reSee.it - Related Video Feed

We're sending millions in cash to Afghanistan, even weekly shipments of $40-80 million, to folks like the Haqqani network. This is on top of the $697 million annually, funding madrasas, ISIS, Al Qaeda, and terrorist training camps. Programs like the Women's Scholarship Endowment aren't helping women; they're funding terrorism through USAID. We're essentially paying welfare to Taliban martyrs' families, while American families who lost loved ones get nothing. Some argue this prevents them from joining ISIS, but it's a lie to justify funding our enemies. The US government has been backing these groups since the late '70s, using them against other countries and even against us. It's a setup for America's collapse.

I want to thank my colleague, Tim Birchitt, for introducing this important bill and my colleagues for cosponsoring it in the House and Senate. The fact that $40 million in cash payments are being delivered weekly to the Taliban is an outrage. After the terror attack on 9/11, the United States entered Afghanistan in 2001 when the Taliban refused to hand over Osama bin Laden. Since then, over 2,500 US military members have been killed. Now, the Taliban is the current reigning government of Afghanistan, so to send them money is unacceptable. 72% of Americans support cutting waste, fraud, and abuse in our federal government. Americans work too hard to see their tax dollars go straight into the hands of terrorists through these cash payments and NGOs. I urge Speaker Mike Johnson to bring this bill to a vote and for all of our colleagues to vote yes to stop this money from being sent to the Taliban.

Speaker 0 contends that NGOs (nongovernment organizations) are not truly nongovernmental because they are funded by borrowing money and by money from donors, including billionaires. He claims they receive a large amount of funding, and the process involves borrowing funds and then distributing them to NGOs. He uses Afghanistan as an example, noting that there was a bill to defund the Taliban and that in the Senate there was opposition to adding NGOs to that effort. He argues that billionaire adversaries of the United States will put money into groups with fancy names (citing “feed the children” as a possible example)—a million dollars to start, which is "pennies on their dollars" for these donors. He asserts that these NGOs apply for federal money, and then an unelected bureaucrat in Washington declares them legitimate, leading to billions of dollars flowing to these organizations. Speaker 0 states that in Afghanistan alone, there are over a thousand nongovernment organizations operating there, and when combined with United Nations operations, the number could be multiples of thousands. He questions whether the money is being spent on certain events, asking, “do you really believe we're spending $10,000,000 on a dadgum drag show?” and asserts that the money ends up back in politicians’ pockets, with a paper trail that someone will uncover, though he believes it probably goes into dark money campaigns that oppose good Republicans as well. He concludes that this situation “has got to stop.” He ends by thanking Donald Trump and JD Vance.

The speaker claims the U.S. has given close to $5 billion to the Taliban via NGOs, and this continues. They allege this money cycles back to Washington, with a paper trail that Elon Musk has alluded to. The speaker believes USAID money goes "almost a %" right back to Democrat campaign coffers, with some Republicans also possibly benefiting. They state that Republican leadership is upset about these claims but acknowledges their truth. The speaker also questions how Joe Biden could have reviewed 8,000 pardon files, suggesting "payola" and shadiness in Washington D.C., particularly across various departments.

I'm concerned about the scrutiny USAID is facing. It's an organization that promotes national security, human rights, and global health. But, some USAID projects are questionable uses of taxpayer money. For example, millions of dollars have gone to tourism in Egypt, a Democratic Party propaganda arm, transgender opera in Colombia, sex changes in Guatemala, bat research in Wuhan, and even a new Sesame Street show in Iraq. These expenditures raise serious questions about how taxpayer money is being spent. We need to take a closer look at these allocations.

I've found some questionable expenditures by USAID, like the $3,000,000 given to a rap artist in Gaza who was producing anti-Israel, anti-Semitic songs. Is that really the best way to use American taxpayer money? I don't think so. During tomorrow's hearing, we will be addressing this issue, as well as the fact that the woke ideology that USAID is pushing in various parts of the world is not welcomed.

I'm exposing some initiatives USAID has funded and asking a yes or no question: Do these expenditures of American taxpayer dollars put America First? USAID awarded $2,000,000 to strengthen trans-led organizations for gender-affirming health care in Guatemala. Does paying for this advance American interests? USAID awarded over $750,000 to alleviate loneliness among migrant garment workers in India. Does this advance America's interest? USAID awarded $1,500,000 for a gender-sensitive response to migration at the Venezuelan border. Does this advance American interests? Other expenditures include; $4,300,000 for health services for men who have sex with men in South Africa, $1,500,000 to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion in Serbia, $70,000 for a live musical event promoting US and Irish shared values, $1,500,000 to upscale LGBT rights advocacy in Jamaica, $28,000,000 to facilitate the economic insertion of Venezuelan migrants in Peru and Ecuador, $17,500,000 for voluntary medical male circumcision overseas, and nearly $150,000 for HIV prevention targeting men who have sex with men and transgender people. Our foreign assistance system is broken, and this ends now.

USAID, with 10,000 employees and a $40 billion annual budget, has drawn scrutiny for its spending. Examples cited include funding for electric vehicles in Vietnam, a transgender clinic in India, and $1.5 million to a Serbian LGBTQ group. A Middle East Forum study revealed $164 million to radical organizations globally, including $122 million to groups linked to terrorist organizations. Millions were also allocated to sex changes in Guatemala, a Sesame Street show in Iraq, combating misinformation in Kazakhstan, and meals to a group linked to Al Qaeda. Further examples include funding for LGBT advocacy in Jamaica, rebuilding Cuba's media, and projects related to gendered language in Sri Lanka and disability inclusion in Belarus. These expenditures raise questions about the agency's priorities and oversight.

There's significant fraud in USAID, with radical groups receiving funds they don't deserve. A staggering amount, like a hundred million, is being misallocated. It's crucial to investigate the kickbacks associated with this spending. Who would invest such sums in questionable projects? It's likely that those who received the funds are not returning any to the government, indicating a high level of corruption. The key issue is understanding the extent of these kickbacks.

Democrats were invited to participate and bring witnesses, but they chose not to, likely because USAID's spending is indefensible, like $2 million for sex change surgeries in Guatemala and $3 million for girl-centric climate change initiatives. If USAID has unspent funds, can the President impound them? Auditing spending is essential oversight. We're uncovering waste, like $4.8 million for social media influencers in Ukraine. Forcing a social agenda, like LGBT issues, on conservative countries harms diplomacy. We're finding this waste because we have a president with the courage to oversee USAID. The CFO of FEMA was fired for spending $54 million on luxury hotels for illegal aliens. The Lincoln Riley's killer was put up in a luxury hotel in New York. Can the President impound funds, or should we rescind them through Congress? A pause in funding for an audit is just good government.

The speaker was asked if there is evidence that Maxine Waters, Adam Schiff, and Chuck Schumer have received money directly from USAID. The speaker responded that taxpayer money is sent to government organizations, then to NGOs, which are government-funded but not governed by U.S. laws. Money is sent overseas to NGOs and the speaker is confident that some of it returns to the U.S. and ends up with the aforementioned politicians. The speaker states that it's not a direct route, but that some members of Congress are strangely wealthy, accumulating millions while earning significantly less annually, which is unexplainable. The speaker says they are going to try to figure it out and stop it from happening.

Speaker 0 argues that USAID funding amounts to supporting terrorism and that the money flows through programs intended for Afghan women but ultimately funds extremist networks. The speaker cites a total of $697,000,000 annually, plus shipments of cash funds that allegedly support Madrasas, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, ISIS Khorazan, and terrorist training camps. They claim that programs under Operation Enduring Sentinel, specifically the Women’s Scholarship Endowment, which receives $60,000,000 annually, and the Young Women Lead program, which gets about $5,000,000 annually, are not benefiting women as described. The speaker notes that, according to the inspector general’s report, the Taliban does not allow women to speak in public, yet asserts that the money is being used to improve Afghan women’s lives. The speaker contends that the money is not for the betterment of women in Afghanistan but is funding terrorism, and that the funds are coming through USAID. The critique extends beyond Afghanistan to Pakistan, stating that USAID spent $8,840,000,000 in the last twenty years on Pakistan’s education-related program. This includes $136,000,000 allocated to build 120 schools, with “zero evidence” that any of them were built, arguing that the inspector general cannot obtain access to verify the projects. The speaker further claims that USAID doubled down by spending $20,000,000 to create educational television programs for children who cannot attend physical school, adding that they “can’t attend it because it doesn’t exist,” asserting that taxpayers paid for it and that “somebody else got the money.” In conclusion, the speaker asserts that taxpayers are funding terrorism and that the program must end, yielding the floor to the chairman.

I have a picture here of an Al Qaeda leader and they are in a USAID tent. Look who signed the check for the initial $200,000 payment to the Islamic Relief Agency, the United States Agency for International Development. USAID was running a top secret espionage program to undermine Cuba and push people to dissent. Now let me show you how much money we're talking about. It included a billion dollar sovereign loan guarantee, $320,000,000 in general assistance. Judicial Watch found that the US State Department and USAID had been giving millions to the Macedonian arm of George Soros' Open Society Foundation. To train youth movements. So USAID and those are always they're known by anybody who pays attention as CIA fronts. This is you know, the the USAID comes into a country. they start doing things, and next thing you know, we've got a revolution on our hands because that's the CIA.

USAID is a fraud and a slush fund for left-wing projects globally, with very little being put to good use. This occurs while denying funds to those who clearly need them, with only cents on the dollar reaching those in need. USAID was initially created for humanitarian purposes, but it has been captured by the military-industrial complex, becoming a sinister propagator of totalitarianism and war. The US government, through USAID, has funded things like DEI initiatives in Serbia, gender surgeries worldwide, sex change surgeries in Guatemala, and social media influencers in Ukraine. USAID is using taxpayer dollars to fund opposition and subvert democracy in other countries. USAID and the CIA don't promote democracy; they are run by radical lunatics that we are working to remove. As an American taxpayer, I don't want my dollars going towards this.

- Speaker 0 says, "Are you aware that we are sending $40,000,000 a week to the Taliban?" - Speaker 1 responds, "Yes, sir. Can you name other instances of foreign aid going to terrorist organizations? We have assisted Al Shabaab in Somalia. There's been instances of the Hamzee network in Sudan, Hamas, Islamic Jihad Hezbollah, Kafaiba Hezbollah, Hayat Tahrir al Shams in Syria. Dozens of terror organizations have received indirect assistance from US foreign aid." - Speaker 0 adds, "You know, I'm wondering with all this talk about the Strait Of Hermos and Park Island and everything Lindsey's recommending, why are we listening to a traitor who needs to be arrested to funneling money to have a mosque and Al Qaeda through USAID. He's helping to support the enemies of our nation's food, and it's time to arrest him. He's a traitor."

USAID, with 10,000 employees and a $40 billion annual budget, has drawn scrutiny for its spending. Investigations revealed funding for electric vehicles in Vietnam, a transgender clinic in India, and $1.5 million to a Serbian LGBTQ group for diversity initiatives. A Middle East Forum study showed $164 million spent on radical organizations globally, including $122 million to groups linked to terrorist organizations. Millions were also directed to Hamas-controlled organizations in Gaza, groups calling for the removal of Jews, and projects in Guatemala for sex changes. Other questionable expenditures include funding for a Sesame Street show in Iraq, combating misinformation in Kazakhstan, and providing meals to a group linked to Al-Qaeda. Additional examples include funding LGBT advocacy in Jamaica and projects in Cuba, Belarus, and Macedonia. These findings raise concerns about how taxpayer money is allocated.

The speaker was asked if there is evidence that Maxine Waters, Adam Schiff, and Chuck Schumer have received money directly from USAID. The speaker responded that taxpayer money is sent to government organizations, then to NGOs, which are government-funded but not governed by U.S. laws. Money is sent overseas to NGOs and the speaker is confident that some of it returns to the U.S. and ends up with the aforementioned politicians. The speaker states that it's not a direct route, but that some members of Congress are strangely wealthy, accumulating millions while earning salaries of only around $200,000 per year. The speaker says they are going to try to figure it out and stop it from happening.

American taxpayer money is funding the Taliban through $40,000,000 sent weekly by the US government to Afghanistan. The money goes through the Afghanistan International Bank to the Taliban-controlled Central Bank, led by a sanctioned terrorist. The Central Bank auctions the dollars to licensed money dealers involved in the hawala system.

We've learned that USAID has been used to push globalist propaganda and potentially fund terrorism, even resulting in American deaths, which could lead to criminal referrals. The agency may need to be abolished. We aim to expose the millions of dollars going to radical organizations, some with ties to terrorists. There are questions about why mechanisms to prevent foreign aid from reaching terrorist groups aren't working, especially when we see terrorist weaponry linked to these funds. For years, USAID has been a slush fund for left-wing propaganda. We need to ensure American tax dollars benefit American citizens and interests, not wasted on things like DEI musicals abroad. This may be the world's largest money laundering scheme in history. We're committed to creating transparency across the government, thanks to President Trump and Elon Musk, who will help expose every corner of government. That is what the American people want.

Discussion centers on alleged leakage of U.S. foreign aid to terrorist groups. 'we are sending $40,000,000 a week to the Taliban,' 'We have assisted Al Shabaab in Somalia' with 'Hamzee network in Sudan, Hamas, Islamic Jihad Hezbollah' and 'Dozens of terror organizations have received indirect assistance from US foreign aid.' In Gaza, '$2,100,000,000 in American taxpayers money to Gaza since October 7 when Hamas invaded Southern Israel.' USAID money was used under an 'emergency use authorization' to reach parties 'USAID formerly had a relationship with in the Gaza Strip,' with waivers; '90% of aid ... ended up in Hamas controlled areas' and there was 'no strategic thought' or screening; 'Samantha Powers ... was intent on having Israel not be able to defend itself.' NGOs/UN agencies lobby against vetting; USAID funds its own private lobby; HR 160 would increase transparency. A regulation naming terrorists in databases was 'overturned by Biden.'

We spent $9 billion to resettle around 90,000 Afghan refugees since the fall of Afghanistan, averaging about $100,000 per person, which seems excessive. My question is, why are we providing any funds when we don't even have an embassy or diplomats in Afghanistan? The funds we provide come through partners like UN agencies and NGOs. We could apply that reasoning to all foreign aid, including funds going to foreign adversaries.

Every week, a plane arrives in Afghanistan carrying $43 million to $87 million. Shockingly, a portion of this money, around $40 million weekly, goes towards welfare for the families of deceased Taliban members. So, while American families who lost loved ones in Afghanistan receive little to no support, we're essentially funding the families of Taliban fighters who died attacking us. When questioned about the ethics of this, the justification I received was that it's meant to prevent them from joining ISIS. But the Taliban member is already dead! This highlights a significant problem: making excuses for terrorist sympathizing and failing to track where our money is going.

Mister Birchitt (the chair) and Congressman discussions about US foreign aid and terrorism. - Congressman asks Roman if the US is sending $40,000,000 a week to the Taliban. Roman confirms. - He asks for other instances of foreign aid going to terrorist organizations. Birchitt/ Roman responds: US assistance has gone to Al Shabaab in Somalia; the Hamzee network in Sudan; Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, Kabaiba Hezbollah; Hayat Tahrir al Sham’s in Syria. Dozens of terror organizations have received indirect US aid. - The Congressman requests elaboration on mechanisms to stop aid to terrorists and why they aren’t working. Birchitt/Roman describe Gaza as a case study: $2.1 billion in American taxpayers’ money to Gaza since October 7. USAID provided emergency use funds to parties USAID previously had relationships with in the Gaza Strip, vetted by OFAC and special designated terrorists lists; waivers granted due to emergency, bypassing usual screening. As a result, 90% of US aid via Gaza ended up in Hamas-controlled areas. The aid underwrote Hamas’s ability to survive until the ceasefire. No strategic thought behind it; no screening. - The Congressman asks if the emergency might have armed terrorists to kill civilians. Birchitt agrees. He adds: Samantha Power, administrator for USAID, was intent on Israel not being able to defend itself. - The Congressman mispronounces Primarack (Birchitt jokingly comments). They discuss how terrorists exploited foreign aid loopholes. - Witnesses discuss how international NGOs and UN agencies lobby Washington against vetting policies. A former senior vetting officer at USAID describes that the UN and others lobby against stricter vetting; InterAction, the largest NGO lobby, is mentioned as having a former employee on the panel. USAID effectively self-funds its own external private lobby that then goes back to Congress asking for more money for USAID. The implication is that taxpayers fund this lobby against American interests, potentially harming allies and Americans. - They claim USAID programs have not been aligned with U.S. national security interests and have actually helped China. The programs are said to push the world toward China on the green energy agenda, and to push ordinary people toward China due to perceived social reengineering. - They note that many countries benefit from funding without needing lobbying, such as South Africa. Lobbyists have pressured to kill HR 160, a bill from the last session intended to increase transparency in USAID funding of overseas organizations and to enable terror-financing investigations. - They reference a regulation from the prior administration requiring terrorist financing screening databases for entities handling money in terrorist-prone areas; that regulation was overturned by Biden. - The Chairwoman notes having only five seconds left as the exchange ends with a brief mention of concluding remarks.

The speaker claims that $697,000,000 of U.S. money annually funds Madrasas, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, ISIS Khorazan, and terrorist training camps. They allege that programs like the Women's Scholarship Endowment ($60,000,000 annually) and Young Women Lead ($5,000,000 annually) are not benefiting Afghan women, because the Taliban does not allow women to speak in public. The speaker states that USAID spent $8,840,000,000 in the last twenty years on Pakistan's education programs, including $136,000,000 to build 120 schools, but there is zero evidence that any were built. They add that USAID spent $20,000,000 to create educational television programs for children unable to attend these nonexistent schools. The speaker concludes that U.S. money is funding terrorism and demands that it end.

We're spending massive amounts of money in other countries on things nobody's ever heard of. $520 million for environmental, social, and governance investments in Africa. $25 million to promote biodiversity in Colombia. $42 million for Johns Hopkins to research social change in Uganda. $10 million for circumcisions in Mozambique. $9.7 million to UC Berkeley for enterprise skills in Cambodia. $32 million to the Prague Civil Society Center, and $14 million for public procurement in Serbia. We're giving $21 million for voter turnout in India, while Nepal gets $20 million for fiscal federalism. Millions more are going to biodiversity in Nepal, voter confidence in Liberia, social cohesion in Mali, and learning outcomes in Asia. It's fraud, and I could go on all day.