TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

During the Reagan era, we created NGOs to fight communism by establishing a soft power structure to influence the world. The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) was created and split into the National Democratic Institute and the International Republican Institute. Both Democrats and Republicans were under the NED, with the intention of offering balanced perspectives as they influenced the world. But when communism fell, these NGOs didn't disband; they grew in power and money. They now see themselves as protectors of democracy, viewing any challenge to them as a challenge to democracy itself. Both Democrats and Republicans are heavily involved, even to the point where sitting members of Congress vote for money for these NGOs while sitting on them. They believe they're doing good, protecting the Western world, but it's also about the money. They tell themselves a good story.

I wanted to bring you an update from Washington and introduce Data Republican, a digital detective exposing government corruption. She uses AI to analyze data, revealing connections between agencies, media, and NGOs. Her research uncovered that USAID funneled nearly half a billion dollars into Internews Network, a secretive NGO working with media outlets worldwide. Interestingly, a board member at Internews is also the VP of Communications at Reddit. During the Cold War, entities like Internews aimed to prevent the spread of communism, but now, the funds continue to grow with unclear objectives. USAID also funds domestic programs, including CEPPS, which distributes billions to Republican and Democratic groups, creating a complex web of money controlled by powerful politicians, which looks like the deep state manipulating elections. Eliminating the Department of Education and empowering parents and schools would be more effective, as the current system is overly bureaucratic and fails to meet diverse learning needs.

USAID, under Samantha Power, is accused of promoting a radical ideology that is anti-family and anti-life onto the developing world, essentially ideological colonization. The agency has been weaponized to attack conservative parties, not only in Brazil, but also in pro-America countries like Poland and Hungary. In Syria, USAID allegedly funneled over $15 billion to topple Bashar al-Assad, funding opposition groups and anti-government networks under the guise of humanitarian aid. During the Euro Maiden Uprising in Ukraine in 2014, USAID spent billions on civil society initiatives to destabilize the pro-Russian government, funding NGOs and media outlets to amplify anti-Yanukovych sentiment. When USAID acts in American national security interests, it is correct. However, it becomes detrimental when abused for political purposes and sponsoring anti-American ideologies. Pro-American propaganda is acceptable, but funding regimes that oppose American values should be avoided.

Data Republican has exposed seven non-governmental organizations (NGOs) allegedly involved in corruption within DC. These NGOs, termed the "uni-party unmasked," are claimed to receive substantial financial support from USAID and the Department of State. According to Mike Benz, these NGOs are part of a mass money laundering operation involving tens of billions of tax dollars. Data Republican highlights these organizations in a thread on X. The speaker claims Trump is shutting USAID down to rectify this. Elon Musk calls this discovery the "bull's eye."

The discussion centers on allegations that the United States has used or could use domestic and international mechanisms to effect regime change, including through domestic unrest and foreign influence operations. Speaker 0 describes a 2021 Special Operations Command instruction manual, framed as a vision for 2021 and beyond, that purportedly contains instructions and examples on how the military could work with the State Department, intelligence services, and USAID to use race riots to destabilize nations. He points to examples labeled as part of this manual’s guidance for destabilization via combined military-government-civilian efforts. Speaker 1 lays out a model of how revolutions are allegedly structured, starting with a government at the top and support funneled through USAID, the State Department, or other administration entities. He then describes a degree of separation through privatized NGOs, including the National Endowment for Democracy, the International Republican Institute, and similar organizations, with money flowing from entities such as George Soros’s Open Society Foundations through tides and government-funded NGOs like NED. He suggests money ultimately comes from the people, and that demonstrators, youth movements, a sympathetic media, and labor unions contribute to organizing protests. He outlines conditions for regime change: an unpopular incumbent, a semi-automatic regime (not fully autocratic), a united and organized opposition, the ability to quickly frame the voting results as falsified, media amplification of that falsification, an opposition capable of mobilizing thousands, and divisions among coercive forces like the military or police. He asks whether those conditions are present and implies they are. Speaker 2 cites a declassified CIA guide from 1983 aimed at training operatives to organize riots in foreign countries, including using agitators and hiring professional criminals to manipulate mass meetings, with the goal of turning general anger into violence against the regime. The guide describes creating a climate where a few hundred agitators could mobilize tens of thousands, using 200 back channels and 200 human assets to generate a 10,000–20,000 demonstration. It also notes strategies such as setting up job fairs near riots to enlist disaffected workers. He references USAID’s Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI), implying that “transition” is a code for regime change, and cites a 2009 congressional report warning that OTI was a foreign operation aimed at toppling governments through organized political warfare, including mobilizing unions, boycotts, and shutdowns of roads, transportation, hospitals, and schools. Fulton Armstrong’s quote is cited regarding government secrecy surrounding such operations. The speakers conclude by condemning actions conducted in the shadows, destabilizing nations using race wars to achieve political aims, and advocating that the military be involved, arguing these efforts occur without oversight.

USAID, or the U.S. Agency for International Development, is not an aid organization in the traditional sense. Established in the early 1960s by JFK, its purpose is to develop institutions globally that support U.S. foreign policy. USAID coordinates capacity-building efforts for activist groups in foreign countries to align with the interests of the State Department. With a budget of $50 billion, it surpasses the combined budgets of the CIA and the State Department. Essentially, USAID acts as a facilitator for the Pentagon, State Department, and intelligence community, aiding in national security and foreign policy objectives.

The focus is on USAID, which significantly funds global leftism, primarily benefiting Democrats. However, the concern lies with Republicans who also benefit from USAID funding through their affiliated organizations, the National Democratic Institute and the International Republican Institute, which receive equal funding. Despite a Republican-controlled Congress potentially wanting to shut down USAID, many Republicans are tied to its funding through corporate interests. This coalition of internationalist Republicans and Democrats may prevent any significant changes. Attention should be paid to Republican opposition to USAID, as it reveals deeper issues within the party and its historical ties, particularly in light of past events like the January 6th committee. The need for grassroots pressure on these Republicans is crucial as this situation unfolds.

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.

USAID, established in 1961 by JFK, is not an aid organization despite its name. The "aid" in USAID stands for the U.S. Agency for International Development, which focuses on developing institutions that the State Department needs. It coordinates capacity-building efforts for activist groups in foreign countries to align with U.S. interests. With a budget of $50 billion, USAID surpasses the combined budgets of the CIA and the State Department, which totals $72 billion. Essentially, USAID acts as a facilitator for the Pentagon, State Department, and intelligence community, supporting national security and clandestine operations.

The discussion opens with a provocative line about not needing a CIA director this year because the National Endowment for Democracy is in place, followed by introductions of Carl Gershwin as founding co-president of the National Dialogue for Democracy and the plan to cover the topic at length. The speakers claim that democratic groups worldwide could be seen as subsidized by the CIA, noting that such subsidies were curtailed in the 1960s and that the Endowment was created to fund groups the CIA subsidized back then. They assert that, before grants are made, all grants are sent through the State Department to the CIA, and promise deeper exploration of “Ned CIA” material. They list prominent entities alongside the National Endowment for Democracy, including the Rockefeller Foundation, the Atlanta Council, Ellen White as an operative who prepared the way for political changes in the past two years, and efforts to take down the Soviet Union through internal coups in Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, and Czechoslovakia. George Soros and the Open Society Foundation, as well as the Atlantic Council, are also named as funders or players in this network. The conversation identifies the Rockefeller Foundation as a major funder, calling it the “hellspawn of John D. Rockefeller and the octopus of Standard Oil,” and notes its funding of the Atlantic Council alongside the Pentagon and the State Department, claiming over $1,000,000 a year. A claim is made about the Rockefeller Foundation’s involvement beyond NATO’s civil society arm, including a reference to Google as the source for who runs the Rockefeller Foundation, and a mention that the foundation had an endowment around $6,000,000,000, making it the thirtieth largest foundation globally by endowment. The discussion briefly covers Raj Shah, described as having been appointed head of USAID by Barack Obama, previously at the Gates Foundation, and later running the Rockefeller Foundation, identifying him as the number one head of USAID. Speaker 2 shifts to criticizing Raj Shah and USAID, then highlights a partnership announcement between USAID and Mr. Beast’s philanthropic endeavors, noting Mr. Beast’s substantial net worth (estimates cited around $2.6 billion, with a referenced $5 billion company valuation). The speakers then pivot to analyzing Mr. Beast’s online influence, citing his enormous view counts across multiple channels and arguing that his content represents the most popular material on the Internet, capable of shaping hearts and minds and, therefore, serving as a finely tuned instrument of statecraft. The dialogue returns to ongoing coverage of Mr. Beast videos, including a live example of a Minecraft-based Hunger Games-style video with multi-minute view counts, and ends with a broad assertion that the Rockefeller Foundation has partnered with the CIA in a civil-society capacity and that Mr. Beast’s platform, with hundreds of millions of views, could function as a tool of statecraft, given its reach and influence.

- The speakers criticize a new funding bill as a bloated, bipartisan package totaling over $1.7 trillion, arguing it represents a “middle finger” to American taxpayers and funds more than merely keeping the lights on. They claim both parties supported it, eliminating any real fiscal fight. - They highlight a provision referred to as health care extenders on page 772, noting that temporary pandemic expansions in health and welfare programs are now baked in as permanent costs for taxpayers. This is presented as evidence that eligibility expansions for Medicare are being locked in. - They point to Israel-related spending buried within the bill, noting provisions allocating hundreds of millions of dollars for Israeli missile defense programs, including the Iron Dome, on page 101 of the 1,059-page bill. They argue that funding the U.S. government is linked to funding a foreign defense system, and that this represents corporate welfare for well-connected interests in Washington. - The discussion asserts that Ukraine-related funding is not explicitly in the bill as written, but that money may still be funneled through contractors or other channels. They question whether there will be a final victory lap on supposedly winding down Ukraine aid, suggesting money remains flowing covertly. - They discuss the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and USAID, noting that money for NED remained in the bill despite amendments to cut funding. They describe NED as a non-partisan tool that has supported regime-change activities, including actions in Iran and Venezuela, and criticize both parties for preserving this funding. - They critique the consolidation of aid into the State Department, specifically via USAID under Marco Rubio, arguing that oversight has weakened and that funding is redirected for various foreign policy aims (e.g., Venezuela, Cuba, Iran). They discuss the influence of Rubio on where funds go and describe the arrangement as increasing executive-led control with limited transparency. - They argue that the bill reflects a broader pattern of government spending: a so-called “uni-party” consensus that avoids reducing government size, with both parties acting in lockstep on foreign and domestic priorities. - The conversation touches on public opinion, citing a Gallup poll that suggests younger generations despise both major parties, and they link this to perceived bipartisan over-spending and interventionism. - Throughout, the viewers criticize what they see as a routine of declaring emergencies and then normalizing permanent programs, suggesting that emergency measures become permanent and that the political system uses crisis rhetoric to justify ongoing expenditure. - The discussion ends with remarks on political leadership, labeling Speaker Johnson as a weak figure and coining a proposed “fuck it party” as a first-principles anti-war alternative, with participants noting they would join or support it. Daniel McAdams provided expert commentary throughout.

The speaker claims that an analysis of political donations from the State Department, USAID, and the National Endowment for Democracy reveals that 94-98% of donations went to the left. This pattern allegedly extends to international NGOs and contractors, including World Vision and Catholic Relief Services, with over 90% of political donations favoring the left. The speaker suggests these organizations' boards consist of highly paid, prominent individuals. The speaker alleges the left is misusing USAID and taxpayer money across the federal government as a slush fund to finance their own people, creating a one-sided apparatus that funds only one side of the political equation.

The speaker's research into political donations from the State Department, USAID, and the National Endowment for Democracy found that 94-98% went to the left. A similar pattern was observed when examining international NGOs and contractors, including World Vision and Catholic Relief Services. The speaker alleges that the left is misusing taxpayer money across the federal government as a slush fund to finance their own people. This creates a one-sided apparatus where taxpayer money funds only one side of the political equation, enabling recipients to support left-leaning media and political activities.

The Third Precinct has been compromised. USAID used taxpayer money for BLM ($27 million), Soros (at least $260 million), and the WEF ($68 million). Taxpayers allegedly paid for these entities to burn down cities, destroy America, launder money to Democrats, and subsidize the WEF. USAID also funded Middle East Sesame Street ($20 million) and Ukraine ($1 billion). It is claimed that the prosecutor got fired because the money was not received. These actions are described as despicable, appalling, dangerous, and Democrat propaganda via fake news. It is considered an extremely dangerous use of taxpayer funds and a threat to democracy. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

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.

USAID has been a slush fund for left-wing projects globally, including gender surgeries, DEI policies, and climate initiatives. Billions of dollars funded NGOs, which infiltrated corporations and the public sector. This fueled resettlement of illegal immigrants, promoted equity policies, and advanced radical gender agendas. This massive left-wing power structure, including the media, wasn't organic; it was taxpayer-funded. The outcry against President Trump's cuts to USAID funding stems from this. He's cutting off the funding to organizations that harm America.

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.

USAID has been accused of acting as a covert operations division for U.S. foreign policy, often engaging in activities that resemble those previously conducted by the CIA. This includes funding opposition groups in countries like Bangladesh, where they supported specific demographics to destabilize governments. Both Democrats and internationalist Republicans benefit from USAID, complicating efforts to shut it down. Past presidents, including Biden and Obama, have been implicated in this corruption, with connections to organizations funded by USAID. The Trump administration's foreign policy challenged this system, leading to significant pushback, including legal actions against Trump. USAID's influence extends across various sectors, including media and academia, raising concerns about accountability and transparency in U.S. foreign aid.

An ex-Data Republican has identified seven NGOs, partially funded by American taxpayers, as key players in the "deep state Uniparty." These organizations have allegedly shaped public discourse, portraying Trump as a threat to democracy, when actually, he challenged their political regime. These NGOs receive substantial funding from USAID/State Department and frame their mission as protecting democracy. They were originally created to support US Democratic efforts abroad but redefined their mission after the Soviet Union's fall. These NGOs function as a shadow US government, with the National Endowment for Democracy unifying efforts against perceived enemies. Recent actions by Trump, like sending Elon Musk into federal agencies, have disrupted the Uniparty's alleged grift and misuse of taxpayer funds. As the Uniparty panics, the deep state will become more desperate. For personal health preparedness, The Wellness Company offers prescription medical kits (twc.health/blackout, promo code blackout for 10% off).

Fake NGOs are often fake charities, mostly run by Democrats, though Republicans may be involved to maintain silence. Billions of dollars are given to these Democrat-run NGOs, which then go through a network of additional NGOs. This is described as a giant money laundering scheme, where the terms NGO and money laundering are almost synonymous. Arrests are needed in this regard.

A recent report unmasks seven NGOs, partially funded by U.S. taxpayers, as key players in the "deep state" uniparty. These organizations, originally meant to support U.S. democratic efforts abroad, have redefined their mission to be the guardians of democracy itself. They receive substantial funding from USAID and the State Department. This shift explains why Trump's reelection was framed as a threat, as these NGOs equate democracy with their own survival and authority. They control the purse strings for much of America's global financial influence. These groups function as an off the books shadow U.S. government. Now, with increased scrutiny and declining media trust, their propaganda efforts are weakened, potentially leading to more desperate measures from the deep state.

We were covering an article about 55,000 Democrat NGOs discovered to be contributing to campaigns, moving things around, and pushing propaganda. It was discovered through AI that to figure out where the money's coming from, you have to go through layers and layers, and it's all funneling down to one group or another. It's a giant propaganda machine, a giant regime change machine.

The speaker outlines a framework for understanding current information control by the US and its allies, arguing that the State Department, the Pentagon, and the Central Intelligence Agency operate together to shape information in society. They describe three roles: the State Department conducts overt information control through funding media institutions (which are presented as “free and independent” but labeled government-backed); the Pentagon engages in information control through psychological operations; and the CIA operates covert information control, influence campaigns, propaganda, and censorship work. Between the State Department and the CIA sits a vast network of soft power institutions that implement this influence. Soft power is defined as the alternative to hard power, enabling a country to win “hearts and minds” and influence other countries’ governments by manipulating populations. The speaker connects this framework to the Brazil situation, stating at the top level the involvement of three or more organizations: the State Department, USAID, and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). USAID and the NED are described as intermediaries between the State Department and the CIA, with the NED characterized as a CIA cutout established after the Church Committee era to fund dissident groups in a publicly firewalled way, though the speaker asserts there is no real divide between the NED and the CIA. The NED’s founders explicitly noted it would do what the CIA used to do, but via a private, publicly named entity. The speaker cites Christopher Walker (NED) as a participant in this ecosystem. The narrative then moves to a 2017 GlobSec video, described as the origin of today’s censorship industry’s consensus. The video’s description is read, highlighting concerns about traditional media being challenged by internet news and social networks, the spread of “unfiltered” alternative media, and the problem of algorithms that personalize content and reinforce confirmation bias. It identifies populist and extremist right-wing groups as exploiting these algorithms, and asks how to protect users from fake news and propaganda without censorship. It questions the role of information technology companies and the responsibility of social platforms for content, while debating how to fight extremism without undermining free speech. The panel includes figures tied to the CIA, DHS, and private security and consulting groups. Key participants highlighted include Michael Chertoff (Executive Chairman of the Chertoff Group, former DHS Secretary, linked to censorship governance), and Christopher Walker (Vice President of NED), among others. The speaker emphasizes Chertoff’s connections to BAE Systems and to the broader military–intelligence–policy network, noting Chertoff’s role in shaping how platforms were to police “unfiltered” content in 2017. The speaker also references Nina Janković, who was connected to the disinformation governance board and the Integrity Initiative, asserting a lineage from Chertoff to the broader censorship apparatus. The speaker then broadens the geopolitical frame to Russia’s resource wealth (citing a claim of $75 trillion in resources vs. the US’s $45 trillion), noting that the Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) theater is the battleground for Eurasian influence. The montage in the video is described as starting with 1917 and Woodrow Wilson, portraying the blob’s view of democracy as a vector for hegemonic influence, and linking it to propaganda, censorship, and the need to control online discourse. The montage proceeds through references to 1936, Goebbels and the 1936 Olympics, Hitler, 1943, Elvis, 1960s–70s conspiracy theories about the CIA and JFK, and 1990s declassification of Northwoods-era plans, culminating in the framing of Internet propaganda as a modern battlefield. The session transitions to a live moderator, with a check on audio levels and an introduction to the next segment, announced as taking place in Bratislava for a global audience.

I see NGOs as a hack to the system. People can establish one fairly inexpensively. George Soros was excellent at this, leveraging a small amount of money to create a nonprofit, then lobbying politicians to direct substantial funds to it. A $10 million donation could become a billion-dollar NGO. These NGOs often have appealing names, like the Institute for Peace, but they can be graft machines. The government provides grants, assuming they're doing good work, but there are really no requirements attached to the money, and the government continues to fund them annually. While many in the government are aware they might not be effective, the system persists.

The speaker describes a massive UN and NGO–driven immigration infrastructure in Mexico and Central America. In Tapachula, Mexico, the UNHCR is constructing a 75,000 square foot “illegal immigration mall” on Mexican land, with the UN and various NGOs under one roof. There is also a large tent city space, indicating a planned, long-term hub for migrants. The speaker notes similar NGO complexes in Colombia and Panama, where NGO villages resemble big swap meets with storefronts for different organizations and permanent billboards directing immigrants to resources needed to continue their journey. They claim hundreds of NGOs operate in the region, including US NGOs, European NGOs, and Latin American NGOs, many affiliated with Catholic dioceses or well-known groups like Doctors Without Borders. These NGOs are described as receiving substantial US taxpayer money to build a cross-border safety net, facilitated by UN agencies and then doled out to national NGOs via US appropriations from the State Department, USAID, and related sources. Financial figures are presented to illustrate the scale: $1.9 billion spent in 2024, $2.2 billion in the previous year, and about $45 billion over the last few years, with 2019 at $377 million in comparison. The speaker suggests this funding is intended to sustain a long-term, high-volume flow of migration from South America to the US border, with Tapachula identified as a key strategic city and the surrounding NGO towns on the migration corridor highlighted as part of the infrastructure. The speaker contends the operations are designed with an expectation of a political outcome, stating they are “betting on a Harris win” and that the system would halt “within an hour of his inauguration” if certain policies were enacted. Specifically, they claim the remain-in-Mexico policy could be immediately implemented, with orders to border patrol and possible invocation of Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to push back and deny asylum to 100% of border crossers. The claim is that this would deter migrants from attempting entry, and that the migrants themselves are closely watching US politics, with many believing that if Trump is in office, entry and asylum access would be substantially harder. The speaker observes that about 50,000 to 60,000 migrants arrive at the border monthly, noting a socioeconomic stratification: wealthier migrants tend to pay human smugglers to reach the border, while the poorer migrants—often from lower-income backgrounds—struggle to finance the final stages of the journey, sometimes needing to borrow or sell assets to reach Mexico, where the poorest end up on the streets in Tapachula. They remark that some nationalities, such as many Chinese and Venezuelans, are described as wealthier within this context.