Santo Domingo. – In the Dominican Republic, a new controversy shakes national journalism. Several communicators have been publicly accused of receiving monthly funds from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), with the alleged aim of influencing public opinion against the Dominican Liberation Party (PLD).
According to publications spread on social networks and digital media, they would have received payments exceeding ten thousand dollars, channeled through civil society organizations.
The journalists mentioned have categorically denied receiving money from USAID. Furthermore, the Dominican College of Journalists (CDP) and the National Union of Press Workers (SNTP) came to their defense, demanding concrete evidence regarding what they consider a smear campaign.
Given the seriousness of the accusations, Marino Zapete, Edith Febles, Altagracia Salazar, and Mariasela Álvarez filed criminal complaints for defamation against those who accused them: communicators Juan Aníbal Arrendel Núñez, Alfredo de Dios de la Cruz Carvajal, Pedro Manuel Casals, and Aquiles Jiménez Fernández.
One of those mentioned, Alfredo de Dios de la Cruz Carvajal, has defended his statements, assuring that they are based on “legitimate information” and that he possesses documentation that supports his claims. He also maintains that some of the journalists who are suing him today “would not withstand an audit of the advertising contracts received from the current government”.
The case has escalated even further with the inclusion of a new lawsuit against Alfredo de la Cruz, this time filed by the deputy Gory Moya, also for alleged defamation.
Beyond the courts, the situation has reopened a fundamental debate: To what extent can international funds participate in institutional strengthening without crossing the line into political interference? Where does cooperation end and manipulation begin?
The truth is that USAID’s participation in Dominican social and media projects is not new. Most of its funds are awarded through public calls. However, this controversy has called into question the transparency of those relationships and has left a key question unanswered: who is right? That remains to be seen.
