TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Joshua Peterson states that there was an inner circle at Turning Point USA that was constantly working against Charlie Kirk and his interests, including a Jewish influence within Turning Point that Kirk was not fond of and wanted to get rid of. He asserts that Kirk tried creating a Doge department, and that Kirk was assassinated. Peterson further claims that Kirk was unaware of an entire branch within Turning Point dedicated to the stock market. He says this stock market branch has been receiving millions of dollars over the past four years, as evidenced by the latest tax returns, which were filed late. He notes that this branch has had no knowledge or involvement from Kirk, yet still directed funds into stock market activities. He highlights a discrepancy in the staff of that branch, stating that the staff listing shows zero employees, yet the branch has been pouring $5,000,000 into funds for employees. Peterson questions how this could make sense and characterizes the situation as money laundering, suggesting a pyramid scheme behind the scenes at Turning Point that Kirk did not know about initially. He contends that Kirk was planning to expose this hidden branch, and that this exposure is what ultimately led to Kirk's death. Peterson also addresses a question from others about his own employment, confirming, “Yes, I did” work for Turning Point USA, and he intends to tag photos in the next clip to corroborate his employment.

Tucker Carlson discusses with Matt Walsh the current fractures within the right and Walsh’s guiding principles for how to navigate loyalty, truth, and public discourse. Key points and exchanges - Leadership vacuum after Charlie’s death and its consequences - Walsh says Charlie’s death created a leadership vacuum in the right; the immediate post‑death unity faded as realities set in. - The attempt to turn Charlie’s killing into a catalyst for more Charlies backfired; Walsh notes that assassination “works” as a strategy, and the result is the loss of the glue that held the coalition together. - The organization Walsh admires—TPUSA—remains intact, but the leadership that bound people together is gone, leading to heightened internal friction. - Loyalty as a principle - Walsh asserts he will not denounce friends or disavow colleagues, arguing loyalty is a fundamental principle and a duty to those who have consistently backed him. - He defines loyalty as having a personal relationship with someone who has had his back and whom he would defend; betrayal, not disagreement, is what he rejects. - He uses examples (e.g., if a close family member committed a serious crime) to illustrate that loyalty does not require endorsing wrongful acts publicly, but it does require private accountability and support. - Leftism vs. conservatism; the core “enemy” - Walsh defines leftism as moral relativism (the idea of “my truth” and rejection of objective truth) and as an ideology that opposes civilization, Western identity, and foundational institutions like the family and marriage. - He argues leftism rejects the intrinsic value of human life, portraying life’s worth as contingent on circumstances (e.g., whether a mother wants a child), which he calls a fundamental leftist position. - He contends the fight on the right is against that leftism, and aligns with Walsh’s interpretation that preserving Western civilization, American identity, the sanctity of life, and the family are core conservative aims. - Israel, Gaza, and internal right disagreements - On Israel, Walsh says his stance is “I don’t care” (a position he reiterates as his personal view) and stresses that the debate should not be about Israel per se, but about whether right-wing conservatives share foundational values. - Walsh argues that some conservatives defend mass killing in Gaza, which he brands as a leftist argument, and he distinguishes it from more traditional right-wing concerns about strategy and casualties. - Walsh acknowledges there are conservatives who defend Israel’s actions but reject the premise that civilians are mass-killed intentionally; they may minimize or challenge casualty claims without endorsing mass murder. - He emphasizes the need to distinguish between true disagreements over policy and deeper disagreements about whether certain universal values (truth, life, and Western civilization) prevail. - The moral status of violence and justice - The conversation touches on the justification of violence for justice. Walsh acknowledges that violence can be a necessary tool for justice in some contexts but warns against endorsing violence indiscriminately. - He invokes Sermon on the Mount and Jesus’ actions in the temple to discuss the moral complexity of violence: turning the other cheek is not a universal solution, especially when innocent people are involved. - The exchange explores whether state authority should compel action or whether individuals should intervene when the state fails to protect the innocent, using examples like Daniel Penny’s subway incident as a test case. - The state, justice, and governance - The two guests discuss the legitimacy of the state and what happens when the state fails to enforce justice or protect the vulnerable. - Walsh argues that if the state does not act, it can lead to mass action by citizens—though he concedes this is a dangerous path that should be avoided if possible. - They reflect on how the state’s authority is God-ordained, but acknowledge moments when civil disobedience or private action might be morally justifiable if the state abdicates its duties. - Cultural realism and media dynamics - Walsh and Carlson discuss how political labels (left/right) obscure shared concerns and how many conservatives actually share core aims with others outside the traditional conservative coalition. - They critique the media and pundit ecosystem for being out of touch with everyday life, citing deteriorating quality of goods, services, and infrastructure as real-life issues that affect families directly. - They argue that many pundits live in insulated environments—whether expensive urban enclaves or rural enclaves—without appreciating the middle-class experience and the practical hardships faced by ordinary Americans. - Demographics and national identity - A recurring thread is the argument that modern politics has become entangled in demographic change and questions of national identity. - Walsh contends that Western civilization and American identity rest on belief in objective truth, the sanctity of life, and the family; failing to defend these leads to a broader cultural and civilizational crisis. - The discussion includes a provocative point about indigenous identity in America and the claim that “native Americans” are not native to the country as formed; Walsh argues for reclaiming the term “native American” to describe the founders’ European-descended population. - Economics and social policy - Walsh describes himself as libertarian on many economic questions, opposing the welfare state and taxes, while acknowledging that conservatives can disagree on policy tools if the underlying motivations remain aligned with preserving family, culture, and national identity. - He suggests that a welfare state is not incompatible with conservative aims if its purpose is to strengthen family formation and national viability, though he believes it ultimately undermines family stability. - Internal dynamics and personal impact - Walsh discusses the personal toll of being at the center of intra-party debates: frequent public attacks, misattributed motives, and the challenge of remaining loyal without becoming embittered. - He emphasizes prayer and structured routines as practical means to maintain perspective and resilience in the face of sustained public scrutiny. - Toward a path forward - Both speakers stress the importance of clarifying the conservative catechism: defining what conservatives want to conserve and aligning around a shared set of non-negotiables. - They suggest that if people share core commitments to objective truth, the family, and American identity, disagreements about methods can exist, but collaboration remains possible. - If, however, people reject those core commitments, they argue, conservatives may be on different sides of a fundamental civilizational divide. Notes on the interaction - The dialogue weaves personal anecdotes, philosophical stances, and political diagnostics, with both participants acknowledging complexity and evolution of views. - The emphasis repeatedly returns to loyalty, truth, and civilizational foundations as the ultimate frame for understanding intra-right tensions and for guiding future alignment. (Throughout, promotional segments and product endorsements were present in the original transcript but have been omitted here to preserve focus on substantive points and to align with the request to exclude promotional content.)

Elon Musk invited a group to observe his weekly Doge meeting, where they discussed efforts to combat government waste and fraud. They found instances of misuse of funds, such as the Department of Education's $4 billion COVID fund being used for parties at Caesar's Palace and stadium rentals. Requiring receipts halted these withdrawals. The Small Business Administration gave loans to dead people and even unborn children. The Inter American Foundation (IAF) spends only 58% of its funds on grantees, like alpaca farmers in Peru, with much of the money remaining in DC. Only 10-15 cents of each dollar reaches the intended recipient due to layers of stealing. The United States Institute of Peace was found to have loaded guns in its headquarters and a $130,000 contract with a former member of the Taliban for unclear services. The chief accountant deleted over a terabyte of records, later recovered. Unspent funds were swept into a private bank account. The team referred the evidence to the FBI and DOJ. A generous government resignation program was initially met with suspicion, but is now gaining acceptance. The effort to combat waste and fraud is a long-term enterprise.

Since becoming director of DOGE, I've uncovered massive corruption, fraud, and scams, possibly the biggest scam of all time, totaling trillions of dollars. Imagine someone with evil intentions deeply embedded within organizations like USAID, manipulating the system for decades. George Soros is a master at using NGOs to rinse billions from taxpayers. He figured out how to hack the system by leveraging small amounts of money to create nonprofits. He then lobbies politicians to send a ton of money to those nonprofits, turning a $10 million donation into a billion-dollar NGO. These NGOs, with nice-sounding names like the Institute for Peace, become graft machines funded by the government year after year.

Doge, led by Elon Musk, investigates government waste and fraud. The team found the Treasury lacked budget codes for $5 trillion in payments, and a $4 billion COVID fund was misused for parties at Caesar's Palace and stadium rentals. The Department of Education now requires receipts for fund withdrawals, but these are not verified. The Small Business Administration gave $330 million in loans to dead people and $660 million to babies or people with future birthdates. The Inter-American Foundation (IAF) spends only 58% of its funds on grantees, such as alpaca farming in Peru, with the rest going to management and travel. Only 10-15 cents of each dollar reaches the intended recipient due to layers of subcontractors. The United States Institute of Peace was found to have loaded guns, spent money on private jets, and had a $130,000 contract with a former member of the Taliban. The agency's chief accountant deleted over a terabyte of accounting records, and unspent funds were moved to a private bank account. The government stores retirement papers in a mine, a process taking six months and involving manual calculations. The Postal Service is losing billions annually due to regulations since 2007. "Big Balls" is working on payment computer systems to root out fraud, as most systems lack payment accountability. Doge members have faced threats and hostility for their work.

The speaker discusses a wave of firings at Turning Point USA (TPUSA), claiming that 40 employees were dismissed “just like that,” with the rumor that they were let go because Erica Kirk believes some of them are moles. The speaker references a video shared by Candace Owens showing one employee being fired and explaining she had just finished two weeks of 80–90 hour work weeks around AmFest and after Charlie Kirk’s assassination in September, describing her as a stellar employee who was shocked and confused by the abrupt termination. Two central questions are raised: (1) what direction TPUSA is now going in under Erica Kirk, and (2) why certain individuals remain employed or are promoted despite controversy. The speaker highlights several individuals: - Andrew Covet: described as “a mole” who has allegedly leaked information to Candace Owens, implying he should have been fired but was not. - Mikey McCoy: portrayed as Charlie Kirk’s best friend who allegedly failed to act appropriately during Charlie Kirk’s public assassination, including footage of him being inches away from Charlie and then calmly walking away. The speaker notes that McCoy claimed Erica Kirk was the one he contacted immediately after the incident, but Candace Owens and others pressed him to show his phone logs. It later emerges that McCoy reportedly called his wife ten minutes after the incident, not Erica, according to a phone call record and Erica supporting this account; this discrepancy is presented as a point of concern. Despite the questions raised about his conduct, McCoy remains employed. - Dan Flood: head of Charlie Kirk’s security team, who was reportedly near Charlie at the time of the shooting; the speaker argues that Flood should have been fired but was instead promoted, with Erica Kirk maintaining leadership of TPUSA’s security. The speaker notes a contrast between the firings and the continued employment or promotion of these individuals, arguing that the 40 fired employees were “stellar” and the removals appear inconsistent with who remains or advances. The video and narrative emphasize that the publicized shooting of Charlie Kirk and the reactions of those closest to him have created ongoing suspicion about leadership decisions at TPUSA, particularly under Erica Kirk. Throughout, the speaker repeatedly questions: what direction TPUSA is taking under Erica Kirk, and why figures like Mikey McCoy and Dan Flood are retained or elevated while others are dismissed. The overall tone asserts that the firings reflect an unclear strategic direction and raise doubts about internal accountability. The closing statement reiterates the uncertainty about TPUSA’s future path under Erica Kirk, implying it diverges from what Charlie Kirk had envisioned.

The speaker praises a "Doge" segment for revealing government workings, incentives, and potential fraud. They were unaware of a mine in Pennsylvania until Doge highlighted it. Doge also exposed issues like Social Security problems and a lack of oversight in the Treasury. The speaker believes leftists project their own instincts onto Doge, assuming ulterior motives like greed, unable to fathom an altruistic endeavor from successful individuals. They view leftist attacks and violence as a result of confusing actions with individuals, disliking people for their beliefs rather than the specific acts. The speaker believes Doge is something neither Republicans nor Democrats would have attempted until Trump, who inspired modernizing the government. This scares "corrupt dinosaurs" who feel threatened by Trump.

Doge is proving that the Democratic Party is no longer a political party but an international crime syndicate. Doge found $3 trillion improperly used by the US government through USAID since 2004, including $764 billion in the last three years under Joe Biden and $170 billion in the last year alone. This includes $530 million going to illegals and $644 million of fraud. The more Doge digs, the more it seems like this is just the tip of the iceberg. The Democratic Party is in trouble because looting the treasury is unconstitutional. These folks need a lawyer.

Arrived a moment when Charlie felt that the money was disappearing. Allegedly, I'll say allegedly here, but I think we have some proof that shows that. And the excuses that he was being given for the money disappearing wasn't adding up for Charlie. Said another way, the math wasn't mathing. He felt that, again, according to sources, that the company was burning through cash too quickly. On September 2, ... Charlie surprised the company by announcing that he was putting together a Doge department. Yes. A department of government efficiency like Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy had set out to do. There’s a lot of pork. We don't know where this money is going. Again, this is the whole purpose of the Department of Joe Doge. You put us in there, and we're gonna figure out how all these bureaucrats are just wasting tax dollars.

The speaker recounts a chain of rumors and revelations following Charlie’s assassination at Turning Point USA. Water cooler chatter and tip-box tips revealed that several insiders were troubled by management and behavior at the organization, and one rumor stood out: Justin Strife allegedly placed an immediate phone call to a donor prospect on the day of Charlie’s death. The caller was speculated to be connected to a donor who had “a pretty big piece of bait on the hook for Turning Point USA”—a billionaire-level investment tied to the company’s potential IPO, described as life-changing money, possibly in the billions. This donor was said to be French American, named Pierre, with the speaker later realizing the donor could be Pierre DuPont, after mentioning the DuPont family in previous coverage. Only a handful of people were said to know about this secret, implying it was highly top-secret within the donations department, to the point where some involved at Turning Point USA had no knowledge of it. The speaker pursued corroboration with multiple sources at Turning Point USA, seeking to identify which donor was so central and why an immediate call would be significant. The possibility that a donor could be so influential as to impact an IPO and be worth billions raised questions about why such an offer would be on the table and whether Charlie himself knew about it. The speaker notes that billionaires typically do not part with money in this way, especially by offering pieces of their company to non-family members, amplifying the sense that the situation was troubling and entangled in dark, secretive dealings. Additionally, the speaker mentions another line of inquiry involving Andrew Colbert, a close family friend. A contact allegedly told the speaker that Andrew claimed Charlie’s refusal of “Bebe” caused him to miss out on millions, which the speaker flags as another rumor to be investigated. The broader concern is understanding the financial and contractual framework behind these tips and whether compensation or “tips” related to donations might be influencingPR decisions. The speaker underscores the need for transparent answers about who Pierre is, whether the donor is indeed Pierre DuPont, and how an IPO-sized fortune could be on the line. The emphasis is on demanding a clear explanation of these alleged connections, the nature of the secret, and the implications for Turning Point USA. The unresolved questions are framed around Pierre, his identity, and the alleged secret that could have changed the organization’s finances and leadership dynamics.

THE DOGE report alleges that funds are siphoned from the public through NGOs and government contracts. The speaker cites two examples: "Senator Sheldon White house is under the hot seat right now because he backed the legislation that approved $14,200,000 to go to ocean conservatory." A second case concerns "Family Endeavors" in Pecos, Texas, meant for overflow of immigrant children; it has been empty since 02/2021, while "we have been paying 18,000,000 million dollars a month" to keep it open. A board member was "one of Biden's transition team members." The presenter then says, "This is my opinion only. From this point on, everything I've told you so far is facts. You can go look it up online. This is my opinion only. I call that a payoff." They conclude, "That is how they steal from you. That is today's DOGE report."

Before Elon Musk, no one knew about the unnamed bureaucrats in our government. Now, Musk is being scrutinized for the transparency and access he's providing. We're happy to provide the receipts, showing contracts that DOGE found across our government. For example, there's a $36,000 DEI contract for US citizenship and immigration services, and a $3.4 million contract for inclusive innovation at the US Patent and Trademark Office. There's also $57,000 for climate change in Sri Lanka. DOGE is identifying these line items daily and moving very fast. This administration is transparent about what DOGE is doing. We're providing transparency and accessibility daily. We also have a DOGE daily report available with all of their findings, and we're happy to provide this information.

Doge started unraveling government spending, revealing allocations like $200,000,000 for transgender experiments on monkeys. This is claimed to be just the tip of the iceberg. The speaker references a map of 50,000 NGOs, alleging it was exposed as a Democratic propaganda machine with money being funneled in a circular fashion.

Elon Musk invited a group to observe his weekly Doge meeting, where they discussed government waste and fraud. A key issue was the lack of receipt requirements for a $4 billion COVID fund in the Department of Education, leading to funds being used for parties and stadium rentals. Even when receipts were required, they didn't need to be legitimate, yet requests stopped. The Small Business Administration gave loans to dead people and even fetuses. The Inter American Foundation (IAF) spends only 58% of its funds on grantees, like alpaca farmers in Peru, with much of the money remaining in DC. Only 10-15 cents of each dollar reaches the intended recipient due to layers of stealing. The United States Institute of Peace was cited as the agency with the most resistance, including loaded guns in their headquarters and a $130,000 contract with a former member of the Taliban for unclear services. The agency's chief accountant deleted a terabyte of records, later recovered, and unspent funds were diverted to a private bank account. Doge is a long-term enterprise to combat waste and fraud, with the goal of making it difficult to restart.

DuPonts are at the center of a web being discussed by George Webb and Candace Owens. Candace Owens has claimed that Pierre DuPont delivered a mafia-style offer “you can’t refuse” twenty-four hours before Charlie Kirk’s death (possibly forty-eight hours before). Justin Strife, the CEO who has been in position for eight days since the Doge audit was refused by Tyler Boyer, reportedly made the first call after Charlie Kirk’s death to Pierre DuPont. Webb questions whether this is the first contact or if there were prior conversations, expressing interest in obtaining those phone messages to see how long the dialogue with Pierre DuPont has been ongoing. Webb draws a parallel spanning nine years to prior research involving Henri DuPont and a group or entity associated with Barisma and Hunter Biden, noting that Henri DuPont appears to be a fake name and that the real identity might be Pierre DuPont. He asserts that Barisma is a “shadow” or covert cover, and describes Burisma as trading weapons with the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, while fronting Israel technology so that Egyptians can sell the technology to oil-rich nations due to not wanting to buy directly from Israel. Webb mentions Walid Mahmoud, an Egyptian diplomat with diplomatic immunity, as part of this covert operation. The discussion continues with a plan to create a war-board or anti-war board in Michigan to chart these activities, including a roadmap for addressing the DuPont matter. Webb notes a DuPont database being created that allegedly collects extensive data on people, including planes, phones, cars, and facial recognition at TPUSA events, and suggests similar data collection at Trump and J. D. Vance events. He indicates that a “whole war board” will be put together with more flights data (73 flights associated with Egyptian planes and five more flights for Baron Coleman), to map the network and operations. Webb emphasizes the need to stop internal arguing and focus on the research into the DuPonts, stating that this research into DuPont-related activities is key. He ends with a sharp rebuke to Cash Patel, urging him to stop downplaying the threats and start performing his duties.

Doge has uncovered some serious issues. The Democratic Party isn't just a political entity anymore; it seems to be an international crime syndicate. Doge has found that the US government, via USAID, has misused $3 trillion since February 2004. Under Joe Biden, we're looking at $764 billion in the last three years alone, with $170 billion in the last year. There were $530 million funneled to illegals and $644 million in fraud. Doge's findings are just the beginning, it seems. The Democratic Party is in trouble because looting the treasury is unconstitutional based on Article 1 Section 9. They're going to need a lawyer.

Doge, Elon Musk's team, meets weekly to combat government waste and fraud. They found instances of misuse, such as a $4 billion COVID fund in the Department of Education being used for parties at Caesar's Palace, and the Small Business Administration giving loans to dead people and even people with birthdates in the future. The Inter American Foundation (IAF) was cited as an example of non-accountability, with only a small percentage of funds reaching intended recipients like alpaca farmers in Peru. The United States Institute of Peace was found to have loaded guns and a contract with a former member of the Taliban. The team is working to modernize government processes, such as retirement, which currently involves vast amounts of paperwork stored in a mine. The Postal Service is also losing billions due to outdated regulations. "Big Balls" is a member of the Doge team focused on payment computer systems, where there is often no accounting of where the money goes. Doge members have faced hostility and threats for their work, but they are supported by many government employees. The episode also covered a human trafficking suspect, Kilmar, who was stopped by highway patrol but allegedly released after the FBI advised against detaining him. Other topics included Kamala Harris's recent speech and Ilhan Omar's behavior.

The speaker asserts there is waste in government spending, which was the idea behind "doge." Elon Musk did not find $2 trillion, but he only worked on it for 130 days. The idea that there must be a perpetual audit of government is now embedded in everyone's head, regardless of political affiliation. The brand for this idea is "Doge."

I work for the Treasury, reviewing investments into the US for national security risks. Recently, Doge gained access to the Treasury to cut waste, but people are resisting. They're an easy target because there are people who don't do much, and we should be getting rid of them. What Elon is doing feels like government-sanctioned harassment, and everyone in my office is worried about being fired. No one knows what Doge wants to do with the system or why they need access to certain information. When you give people access, it creates vulnerabilities. They could take that information and give it to someone they shouldn't. There's a class of people in this country who care more about money, and Elon is showing that what he cares about is money.

The speaker believes that Trump and Doge are perceived as threats to democracy, but are actually threats to the bureaucracy. The speaker claims elected officials have little power relative to the bureaucracy, and Doge is the first real threat to this system. The speaker describes investigating a situation where an NGO, formed a year prior with no prior activity, received $1.9 billion. They state that government-funded NGOs are a loophole allowing illegal government activities to occur legally through nonprofits. These nonprofits are allegedly used for personal enrichment, with individuals becoming wealthy and paying themselves large sums. The speaker calls this a gigantic scam, possibly the biggest ever.

The speaker asks if Elon Musk starting a new political party worries the Trump administration. The secretary responds that the principles of Doge were very popular, but Elon Musk was not, according to polling. He believes the boards of directors at Musk's companies want him to run those companies, as he is better at that than anything else. The secretary imagines the boards of directors did not like the announcement and will encourage Musk to focus on business activities, not political activities.

Speaker 0 recalls the initial excitement and caution around Dogecoin, noting some people were euphoric while others were more cautious about its potential to cut spending. He asks David about the early perception and whether there was fear of losing work or reducing government. Speaker 1 says it was a funny situation because it happened right before the election. He invited Dr. Paul on his show, A Neighbor's Choice, and describes an idea to challenge the “deep state” on Halloween by asking Dr. Paul to help Elon Musk cut $2,000,000,000,000. He explains he asked Dr. Paul if he’d be willing to help, and Dr. Paul responded politely, not seeking a job but willing to help if asked. This led to Elon Musk expressing interest in bringing Ron Paul on board with Doge, generating a big reaction on Twitter, with memes and images, and people saying they would support changes if Ron Paul helped Doge. After the election, however, there was no follow-up, and Speaker 1 suggests Doge did not become the dog that hunts. Speaker 0 adds a cautious tone, saying he doesn’t like to be overly optimistic or pessimistic, but felt compelled to be cautious about Doge due to momentum from large spending, special interests, and the sacredness of liberty within democracy. He wished well but urged waiting to see what happens, noting the momentum might not last. Speaker 2 notes the weekend exclusive that Doge does not exist with eight months left on its charter, highlighting acrimony and negative commentary about Ron Paul’s involvement. He emphasizes that Ron Paul did not intend to join any administration and would help any party that wanted to actually cut government. He suggests it’s easy to become black-pilled about the situation. He contends the president has been captured by DC, describing Gaza, a bloodbath in Gaza, Venezuela, and the ongoing Ukraine-Russia war as ongoing issues. He asserts that Doge was massively popular and that Trump rode that wave into the White House with libertarian support, but as Trump veered away from that stance, his numbers dropped despite claims of improvement on Truth Social. He argues Trump’s declining numbers are evident in major polls, and that the deep state influenced the situation, with the deep state running DC. Overall, the discussion centers on the rise and decline of Doge’s political relevance, Ron Paul’s involvement, Elon Musk’s role, and the broader political environment including Trump’s trajectory, foreign conflicts, and the influence of the “deep state.”

People saw Trump as a threat to democracy, but he was really a threat to the bureaucracy. Elected officials have little power compared to the bureaucracy, and Doge is the first real threat to it. Usually, the bureaucracy absorbs revolutions, but this time, power might actually return to the people. The small decisions within the bureaucracy lead to massive financial outcomes. We saw cases where billions were sent to newly formed NGOs with no prior activity. Government-funded NGOs are a nightmare, a way to bypass laws. These nonprofits are used for people to cash out, becoming wealthy and paying themselves huge sums. It's one of the biggest scams ever.

Here's what's happening with Doge: Despite claiming maximum transparency, there's confusion about who's in charge and what they're doing, especially with federal job losses. The White House says Elon Musk isn't the Doge administrator but oversees it for President Trump. Trump calls Musk a "patriot," whether "employee" or "consultant," but dodges concerns about conflicts of interest with Musk's companies, despite them working with agencies that regulate or contract with his companies. Trump claims he wouldn't allow conflicts of interest, stating Musk can't partake in areas where conflicts exist. There's contradiction, since a White House official says Musk only advises Trump, while Musk implies he's making decisions. Trump addressed speculation about a divide, saying Musk told him people are "trying to drive us apart," but that the public "sees what's happening."