reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss government disinformation offices and transparency concerns. - CISA’s office of mis, dis, and malinformation (MDM) operated as a DHS unit focused on domestic threat actors, with archive details at cisa.gov/mdm. The office existed for two years, from 2021 to 2023, before being shut down and renamed after the foundation published a series of reports. - The disinformation governance board was formed around April 2022. The CISOs countering foreign influence task force, originally aimed at stopping Russian influence and repurposed to “stop Trump in the twenty twenty election,” changed its name to the office of mis, dis, and malinformation and shifted focus from foreign influence to 80% domestic, 20% foreign, one month before the twenty twenty election. - Speaker 1 argues that the information environment problems are largely domestic, suggesting an 80/20 focus on foreign vs domestic issues should be flipped. - A June 2022 Holly Senate committee link is highlighted, leading to a 31-page PDF that, as of now, represents the sum total of internal documents related to the office of mis, dis, and malinformation. The speaker questions why there is more transparency about the DHS MIS office from a whistleblower three years ago than in ten months of current executive power. - The speaker calls for comprehensive publication of internal files: every email, text, and correspondence from DHS MIS personnel, to be placed in a WikiLeaks/JFK-style publicly accessible database for forensic reconstruction of DHS actions during those years, to name and shame responsible individuals and prevent repetition. - The video also references George Soros state department cables published by WikiLeaks (from 2010), noting extensive transparency about the Open Society Foundations’ relationship with the state department fifteen years ago, compared to today. The claim is that Open Society Foundations’ activities through the state department, USAID, and the CIA were weaponized to influence domestic politics while remaining secret, with zero disclosures to this day. - Speaker questions why cooperative agreements from USAID with Open Society Foundation, Omidyar Network, or Gates Foundation have never been made public, nor quarterly or annual milestone reports, network details, or the actual scope of funded activities. USAID grant descriptions on usaspending.gov are often opaque or misleading compared to the true activities funded. - The speaker urges transparency across DHS, USAID, the State Department, CIA, ODNI, and related entities, asking for open files and for accountability. They stress the need to open these records now to inform the public and prevent recurrence, especially as mid-term political considerations loom.

USAID is allegedly influencing judicial systems globally, aiming for "pacification" and "stability." The speaker claims that in Poland, USAID and corrupted prosecutors are working to eliminate populism after the transitional justice that occurred when Biden took power. A Google search for "USAID" and "judicial reform" reveals numerous countries where the U.S. is supposedly influencing the judiciary, including Serbia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Uzbekistan, Albania, El Salvador, Ukraine, Central America, and Georgia. This is described as standard practice, a "USAID Truman Show" that has been refined for 60 years. The speaker predicts that these networks will seek funding from various international allies, including European entities, China, and South American governments, to compensate for potential losses from USAID. They will also pressure international organizations like the UN, NATO, and the EU to weaponize their assets.

USAID and similar NGOs, such as DFID, operate in Africa under the guise of humanitarian aid and grassroots initiatives, but their real purpose is to destabilize governments. Many leaders in Africa and the developing world are celebrating USAID's exit. Despite claims of filling gaps in healthcare and education, there is no evidence of improvement in countries where USAID has been present. The social services provided are insignificant, and only a fraction of the billions of dollars given to USAID reaches the people.

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.

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.

Elon Musk's influence is seen as significant, particularly regarding USAID, which partners with various health initiatives. Concerns arise about potential disruptions to vital work in nutrition and vaccination, which could lead to millions of deaths if not managed properly. Bill Gates predicts another pandemic within 25 years, emphasizing the need for preparedness. He faces criticism for his past actions and alleged connections to bioweapons. The conversation highlights a broader distrust of government agencies and the perceived corruption within them, particularly regarding funding and operations. Musk's comments suggest a need for systemic change, viewing USAID as fundamentally flawed. The discussion reflects ongoing tensions between innovation, public health, and accountability in governance.

USAID and similar NGOs claim to rescue Africa through grassroots initiatives, but they are wolves in sheep's clothing using humanitarian access to destabilize governments. Most leaders in the developing world are celebrating USAID's exit. USAID claims to fill gaps in healthcare and education, but there's no evidence of improvement in any country where they've operated. The social services they provide are insignificant. American taxpayers should know that only a fraction of the billions of dollars given to USAID reaches the people.

Hello everyone, and welcome to the weekly report. The USAID website is currently unreachable, as the Trump administration has frozen its activities and may move it under the State Department. This could be one of Trump's most significant actions early in his presidency. Many still view USAID as a disaster relief agency, but it plays a crucial role in U.S. regime change operations, funding NGOs that undermine elected governments. Reports indicate that 90% of Ukrainian media is U.S. government-funded, creating a propaganda loop that distorts the reality of the war. Additionally, USAID allegedly funded research at the Wuhan lab, raising concerns about its role in COVID-19. Americans deserve a transparent audit of USAID, and the agency should be shut down to restore integrity. Thank you for listening.

The speaker was asked about USAID funding for work in Wuhan and creating weaponized coronaviruses. They denied the accusation and stated they did not have specific details. When pressed if USAID money went to Wuhan, they avoided a direct answer and requested respectful questions. The conversation ended with the speaker being accused of giving a non-denial denial.

Hello everyone, and welcome to the weekly report. The USAID website is currently inaccessible, and reports indicate the Trump administration has frozen its activities, potentially moving it under the State Department or shutting it down entirely. Many view USAID as a humanitarian agency, but it plays a significant role in U.S. regime change efforts globally, funding NGOs that undermine elected governments. Recent reports show that 90% of Ukrainian media outlets rely on U.S. funding, creating a propaganda loop that distorts information about the conflict. Additionally, USAID is linked to funding gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab. Americans deserve transparency regarding USAID's actions, and the agency should be audited and ultimately closed. Thank you for listening.

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.

A Substack piece alleges USAID and the CIA helped orchestrate Trump's impeachment. According to the speaker, a CIA analyst leftover from the Obama White House wrote the memo that led to the impeachment based on hearsay. This memo relied heavily on a report by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), an organization funded by USAID. The OCCRP was allegedly created as an extension of the State Department and USAID. The speaker claims USAID was about regime change abroad, a public-facing version of covert CIA operations. The speaker suggests that, similar to censorship tools used abroad being brought home, the predicate for Trump's impeachment was created abroad. The speaker believes this is one of many revelations to come.

Initially, USAID was created with good intentions. However, the agency has broken the trust with the American people and hasn't been transparent about where our taxpayer dollars are going. In 2021, the special operations command put out an instruction manual with instructions and examples on how the military could work with the state department, intel services, and USAID using race riots in order to destabilize nations. They also advocated for setting up job fairs near some of these riots so that disaffected workers could gain employment. These operations are taking place without government oversight, without the authority of the president, without the authority of congress. USAID needs to condemn this and provide oversight to congress on exactly where our tax dollars are going. Do you agree that this is wrong?

The speaker argues that the “radical left” has lost control of American culture and politics, with their “powers” having peaked and begun to “ebb,” and that a “shadow regime” is being “gutted.” They claim that the remaining radical left insurgency is now publicly dominated by radical Islam, communists, and other branches of a “radical cult,” and that if Democrats lose in November, they may fracture and “die.” The speaker also asserts that even the “climate cult is dying.” They contrast Europeans in Paris during the World Cup discovering that American venues have air conditioning while people die from heat stroke, presenting this as evidence of an “American renaissance.” The speaker claims an “existential catastrophe” for Democrats would follow a loss in the 2026 midterms, arguing that pressure is on Democrats to win swing districts and not Brooklyn. They state the public sees Iran taking demands seriously, Israel not being “elated,” and that Trump won without letting neocons drag him into “another forever war,” alongside claims that Trump is pivoting to addressing the Ukraine war next while funding a “nuclear renaissance.” The speaker then claims these “radical operations” were perfected in Eastern Europe and brought to the Americas, citing Gene Sharp and “Maidan” operations. They reference “From Dictatorship to Democracy” (1993) by Gene Sharp, asserting it explains “nonviolent struggle” using psychological, social, economic, and political weapons. They claim Sharp received grants from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and that revolutions occurred in Serbia (2000), Georgia (2003), Ukraine (2004), and Kyrgyzstan (2005). For Ukraine (2004), they say George Soros’ network financed the Orange Revolution, that Soros’ Ukrainian outfit spent $1.65 million from autumn 2003 to December 2004, and that it ran exit polls challenging the election outcome leading to a coup. They cite the Guardian as reporting roughly $65 million in total U.S. spending, with money routed through USAID and NED. They further claim the same model was applied under Obama starting in 2011 in North Africa and the Middle East, including “Arab Spring,” which they say installed the Muslim Brotherhood in Cairo and put terrorists in control of Libya. They state Associated Press reported Sharp’s work circulated among Egyptian activists and that social media platforms such as Twitter were incorporated in a second generation of “Rainbow Revolutions.” They cite an article by General Valery Grasimov (February 2013) warning that “color revolutions” can become armed conflict and chaos, calling the “very rules of war” changed. The speaker then claims that ten months later, the Maidan coup was launched, creating the Donbass Civil War and ultimately war between Russia and Ukraine, killing hundreds of thousands. The speaker lists two factors: a “public-private partnership” perfected regime change “without firing a shot,” and a desire to use this “rainbow warfare” to create existential conflict with Russia. They describe global control as the stated goal, asserting that destroying Christianity and the West is necessary for globalist systems, and they claim Trump’s 2016 election disrupted this second factor through the “Russiagate coup,” with Mark Carney and Obama coordinating elites and Zelensky following orders. They also say this war is difficult to end and that reviving “patriotic Christian nations” across the Western Hemisphere is part of a strategy. They claim that on Trump’s first day back in office, U.S. foreign aid was frozen, USAID’s website went down, headquarters closed, and Marco Rubio canceled 83% of USAID programs, followed by USAID ceasing as an independent agency and being folded into the State Department. They state this removed democracy and governance funding, including civil society grants, election programs, and NGO support. They cite election outcomes across countries (Ecuador, Bolivia, Honduras, Chile, Costa Rica, Colombia, Peru) as shifting rightward, while naming Brazil and Mexico as holdouts. For Brazil, they allege Supreme Court justice Alexandre de Moraes issued secret orders forcing social media deletions, jailed people for online speech, shut down X in 2024, and convicted Jair Bolsonaro in 2025, leading to a 27-year sentence. They claim the U.S. ran a similar censorship-capable model during COVID via Stanford’s Election Integrity Partnership and the State Department’s Global Engagement Center (GEC), asserting the GEC was turned from counterterrorism to “counterpopulism” after 2016, and that Rubio shut it down in April 2025 for silencing and censoring Americans’ voices. They state Rubio sanctioned Moraes and stripped his U.S. visa, and that Trump put tariffs on Brazil over Bolsonaro’s persecution. They claim Lula da Silva asked Xi Jinping for Chinese experts to help regulate Brazil’s social media, and that Brazil adopted a Chinese social credit agenda. The speaker argues U.S. vulnerability is concentrated in major cities and highlights New York, claiming the Red-Green Alliance of radical left communists and radical Muslims aims to change the city, and they describe Darialitsa Chevalier’s posts and rally statements as justifying the October 7 massacre. Finally, they claim the “Save America Act” is the cornerstone of Trump’s summer campaign, including holding the Senate “hostage” until passage, using Bill Pulte as acting director of national intelligence to raise pressure, and pledging to hold up FISA 702 surveillance until election reform. They conclude that “election rigging” is the last remaining pillar, and that the color revolution in America has been waged for over 10 years (Russiagate, Ukraingate, caravans, COVID, J6, and riots in Minnesota) and is “failing,” with Trump still not eliminated and Democrats facing mounting pressure.

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.

Claims in the speaker's remarks center on funding and connections. They state that the project is largely funded by USAID money, allegedly authorized by the Biden administration and later affected when Trump took office. The speaker also mentions alleged links to a prominent UK figure involved with intelligence and a spouse in the civil service. Specifically, they describe a man said to be a top officer in MI6 and a wife described as high up in the civil service. The wife is said to have worked in the Foreign Office for five years as the personal assistant to the permanent secretary, the highest-ranking civil servant in that department. The transcript raises questions about these individuals’ exact roles and affiliations based on the presented claims.

USAID and other NGOs are not rescuing Africa, but are wolves in sheep's clothing, supporting those who keep governments in turmoil. American taxpayers should know that only a fraction of the billions of dollars given to USAID reaches the people. An HIV AIDS program in South Africa allegedly injected people with the virus, contributing to its rapid spread in Southern Africa. Africans were used as guinea pigs for experimental activities. GMOs are destroying African agriculture. While some good may come out of these programs, the end result is that they mean no good.

I Googled USAID and apparently Trump and Elon shut off the world's oxygen supply. But what's missing from these stories is any reporting on what USAID was spending money on, like sketchy projects they funneled billions into, or why shutting it down might be a good thing. USAID was dropping millions on gender studies in countries that still stone women, funding infrastructure projects where nothing ever got built, and paying for DC cocktail parties instead of actual aid. The media is acting like USAID was a holy temple when in reality, it was just a government ATM with no withdrawal limits. Nobody even knew what USAID did until Trump shut it down. If your charity dies when the free government money stops flowing, it wasn't a charity. It was a money laundering Ponzi scheme. And the fact that CNN is crying tells you everything.

Speaker 0 discusses a 2021 Special Operations Command instruction manual under Mark Milley, described as a vision for 2021 and beyond that contained instructions and examples on how the military could work with the state department, intel services, and USAID using race riots to destabilize nations, citing “examples of some of the instruction manuals here” as one and two to destabilize nations. Speaker 1 references a declassified CIA guide written in 1983 that trains operatives in how to organize riots in foreign countries. It is described as advocating for using agitators, including hiring professional criminals, to manipulate mass meetings and assemblies of people in person, which can result in general violence. The guide allegedly instructs the case officers that “our psychological war team must develop in advance a hostile mental attitude among the target groups so that at the given moment, they can turn their anger into violence demanding the rights taken away by the regime,” with a goal to make ethnic minority groups mad at their government in a general sense so that, when triggered, they will turn that general anger into physical violence against the state they aim to overthrow. The CIA guide allegedly details getting teachers, doctors, attorneys, and businessmen recruited as social crusaders for the CIA-backed cause, with a plan for gradually building clusters of influence: “these cells,” including “10 super teachers… 10 lawyers… 10 captains of industry… 10 medical professionals,” who will each operate within their spheres of influence and, at an appropriate time, fuse the groups into a united front. It is claimed that with “a force of 200 to 300 agitators,” one can create a demonstration in which “10,000 to 20,000” participate, given access to “200 back channels, 200 human assets” built up to mobilize a large riot. Speaker 0 adds that the guide also recommended setting up job fairs near protests so that disaffected workers could gain employment. The speaker then questions as a member of Congress whether anyone in USAID gets elected to Congress or to a presidency. Speaker 1 asserts that the US secretly created Cuban Twitter to stir unrest in organized smart mobs, likening them to BLM-style mobs. He notes McSpeden, who “worked for USAID’s Office of Transition Initiatives,” and explains that the term “transition” means regime change. He cites a 2009 congressional report stating that the Office of Transition Initiatives runs a program to topple governments through organized political warfare, mobilizing unions, boycotts, and shutdowns of roads, transportation systems, hospitals, and schools, and that a Senate Foreign Relations Committee member Fulton Armstrong warned that even he could not obtain broad access to what USAID was doing, describing it as a secret operation. Speaker 0 closes by saying that acting in the shadows to destabilize nations using race wars and advocating that the military do it jeopardizes future generations who would have to fight such wars and operates without oversight.

The speaker claims that USAID and the CIA helped orchestrate Trump's impeachment. According to the speaker, the House of Representatives impeached President Trump in December 2019 based on a memo written by a CIA analyst held over from the Obama administration. The memo relied heavily on a report by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), an organization initially funded by USAID. The speaker alleges that USAID was involved in regime change abroad and, like censorship tools used abroad, helped create a predicate for Trump's impeachment. The speaker suggests this is one of many revelations to come.

A Substack article claims USAID and the CIA helped orchestrate Trump's impeachment. According to the article, the House of Representatives impeached President Trump in December 2019 based on a memo written by a CIA analyst held over from the Obama White House. The memo relied on a report by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), an organization initially funded by USAID as an extension of the State Department. The article asserts that USAID is about regime change abroad, a public-facing version of covert CIA operations. The speaker suggests that just as censorship tools used abroad were brought back home, these organizations created a predicate for Trump's impeachment.

The speaker claims a CIA whistleblower will testify before a Senate committee that the intelligence community has covered up the origin of COVID for years. The speaker asserts evidence shows the U.S. government funded research in Wuhan and that the virus likely escaped from a lab, adding that CIA scientists concluded it came from a lab leak and that someone later “scribbled out” their conclusion at 2AM and changed the report. The speaker frames CIA involvement as part of a larger effort involving military-related covert operations, stating the CIA has two reasons to live: covert support for the State Department or for the military. The speaker argues that over time, long-term CIA covert actions become USAID programs for logistical reasons, especially when scaling beyond a small “need to know” group and security-clearance constrained operations. The speaker says covert action requires secrecy, skiffs, close-hold communications, and a small number of people, so a public-facing program is needed to broaden participation. In that model, the speaker says USAID or state department programs can engage the private sector, nonprofits, universities, researchers, activists, and media, with public messaging and political support to help scale the underlying aims while keeping the core plan secret. The speaker links this asserted COVID narrative to historical biological warfare and “gain of function” research, citing declassified documents from the 1950s and Operation Northwoods-era plans involving Cuba. The speaker claims Cold War U.S. military and CIA planning included “gain of function” research and the dropping of disease-infected ticks and insects over Cuban agricultural areas to induce crop failures and economically destabilize Cuba without a conventional military invasion. The speaker further claims the plans involved making biological agents appear to be of natural origin and avoiding traceable external attribution, describing discussion of using “nonlethal insect borne biological warfare agents” and coordinating planning information with specific people and labs. The speaker states that, according to their account, biological warfare planning involved references to Fort Detrick and the Rocky Mountain lab in Montana, which they say also played a key role in both COVID-19 and Lyme disease. They claim the same lab used for Lyme was connected to plans for accidental releases intended to look natural. From there, the speaker argues that COVID-origin research ties into personnel and timelines. They claim that in 2015 the CIA and ODNI reached out to Ralph Baric to discuss coronavirus evolution and adapting coronaviruses to humans, and that shortly afterward Baric collaborated with Zheng Li Shi (“the bat lady”) on research funded through USAID’s PREDICT program. The speaker also claims that in 2018 Baric and Zheng Li Shi were listed as collaborators on a DARPA proposal involving a furin cleavage site, and that in January 2020 Baric was summoned by ODNI biological sciences experts to brief officials on coronavirus origins, discussing a possible accidental lab release at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The speaker asserts Avril Haines, then deputy head of the CIA, later became head of ODNI and played a key role in the Event 201 simulator. The speaker concludes by tying these threads back to the alleged CIA-to-USAID scaling mechanism and to CIA contractors and censorship efforts, claiming that the CIA’s role explains why CIA-walked scientists concluded a lab leak and why the conclusion was allegedly altered. They also discuss NIE/DOD/USAID/NED linkages, asserting that NED is suited for the role of supporting covert objectives with indirect public-facing infrastructure.