WASHINGTON, D.C. – Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has started a far-reaching investigation into claims that U.S. tax dollars sent to Ukraine through USAID may have been secretly redirected to help President Joe Biden’s 2024 reelection campaign.
The review follows declassified intelligence intercepts from 2022 and has renewed concern about possible foreign interference, along with why the Biden administration did not fully pursue the matter at the time.
The issue came to light after newly declassified documents became public. Tulsi Gabbard’s office has now instructed USAID to search its records and decide whether the case should be referred to the FBI for possible criminal review. So far, officials say they have seen little sign that the allegations were seriously examined while Biden was in office.
What the Declassified Intelligence Says
Based on the declassified summary, U.S. intelligence captured communications involving Ukrainian government officials. Those talks reportedly focused on sending hundreds of millions of dollars, originally meant for clean energy and infrastructure work in Ukraine, back to the United States.
According to the report, the alleged plan used an infrastructure project as a cover. From there, as much as 90% of the money would be redirected to the Democratic National Committee and Biden’s 2024 campaign. USAID operations in Kyiv were named as a key route, and the planning allegedly involved both Ukrainian figures and some unnamed U.S. personnel.
Here are the main claims described in the intercepts:
- Hundreds of millions of dollars in USAID funds were allegedly considered for diversion.
- A clean energy project in Ukraine was reportedly used as the front.
- About 90% of the funds were allegedly meant for the DNC and Biden’s 2024 campaign.
- Ukrainian officials and USAID staff in Kyiv were said to be part of the discussions.
- The intercepts date to 2022, when U.S. aid to Ukraine was surging.
These details come from a declassified intelligence report obtained by Just the News. The report also drew attention from President Donald Trump, who shared related coverage online.
Why the Investigation Matters Now
Tulsi Gabbard, who was confirmed as DNI in early 2025, reportedly learned of the intercepts only recently. Her office says the communications do not appear to be tied to Russian disinformation. Even so, the claims raise serious concerns about foreign involvement in a U.S. election, a threat intelligence agencies have warned about for years.
Critics of the Biden administration say the bigger problem is the lack of action when the intercepts first surfaced. Because there appears to have been little follow-up, the case has fueled concerns about uneven oversight and possible conflicts of interest.
Supporters of the review say the issue is simple: accountability. The United States sent billions of dollars to Ukraine during its war with Russia. If any of that money was diverted for domestic political use, it would mark a major abuse of public funds.
USAID’s Role and the Larger Ukraine Aid Picture
USAID has been a central part of the U.S. civilian aid effort in Ukraine. That support has included help for energy systems, government functions, and economic stability. Since Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, the United States has committed hundreds of billions in total aid, including both military and civilian assistance.
A large share of civilian funding has gone toward keeping basic services running and helping Ukraine reduce its dependence on Russian energy. Clean energy projects fit within that mission. Still, tracking huge amounts of aid in an active war zone has always been hard.
Because of that complexity, the alleged plan would have been difficult to spot right away. By presenting the transfers as legitimate project funding, large sums could, in theory, move through contractors without immediate scrutiny.
What Investigators Are Looking For
Tulsi Gabbard’s order to USAID is broad and direct. Officials have been told to:
- Review internal records for signs that the plan went beyond talk
- Find out whether any funds were actually redirected
- Examine whether U.S. personnel played a role
- Recommend next steps, including a possible FBI referral
This goes well beyond a routine records check. It touches on election integrity, foreign aid oversight, and public trust in federal institutions.
At this stage, there is no public proof that the alleged scheme was carried out. The intercepts describe discussions and planning, not confirmed transfers. Because of that, investigators will need to track contracts, banking records, and communications from the period in question.
Political Reaction and Growing Fallout
The story has triggered a sharp political debate. Trump boosted the reporting on social media and pointed to it as another example of what he says are troubling Ukraine-related ties involving Biden and his allies.
On the other side, Democrats and some foreign policy analysts have urged caution. They point to Gabbard’s long-standing criticism of U.S. aid to Ukraine and warn against treating unverified intercepts as fact.
Still, even many skeptics agree on one point: any credible claim that foreign-linked money may have entered a U.S. campaign deserves serious review. Election interference, whether it comes from an adversary or a partner nation, damages public confidence.
Biden ultimately lost the 2024 race. If evidence later shows that foreign-connected funds shaped campaign spending or messaging, it could change how that election is remembered.
Wider Stakes for Foreign Aid and Election Security
The investigation also fits into a larger debate about how the United States manages aid overseas. Every year, billions of dollars move through agencies such as USAID. Taxpayers expect that money to reach the people and projects it was meant to support, not end up in campaign accounts.
At the same time, the case highlights weak points in election finance controls. Campaigns must report donors and spending, and foreign money is banned. A scheme built around layered international transfers could create a hidden path around those rules.
Transparency sits at the center of the issue. The Biden administration’s apparent failure to aggressively pursue the intercepts has raised new doubts. Some critics say the matter may have been brushed aside too quickly, while others want to know whether officials had reasons not to press harder.
Gabbard’s team says the inquiry is being handled as a fact-finding effort, not a political exercise.
What Comes Next
USAID now faces the job of gathering records and fully cooperating with the review. There is no clear timeline yet, and investigations involving intelligence can take months. If the findings support a criminal referral, the FBI could open a formal case.
Congress may also step in. Lawmakers in both parties have long shown interest in oversight of Ukraine aid, although partisan fights often slow that work.
For now, the public is watching closely. At a time when trust in major institutions is already weak, clear answers could help restore confidence. If agencies stall or withhold information, skepticism will only grow.
The investigation remains in its early phase. Gabbard has said her office will follow the evidence wherever it leads. The core issue is simple: Americans deserve to know whether their tax dollars stayed in Ukraine for energy and infrastructure support, or whether some of that money found its way into U.S. politics.
In the end, the case turns on records, intercepts, and the money trail. A full review will show whether the claims were just talk or something much more serious.
