TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The Inter American Foundation (IAF) receives $50 million annually from Congress for grants, such as alpaca farming in Peru and improving the marketability of peas in Guatemala through jam. While nonprofits typically allocate 80-90% of funds to grantees, IAF allocates 58%, with the remainder covering management and travel. According to the GAO, only 10-15 cents of each dollar reaches the intended recipient. The money goes through layers of stealing via contractors and subcontractors. Sometimes, the money never reaches the destination. One speaker suggests that it's possible no one got a sex change in Guatemala. Another speaker overheard a contractor being told to falsify billable hours.

Since 2017, France has spent a staggering amount, allocating 25 billion euros to multilateral funds. This includes contributions to UN agencies, Bill Gates-sponsored vaccine NGOs, and organizations involved in reforestation efforts in the Amazon rainforest. However, according to the Court of Auditors, there's a lack of clarity regarding the allocation and expenditure of these funds, as we're unable to effectively track where the money goes.

USAID and other NGOs like DFID claim to rescue Africa with grassroots initiatives, but they destabilize governments. Many leaders in the developing world are celebrating USAID's exit. Despite filling gaps in healthcare and education, no country shows improvement in these areas due to USAID. The social services provided are minimal. American taxpayers should know that only a fraction of the billions given to USAID reaches the people.

I looked into Norm Eisen's NGO, State United Democracies Center, which is full of prominent figures. This organization receives $17 million in private donations. After researching, the only thing I could find that they did with the money was produce a low-quality Muppet show. All the videos they created with these knockoff puppets have less than 200 views. It makes you wonder, with all those famous names involved, is that the best thing they could do with $17 million? The result is awful; Jim Henson would be rolling in his grave. They didn't even promote the videos with ads. So, where did the $17 million go?

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.

USAID has allocated significant funds for various projects, including $1.5 million for DEI initiatives in Serbia, $70,000 for a DEI musical in Ireland, $47,000 for a transgender opera in Colombia, and $32,000 for a transgender comic book in Peru. Many American taxpayers are concerned about these expenditures, believing they do not reflect their priorities. President Trump has tasked Elon Musk with addressing issues of fraud, waste, and abuse within the federal government.

Here's the latest edition of wasteful spending courtesy of USAID. Over $849,000 is going to a transgender job fair in Bangladesh, where the median monthly income is around $220. Nearly $2,000,000 will fund sex change surgeries in Guatemala, provided by a trans-led organization. Millions more are allocated to various global initiatives, including $55,000,000 to strengthen Libyan financial processes, $20,000,000 for an Iraq Sesame Street program, and smaller amounts for similar programs in Bangladesh and Nigeria. We're also spending $22,000,000 to boost tourism in Tunisia and Egypt. Additionally, funds are directed towards climate change initiatives in Africa ($520,000,000), green transportation in Georgia ($24,400,000), and LGBTQ+ support in various countries like Uganda ($5,500,000) and North Macedonia ($1,300,000). Even China is getting $5,000,000 to reduce carbon emissions. This is just the latest list of wasteful spending. Time for change.

Here's a glimpse at some wasteful spending I've uncovered. We're talking $22 billion from HHS for housing and cars for illegal immigrants, and $45 million for diversity scholarships in Burma. Millions more are going towards initiatives like sedentary migrant inclusion, LGBTQI+ promotion in Lesotho, and indigenous empowerment in Central America. I've also found $8 million allocated to making mice transgender, $32 million for a left-wing propaganda effort in Moldova, and $10 million for male circumcision in Mozambique. There's nearly $2 billion tied to a decarbonization committee, plus millions more for fish monitoring, voter confidence in Liberia, and illegal alien hotel rooms in NYC. Other questionable expenditures include vegan climate action in Zambia, social change in Uganda, public procurement in Serbia, learning outcomes in Asia, and a record-breaking $101 million in DEI contracts at the Department of Education.

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.

A lot of your tax dollars are going to organizations you may have never heard of. The Consortium for Elections and Political Process Strengthening, or SEPs, gets $165 million. The East West Management Institute receives $25 million annually. The National Endowment for Democracy and its affiliates, like NDI, get $167.3 million, while Freedom House gets $93 million. The Tides Foundation, known for being a progressive left-wing dark money machine, also receives tax dollars. Money donated to Tides goes dark, so you can't trace who's giving it. A money trail search on Tides reveals connections to Freedom House, NED, SEPs, East West, and Intra News. These organizations are spreading tax dollars to each other, and then to places like Soros.

This is USAID's Strengthening Transparency and Accountability Through Investigative Reporting program for Europe and Eurasia. USAID funding is $20,000,000. They don't report on kittens being saved, but rather corruption. This is all built under capacity building, meaning pumping up the blob's assets. With this $20,000,000 investment, at least $4,500,000,000 in fines were levied against targets. The head of the OCCRP said it's now over $10,000,000,000, a 20000% return on investment because all these dollars were returned to government coffers. Additionally, there were 548 policy changes by the government or actions by civil society and the private sector. They proudly sponsored hit piece journalism to ruin people's lives and go after political targets in order to change the policies of foreign governments from the inside.

Musk uncovered that American taxpayers fund foreign aid, including significant amounts to countries like Afghanistan, Yemen, and Syria. The USAID employs 10,000 people and distributes $40 billion annually. Notably, taxpayer money supported electric vehicles in Vietnam, a transgender clinic in India, and an LGBTQ group in Serbia. A report revealed that USAID allocated $164 million to radical organizations, including $122 million to those linked to foreign terrorist groups, and millions to Gaza organizations controlled by Hamas. Other expenditures included $2 million for sex changes in Guatemala, $20 million for a new Sesame Street show in Iraq, and $8 million for teaching Sri Lankan journalists about gendered language. Additionally, funds were given for LGBT advocacy in Jamaica, rebuilding Cuban media, and equity education in Nepal. Many are upset with Musk for exposing this, but some believe he deserves recognition.

Democrats are defending questionable spending priorities, including $1.5 million for DEI initiatives in Serbia, $20 million for Iraqi Sesame Street, and millions on projects in Afghanistan that failed, like a dam that was never used. USAID has been criticized for funding programs that seem wasteful or ineffective, such as a million dollars for bat research in Wuhan and support for Fashion Week in Paris. Allegations suggest that USAID operates like a dark money entity, with ties to various foundations and questionable contracts, including one involving Hunter Biden. Billions have been funneled into open borders groups, effectively funding illegal immigration.

The Inter American Foundation (IAF) receives $50 million annually to give grants for projects like alpaca farming in Peru and improving the marketability of peas in Guatemala through jam. Unlike private sector nonprofits that give 80-90% of funds to grantees, IAF gives 58%, with the rest going to management and travel. Most of the money never leaves DC, ending up in the pockets of locals. The GAO estimates that only 10-15 cents of each dollar reaches the intended recipient. There are layers of stealing through contractors and subcontractors, sometimes resulting in nothing reaching the final destination. It's possible that no one got a sex change in Guatemala. A contractor was overheard telling a colleague to falsify billable hours.

Most of these projects never actually materialize, often leading only to investigations or studies. French companies, NGOs, associations, and businesses connected to the Agence Française Développement, including international consultants like McKinsey and French consulting agencies, travel to distant countries. They get paid handsomely, sometimes €500 to €1,000 per week, or even €500 per day. With studies lasting weeks or months, the bill can reach €10,000, €100,000, or even €150,000, all paid by French taxpayers for projects that never come to fruition. This not only brings no benefit to France but, more importantly, it also fails to help the countries it's intended for.

Here's where some of our money is going: $520 million to consultants for environmental, social, and governance investments in Africa, and another $25 million to promote biodiversity in Colombia. We're also giving $42 million to Johns Hopkins for social and behavioral research in Uganda. Then there's $70 million for Purdue to research solutions to global developmental challenges. Other expenditures include $10 million for circumcisions in Mozambique, $9.7 million for enterprise skills training for Cambodian youth, and $32 million to the Prague Civil Society Center. We've also allocated $14 million to improve public procurement in Serbia, $21 million for voter turnout in India, and $20 million for fiscal federalism in Nepal. Millions more are going to biodiversity in Nepal, voter confidence in Liberia, and learning outcomes in Asia.

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 shocking part of investigating government-funded NGOs is that small decisions lead to massive, multi-billion dollar outcomes. I saw one instance of $1.9 billion being sent to an NGO that was formed a year prior and had no prior activity. Government-funded NGOs are essentially a loophole, allowing actions that would be illegal for the government directly but become permissible through nonprofits. These nonprofits are then used for personal enrichment, with individuals cashing out and paying themselves exorbitant sums. It's a giant scam where people can establish an NGO for a relatively small investment and then lobby politicians to funnel vast sums of money into it. There might be some good that comes from them, maybe 5 or 10%, but the rest is not.

Let's talk about where money is being spent. We've got $520 million for environmental, social, and governance investments in Africa and to mobilize private sector resources. There's $25 million to promote biodiversity in Colombia, $40 million to improve social and economic inclusion of migrants, and $42 million for Johns Hopkins to research social and behavior change in Uganda. Then we see $70 million for Purdue to research solutions to developmental challenges, $10 million for circumcisions in Mozambique, and almost $10 million for UC Berkeley to train Cambodian youth. Plus, millions more are going to various projects, including election and political processes strengthening, voter turnout in India, fiscal federalism in Nepal, biodiversity in Nepal, and learning outcomes in Asia. It's a lot of money going to a lot of different places.

The discussion centers on OCCRP (the Corruption Reporting Project), its funding, and how it operates as “mercenary media” for state interests, particularly the U.S. State Department and USAID. The speakers argue that OCCRP is not independent journalism but a State Department–funded operation that produces hit pieces to seize assets, indict officials, and press regime change across multiple countries. Key findings and claims discussed - OCCRP’s funding and control: The group is described as receiving substantial funding from the United States government through USAID and the State Department, with other sources including Open Society (Soros), Microsoft, and NED. A recurring claim is that half of OCCRP’s funding comes from the U.S. government, that USAID and the State Department actually control hiring and firing decisions of top personnel, and that a “cooperative agreement” structure channels editorial direction through government-approved annual work plans and key personnel (including the editor‑in‑chief or chief of party). - Financial returns and impact: It is claimed that USAID boasted in internal documents that paying $20 million to independent journalists yielded $4.5 billion in fines and assets seized, and that mercenary reporting led to 548 policy changes, 21 resignations or removals (including a president and a prime minister), 456 arrests or indictments, and roughly $10 billion in assets returned to government coffers across various countries (Central Europe, Eastern Partnership, Western Balkans, etc.). A related claim is that total spending over OCCRP’s history amounts to about $50 million, with returns rising from $4.5 billion in 2022 to about $10 billion by 2024. - Geographic scope and targets: The reporting funded or influenced by the State Department covered broad regions—Germany, Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Belarus, and the Western Balkans—extending to the Eastern Partnership and beyond. The pieces are described as having led to investigations and asset seizures that targeted political enemies of state authorities. - The role of “mercenary media” and independence claims: The speakers repeatedly contrast the claimed editorial independence of OCCRP with the reality of donor influence. They describe OCCRP as “mercenary media for the state,” funded to generate narratives and political outcomes favorable to U.S. foreign policy. They challenge the notion of independent journalism by noting the requirement that key personnel and annual work plans be approved or vetoed by USAID, and that there are “strings attached” to cooperative agreements that go beyond simple gifts. - Editorial process and donor influence: The conversation scrutinizes how the annual work plan, subgrants, and editor-level appointments are subject to USAID oversight. It is noted that, even when OCCRP claims editorial independence, the top editors must navigate donor influence, and in practice, the content may be shaped to align with funders’ interests. The argument is that without donor influence, OCCRP would not exist or would not continue to receive large sums of money. - The rhetoric of independence: Several speakers underscore the paradox of insisting on “independent media” while acknowledging that funding, governance, and personnel decisions are shaped by U.S. government agencies, with additional support from Soros/Open Society and corporate donors like Microsoft. They juxtapose “independence” rhetoric with admissions of entanglement with government and intelligence entities, and their discussions touch on the historical context of U.S. public diplomacy, the U.S. Information Agency, and the evolution of state-driven media influence. - Historical funding trajectory and organizations: The first funds reportedly came from sources such as the United Nations Democracy Fund, with later support from INL (the U.S. Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement) and a transition to USAID administration. The participants discuss the possibility that multiple U.S. government agencies (State Department, USAID, NED, INL) and private sponsors (Open Society, Microsoft) contribute to OCCRP’s budget, with the U.S. government described as the largest donor at various points, though not always claimed as the single dominating donor. - “Capacity building” and the machinery of influence: The conversation highlights “capacity building” as a common label for donor-driven expansion of media assets, civil society groups, and investigative journalism networks. They connect these efforts to broader U.S. democracy promotion programs and to the use of investigative reporting as a tool for law enforcement and political leverage—where journalists may gather information and feed it to prosecutors and foreign policy objectives. - Individual positions and disclosures: Several speakers identify named individuals (e.g., Drew Sullivan, Shannon McGuire) and discuss their roles, funding pathways, and concerns about editorial control. The dialogue reveals tensions between the journalists’ professional aims and the political-economic machinery enabling their work. Cumulative impression - The transcript presents a frontal, highly confrontational critique of OCCRP as a state-funded, state-influenced enterprise that positions itself as independent journalism while enabling significant political and legal actions abroad. The speakers claim conspicuously high returns on investment for government funding (billions of dollars in assets seized and numerous political changes) and describe the cooperative funding structure as funneling editorial output toward U.S. foreign policy objectives. They argue that independence is a veneer masking a structured, donor-driven process with formal approval channels for personnel and plans, and with direct implications for how narratives are shaped and which targets are pursued. They also connect OCCRP’s practices to broader historical patterns of U.S. public diplomacy, intelligence collaboration, and the global propaganda ecosystem.

Where is all of our money going? $520 million to consultants for environmental, social, and governance investments in Africa. $25 million is going to Colombia to promote biodiversity conservation and socially responsible behavior. $40 million to improve social and economic inclusion of migrants, and $42 million for Johns Hopkins to research social and behavior change in Uganda. Purdue is getting $70 million to research solutions to developmental challenges, while $10 million goes to Mozambique for voluntary medical male circumcisions. UC Berkeley receives $9.7 million to develop enterprise skills in Cambodian youth. The Prague Civil Society Center, a very liberal group, gets $32 million. $14 million is for improving public procurement in Serbia. We're giving $486 million to strengthen elections and political processes, including $21 million for voter turnout in India. This is fraud, and it just keeps going on and on.

Speaker 0 highlights that a tremendous amount of money is being sent to nongovernmental organizations. He characterizes this flow of funds as, essentially, one of the biggest sources of fraud in the world. In his view, government-funded nongovernmental organizations create a gigantic fraud loophole because the government can provide money to an NGO, and then there are no controls over that NGO. He asserts that there have been billions of dollars in tech directed to NGOs through this mechanism, and he estimates tens of billions of dollars have been given to NGOs that are essentially scams.

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.