The French newspaper Mediapart has revealed that the OCCRP is heavily funded by the U.S. government. According to the investigation, the funding of the OCCRP has fueled the debate about its independence and has had an impact on U.S. foreign policy interests.

The French online newspaper Mediapart has published an in-depth investigation into the massive U.S. government funding of the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), an independent U.S. research network for journalists.

Many media organizations collaborate with the OCCRP.

This is the result of months of joint research by Il Fatto Quotidiano in Italy, Reporters United in Greece and the American media organization Drop Site News, reports Mediapart. It is noteworthy that Norddeutscher Rundfunk (NDR) reportedly contributed to the investigation but later withdrew from publication under pressure from the OCCRP.

According to the report, the OCCRP, which came to prominence in recent years with the Panama Papers and the Pandora Papers, is largely funded by the U.S. State Department.

The U.S. federal government provided 52 per cent of the money spent by the OCCRP between 2014 and 2023. A comparison of the OCCRP’s annual audit reports and government budget documents shows that the organization has received at least $47 million since 2008.

Before the article was published, OCCRP founder Drew Sullivan accused the journalists of using ‘malicious and unprofessional’ methods.

Sullivan accused NDR reporter John Goetz of ‘spying for Russia’.

According to the investigation, the NDR decided to cease future cooperation with the OCCRP after learning of the extent of U.S. government funding.

In response to a question from Simon Zeise of the Berliner Zeitung, the organization flatly denied the accusation that it had ‘bowed to pressure’ and said the allegation was ‘unfounded’. NDR journalists had been investigating the OCCRP for a long time.

The broadcaster said that some editors had independently and autonomously decided not to continue the investigation or not to publish it. In the opinion of the legal department and the editorial staff, the investigation was not ready for publication.

The NDR announced that the departments working with the OCCRP had suspended their cooperation and shared the current research with other foreign broadcasters. To the accusation by OCCRP President Sullivan that John Goetz was a ‘Russian spy’, the NDR gave a short and clear ‘no’.

Award-winning American investigative journalist Lowell Bergmann (the character played by Al Pacino in Michael Mann’s 1999 film The Insider) said he resigned from the OCCRP board in 2015 over concerns about funding.

“I became aware of the U.S. government’s intervention. Given the complexity of the issue, I respectfully communicated my concerns and resigned from the board,” Bergmann said.

Although the OCCRP had previously indicated that it was seeking government funding, the support was unprecedented. Journalistic standards may have been violated when the OCCRP promised not to conduct research in the U.S. in exchange for funding from the U.S. State Department.

“Our policy is that a country should not report on that country with its own money. I don’t think the U.S. government would allow that,” said OCCRP President Drew Sullivan.

According to Mediapart, the U.S. government not only shuns OCCRP reporting, but also exerts significant influence by directing funds for reporting that focuses on specific countries. These countries include Russia and Venezuela, which Washington regards as enemies.

In an email sent in 2023, Sullivan acknowledged that the organization did not report on the U.S. in its early years, and that its budget was funded by Washington and George Soros’s Open Society Foundations. We couldn’t take money from the U.S. government or Soros and report on the U.S.,’ he admitted to Mediapart.

The OCCRP’s board of directors, however, said that all grants were given without the donors’ right to interfere in editorial policy. However, the OCCRP management refused to provide copies of the contracts in question.

On the other hand, Shannon Maguire of the U.S. Agency for International Development claimed that the Washington administration does not interfere in the OCCRP’s editorial decisions and that they are 100 per cent independent. Sullivan, on the other hand, argued that the U.S. government is “professional and does not try to influence the media, unlike bad actors like Russia”.

The reference to Russia is no accident. The OCCRP has received several grants from the U.S. government for research in countries that Washington considers to be ‘priority problems’.

Between 2015 and 2019, the State Department allocated $2.2 million to the OCCRP for a mission called ‘Stabilizing the Russian Media Space’.

Mediapart also pointed out that the OCCRP led an international media study called Russian Asset Tracker from 2021-2022. The project created the largest database of non-state assets of Russian billionaires and personalities.

📰 ÉDITION SPÉCIALE

• Les liens cachés de l’OCCRP avec le gouvernement américain
• La télé allemande NDR a censuré sa propre enquête sur le consortium mondial de médias
• La douleur d’une enquête, la nécessité d’une révélation

👉‍ https://t.co/ATPD50WG9t pic.twitter.com/X2Zet4DdYX

— Mediapart (@Mediapart) December 2, 2024

According to the report, the U.S. government, through the Global Anti-Corruption Consortium (GACC), used the reports produced by the OCCRP as a kind of “weapon”.

The GACC was established in 2016 following a request for proposals from the U.S. Department of State, and the U.S. government is the largest donor. To date, it has transferred a total of $10.8 million to the OCCRP.

The GACC has two main functions: To initiate corruption-related criminal investigations and enforcement actions based on the OCCRP’s findings, and to mobilize civil society and persuade states to strengthen their anti-corruption and anti-money laundering laws.

In May 2024, the OCCRP produced a report on Russian sanctions evasion. The report was produced in collaboration with the U.K. think tank Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) and funded by the U.K. Foreign Office. One of RUSI’s vice presidents is former CIA Director General David Petraeus.

Mediapart wrote that for a journalistic organization to carry out such activities on the initiative and with the financial support of the United States, even in a ‘just cause’, raises important ethical questions.

OCCRP president Sullivan disagreed: “While some initially found this approach controversial, it has been adopted by other media organizations. We believe the GACC has been very successful.”

China has announced a ban on exporting critical raw materials such as gallium and germanium to the United States following heightened U.S. pressure on China’s chip industry. This move escalates tensions between the world’s two largest economies and risks further disruptions to global supply chains.

China’s Ministry of Commerce stated on Tuesday that it has tightened export controls on dual-use materials to the U.S., citing the need to “protect national security and interests.” The export of gallium, germanium, antimony, and other superhard materials to the U.S. is now prohibited in principle, according to the ministry’s statement.

This decision comes just hours after the Biden administration imposed its most extensive export controls yet, blacklisting 140 Chinese organizations, including prominent players in the country’s chip-making sector.

The restricted materials—gallium, germanium, antimony, and graphite—are considered “dual-use,” meaning they serve both civilian and military applications. These materials are critical for manufacturing semiconductors, electric vehicles, power systems, and other high-tech equipment.

The U.S. previously identified graphite and gallium as strategic materials in its 2021 supply chain review, highlighting the risks posed by their production being concentrated in China. Notably, China dominates global production of natural graphite, a key component in battery manufacturing.

China’s Ministry of Commerce also stated that no dual-use products would be exported for U.S. military purposes or to U.S. military organizations. This follows a detailed list published last month identifying materials such as tungsten, magnesium, and titanium as subject to strict export controls.

China’s latest restrictions are part of a broader response to what it perceives as the U.S. “weaponizing” export controls. A Ministry of Commerce spokesperson criticized the U.S. for violating international trade rules, harming bilateral interests, and destabilizing global supply chains. The spokesperson warned that any individual or organization violating these export rules would face legal consequences.

In a further sign of growing tension, major Chinese industry associations, including the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers and the China Internet Society, have urged members to exercise caution when procuring U.S. chips. These organizations described American chips as “no longer reliable or safe,” citing arbitrary changes to U.S. trade control measures that disrupt stable supply chains.

China is carefully analyzing how Russia navigates Western sanctions and is proactively developing strategies to safeguard its economy in the event of a Taiwan-related crisis. Maintaining substantial foreign exchange reserves and achieving technological independence are central pillars of these efforts.

China is not only supporting Russia in weathering the sanctions and sustaining critical economic sectors but is also extracting valuable lessons from the process.

According to The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), Beijing established an inter-agency working group immediately after the war in Ukraine began. This task force systematically examines the impact of sanctions on Russia and regularly reports its findings to China’s leadership. The primary objective is to mitigate the potential fallout from similar sanctions, should the U.S. and its allies target China during a Taiwan crisis.

In this context, Chinese officials frequently visit Moscow to engage with key Russian institutions, including the Russian Central Bank and the Ministry of Finance. According to a source familiar with the matter, Beijing is “interested in every detail, from ways to circumvent sanctions to incentives for boosting domestic production.”

The working group is led by He Lifeng, Vice-Premier for Economic and Financial Affairs, who maintains direct contact with President Xi Jinping. He Lifeng is regarded as a pivotal figure in formulating strategies to insulate the Chinese economy from potential Western sanctions.

Alexander Gabuev, director of the Carnegie Berlin Centre for Russian and Eurasian Studies, remarked, “Russia is a real testing ground for China, where it can learn how sanctions work and how to deal with them. If there is a crisis over Taiwan, China knows it will face a similar wave of sanctions.”

Taiwan scenario and lessons from Russia

According to WSJ, China’s current actions do not necessarily indicate preparation for an imminent military intervention in Taiwan. However, the leadership is bracing for the worst-case scenario, including armed conflict and its associated economic consequences.

The Taiwan issue is often compared to the Ukraine crisis. During the 20th Communist Party Congress in October 2023, President Xi Jinping emphasized nationalism as a cornerstone of foreign policy amid escalating tensions with the United States and Taiwan.

One of the most significant blows to Russia at the onset of the Ukraine war was the freezing of its foreign exchange reserves by Western nations. Some of these reserves were later redirected to support Ukraine. This incident underscores why maintaining China’s foreign exchange reserves—estimated at over $3.3 trillion—is a critical priority.

To ensure their resilience, Xi Jinping personally reviewed reserve management practices during a visit to the State Administration of Foreign Exchange in late 2023.

Trade between Russia and China has surged during the conflict, reaching $240 billion in 2023. However, this trade relationship remains asymmetrical: China represents a third of Russia’s foreign trade, while Russia constitutes a smaller portion of China’s overall trade. Moreover, Russia’s exports to China primarily consist of raw materials, while China supplies Russia with a diverse range of products, including technology, machinery, and equipment.

Russia’s pre-war efforts to reduce its dependency on the U.S. dollar and bolster its gold reserves offer additional lessons for China. Beijing is taking note of the severe repercussions that sanctions can have on industries integrated into the global supply chain.

Edward Fishman, a former sanctions expert at the U.S. State Department emphasized that such sanctions could devastate manufacturing sectors reliant on international networks. This risk has driven China’s renewed focus on economic self-sufficiency and technological autonomy, which aligns with Beijing’s broader strategic goals.