich. Just two months ago, Elon Musk and Donald Trump were ringside in Miami watching the Ultimate Fighting Championship; this week, they were the ones pummeling each other while all of social media watched, wide-eyed and open-mouthed. But Trump and Musk are not the only ones sparring. Political brawling has broken out across the country in ways that feel unusual, as if we are just a couple of social-media fisticuffs away from bringing back the great American duel, the kind that killed Alexander Hamilton. Dueling, however, has been called 'the violence of gentlemen,' so maybe we are safe because gentlemen are scarce in the current political landscape. It's not just Trump and Musk. Tucker Carlson and Mark Levin are feuding, so are Ben Shapiro and Matt Walsh, and we're not that far past Shapiro's epic battle with Candace Owens and Marjorie Taylor Greene's heated drama with Lauren Boebert. There are other battles not suitable for mention in a family publication. It's tempting to say that the recent infighting is all within the GOP, and all about divisions between MAGA versus Never Trump, but it's not. Witness the Democrats' piling on Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary under Joe Biden, who is about to scorch Democrats in her forthcoming book. For Republicans, who under Trump have grown accustomed to governing with the gloves off, the infighting may be accelerating because they've temporarily lost their chief rival, the Democratic Party. The fortunes of the Democratic Party have fallen so low that they're spending millions on initiatives designed to win back young men while one of their star contenders for 2028, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, is picking the brains of conservatives on his podcast. Absent a robust foe, Republicans are like a desolate Rocky Balboa with no one to fight, and so have turned on their own tribe. But what is happening is also a predictable result of when politics turns transactional instead of relational. Once the transactions are over, or once the transactions curdle and sour, there's nothing foundational to sustain the human relationship. We've seen this before with Trump, in his transactional relationship with Mike Pence. Many of us had hoped that there was something deeper there with Musk, with whom Trump seemed to have an almost fatherly relationship. It was not coincidence that much of the social media discourse about their 'breakup' was couched in terms of family — either divorce or estrangement. And while it was, on one level, train-wreck, cringe entertainment, like watching 'Housewives' or 'Tiger King,' it was also painful since so many of us know what it's like to have a close relationship implode. Utah Sen. Mike Lee spoke for many when he posted a photo of both men, with the caption 'But ... I really like both of them.' On his radio show Friday, Glenn Beck urged Trump and Musk to reconcile and to keep sight of their shared mission. It is that mission that is too often a casualty when two formerly aligned parties or individuals fall out, whether in politics or in a marriage. A mission can be hard to define; it can be too vague or have too many components. 'Essentialism' guru Greg McKeown says that a 'priority' is one thing, not many, and we risk failure when we set 'priorities.' Maybe that's part of what happened here. Trump and Musk had priorities, and some were in conflict with each other. It's much too early to say that the breakup is permanent; the men have mutual alliances and shared friends who presumably will work hard to bring about a reconciliation. But if the fissure lasts, the relationship that unfolded over the past year — with iconic moments like Musk jumping on the stage at a campaign event and Musk's son trotting after Trump on the White House lawn — was not really a relationship, but a transaction between two powerful men. And Democrats stand ready to reap the rewards.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store