TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Thank God for James O'Keefe, he's done some interesting things over the years. It's amazing how many people open up when they think they're on a date with someone attractive. They'll admit to anything, like "Oh yeah, we did this because we hated Trump." These people need to learn to shut up. O'Keefe just released another video today about people trying to bypass the system to continue their work.

James O'Keefe reports on James Welch, an NIH genetic counselor, who appears to be manipulating language in research applications to circumvent government oversight, specifically from "Doge." Welch is allegedly advising researchers to replace terms like "women," "men," and "race" with alternatives like "adult girl," "XX," and "ancestry" to avoid grant cuts based on banned keywords. Welch claims that intramural research at NIH can "basically do anything" if they have the money. According to O'Keefe, an administration official stated there's no specific policy regarding racial preferences in health, suggesting Welch is creating an algorithm in his own mind. O'Keefe alleges this circumvents the will of President Trump and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Welch expresses disdain for RFK Jr. and suggests replacing Trump's portrait with Putin's. He also mentions potential NIH job cuts and jokes about buying guns, stating, "they won't let me close enough to these people." O'Keefe calls for transparency and accountability within government institutions.

James O'Keefe reports on James Welch, a genetic counselor at the NIH, who appears to be manipulating language in research applications to circumvent government oversight, specifically from "Doge," by avoiding "banned words" like "women" and "race." Welch suggests using "ancestry" instead of "race" and making race a secondary objective. According to O'Keefe, this circumvention introduces political bias into science and could be a Hatch Act violation. Welch expresses disdain for Robert F. Kennedy Jr., his boss, and suggests replacing Trump's portrait with Putin's. He mentions potential NIH job cuts due to "Doge" and references his mother advising against violence, stating he is kept too far from people at work.

Hi, I'm James O'Keefe, an investigative reporter. I want to discuss your views on the deep state. Can you elaborate? I'm not interested in this conversation. But you've already spoken on it, and I have it recorded. What is your role at the White House? I advise on research and development policy. Are we done here? Have a nice night. You too. Have a good evening, Byron. There he goes, shuffling along.

O'Keefe Media Group reported on a secretly recorded meeting with Florida Institute of Technology's president, John Niklow, alleging he changed wording to circumvent a presidential executive order and retain funding. The report claims Niklow discussed obtaining $7 million in funding after a meeting with a high-ranking Florida official, purportedly Ron DeSantis, and tweaked language to avoid being perceived as "woke." The report suggests Niklow went against an initial agreement to fight back with the $7 million. Niklow stated that changing some words allows the university to continue its work. The report also includes audio of a professor requesting an exemption to change course catalog information related to DEI. Niklow allegedly said the government isn't smart enough to find DEI courses, and advised being mindful of how courses are taught. O'Keefe Media Group was asked to leave the premises and threatened with legal action. The report concludes with advertisements for Fisher Capital and The Wellness Company.

The video features James O'Keefe, an undercover journalist, confronting an individual who works in the White House Office of Cybersecurity. O'Keefe questions why someone in a cybersecurity role would meet with him, as it raises concerns about the government's ability to protect networks. The individual denies knowing O'Keefe and expresses personal opinions about Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. O'Keefe criticizes the individual for discussing sensitive topics in a public setting. The video ends with O'Keefe promoting a medical emergency kit and urging viewers to support his investigative work.

James O’Keefe and an undercover team report on the US Government Accountability Office (GAO). The GAO, historically tasked with overseeing government spending, is described as being in question by the undercover team. Speakers claim that administration actions have destroyed statistical agencies and data sources, but that they have stolen and backed up those data to preserve them. The team suggests this is in response to efforts to delete vaccine-related data, and that such actions could be aimed at undermining research on vaccines. Steve Putansu, a sixteen-year veteran at the GAO and a lecturer at American University, is presented as indicating that GAO is “stealing and preserving vaccine data that RFK and HHS has deleted,” a move described as potentially violating federal law. The narrative asserts that the GAO’s purpose is oversight and that its methods resemble a watchdog function, though the portrayal implies a more aggressive stance in protecting data. Within the dialogue, it is claimed that in some places there is resistance and that administration has destroyed statistical agencies and data sources. There is mention of “stolen and backed those things up,” with an implication that access to preserved data could be used to constrain or compel violations of law by others. The transcript notes that GAO faces political pushback, including threats of a 50% budget cut next year under the impoundment act, which defines as illegal the president’s withholding of funds congress has appropriated. GAO is said to have challenged spending changes as impoundment multiple times, prompting accusations of political targeting and leading to budget punishment. Legal experts are cited: Will Chamberlain, senior counsel at the Internet Accountability Project, is shown asserting that the director at GAO committed violations of three federal statutes. He describes this as a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act for “intentionally accessing a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access to obtain information from a US government department or agency.” He contends that the director is not a DHHS representative, and that taking information from HHS servers would constitute purloining information. Chamberlain also cites possible violations of 18 U.S.C. § 641 (theft of government property) and 18 U.S.C. § 2701 (unauthorized removal of public records). The report closes with a prompt for tips to the investigative team and a teaser about an upcoming undercover report. The segment emphasizes exposing alleged wrongdoing by government officials, framed as holding the corrupt elite accountable.

Doctor Moran, a senior advisor to Fauci, discussed deleting emails to avoid FOIA requests, which goes against NIH policies. He also mentioned avoiding "smoking guns" in emails. Moran shared internal discussions with Daszak and helped craft responses to FOIAs, actions not in line with NIH policies. Tabak expressed concern over these actions. Moran is still employed by NIH. The questions raised highlight potential transparency issues within the NIH. Translation: Doctor Moran, a senior advisor to Fauci, discussed deleting emails to avoid FOIA requests, which goes against NIH policies. He also mentioned avoiding "smoking guns" in emails. Moran shared internal discussions with Daszak and helped craft responses to FOIAs, actions not in line with NIH policies. Tabak expressed concern over these actions. Moran is still employed by NIH. The questions raised highlight potential transparency issues within the NIH.

An NIH genetic counselor, James Welch, was caught on hidden camera discussing strategies to manipulate language in research applications to circumvent government oversight, specifically from "Doge." Welch advises a principal investigator to change "race" to "ancestry" in a study on cortisol levels in black and white women, and to make race a secondary objective. He believes "Doge" is cutting grants for research using banned words like "women," "men," and "females." Welch claims intramural NIH research can "basically do whatever we approve" as long as they have the money. He expresses disdain for his boss, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and suggests replacing Trump's portrait with Putin's. Welch mentions potential NIH job cuts and jokes about being prepared with guns, stating his mother told him not to shoot anyone, but "they won't let me close enough to these people."

James O'Keefe reports on NIH genetic counselor James Welch, who appears to be manipulating language in research applications to circumvent government oversight, specifically from "Doge," which Welch claims is cutting grants for research with certain keywords like "women" and "females." Welch suggests using "ancestry" instead of "race" to avoid triggering an algorithm, despite a senior administration official stating there's no specific policy against racial preferences in health research. Welch also expresses disdain for his boss, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and suggests replacing Trump's portrait with Putin's. He mentions potential NIH job cuts and jokes about buying guns, stating he can't get close enough to certain people at work. O'Keefe calls for transparency and accountability within government institutions.

James O'Keefe claims that mass deportations will not occur until a certain problem is resolved. He mentions notification systems that alert people to avoid certain areas. O'Keefe believes that an individual in a video, along with their superiors and those who financially supported them, should be arrested, including Mackenzie Bezos. He intends to contact his network to initiate interviews. O'Keefe asserts that NGOs are thwarting the will of the American people and that this is antidemocratic and must be stopped.

The transcript documents an undercover interaction in which participants discuss race, journalism ethics, and the figure James O’Keefe. The scene centers on a group including Speaker 1, Speaker 3, Speaker 4, Speaker 6, and others, with repeated mentions of real or claimed identities and affiliations. Key points: - Jonathan Franklin is introduced as an adjunct professor at Georgetown University, a former NPR correspondent who “wrote about issues concerning race, culture, identity, and justice.” In the meeting, Franklin claimed to be a national CBS News correspondent, a detail the participants initially believed but later learned was false. - The group repeatedly uses racially charged terms, including “coon” and “selling out,” to describe public figures such as Clarence Thomas, Candace Owens, Herschel Walker, and Lawrence, with remarks about black public figures and alignment with white audiences. - A notable moment involves Franklin’s reluctance to speak openly. He is encouraged to say what he really thinks publicly, suggesting a conflict between journalistic restraint and personal candor. He muses that to reveal his true thoughts would require him to “stop being a journalist” and “exit news.” - The conversation reveals ongoing undercover journalism objectives. The participants discuss “watchdog gotcha” methods and the ethics of using hidden cameras, contrasting traditional journalism models (e.g., 60 Minutes, Mike Wallace) with contemporary practices. They debate how to expose individuals without compromising their own integrity. - The group discovers that Franklin does teach a Georgetown course on “sourcing and interviews technology” in the spring, with a scheduled class in January 2026, taught alongside others (Parker Lenay, John Fisk, etc.). Despite earlier claims, they confirm the teaching role and course details through Georgetown’s scheduling. - The dialogue includes a shift from discussing race and media ethics to identity deception. At one point, Franklin (or the person playing him) denies being James O’Keeffe, while another participant asserts, “I am James O’Keefe,” prompting confusion about identity. This culminates in an admission that Franklin’s identity was misrepresented by the others during the encounter. - The narrative frames the episode as a critique of bias in journalism. The speakers argue that objectivity is contested and that a journalist’s hidden biases can color reporting, especially when slurs or harmful stereotypes are used publicly by someone who holds a professorial or media position. - The segment concludes with a self-referential note on exposing truth and holding powerful figures accountable. The discussion emphasizes the public’s right to know the truth, including information about Georgetown’s faculty and the behavior observed during the encounter. - The document includes references to ongoing investigative activity, including future steps at Georgetown’s Dean’s Office and President’s Office. It also references the broader mission of O’Keefe Media Group and Citizen Journalism Foundation. Note: The transcript contains promotional material for a gold investment partnership, which has been omitted from this summary per the request to exclude promotional content.

O'Keefe Media Group reported on a secretly recorded meeting with the president of Florida Institute of Technology, John Niklow, concerning DEI and funding. Niklow allegedly changed wording to circumvent a presidential executive order and retain funding. Niklow reportedly obtained $7,000,000 in funding after a meeting with a state official, where he tweaked language related to climate change. The university president allegedly went against the deal made in that meeting. Niklow stated that changing words allows them to continue their work and avoid being targeted. Another professor, Julia Constopoulos, discussed renaming courses with Niklow. Niklow advised modifying branding or finding new funding sources. He also stated that the government isn't smart and is just searching the web for DEI courses. O'Keefe Media Group was asked to leave the premises and told to remain on the sidewalk. A cease and desist letter was sent to O'Keefe Media Group.

James O’Keefe and crew from Project Veritas visit Georgetown University in Washington, DC, aiming to report on an adjunct professor named Jonathan Franklin who teaches a journalism course called “sourcing and interview tech” at Georgetown. In undercover footage, Franklin is recorded discussing black conservatives such as Lawrence Jones at Fox and Candace Owens, and using racial epithets, including calling them “coons.” Specifically, he is heard saying regarding black conservatives: “home to two” and labeling Clarence Thomas as “the biggest coon of them all.” The reporters ask for Franklin’s comment and discuss how the university should respond to the video. In the field, the team asks passersby what they think about the use of the term “coons” and whether Georgetown should respond. A respondent expresses that the remark is “interesting for Georgetown,” and others indicate they wouldn’t use that term and question whether it represents Georgetown. The crew indicates they intend to reach out to Georgetown’s Dean’s Office and the communications/public affairs offices to obtain a comment from the university about how to handle professors who behave this way. They also plan to contact Candace Owens, Lawrence Jones at Fox News, and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas for comment. Staff in the Dean’s Office provide guidance on who to contact, directing the team to Georgetown’s media relations office (media@Georgetown.edu). They indicate there is no physical media office on site. The team continues to chase comments and attempts to locate the appropriate spokesperson. The crew moves to the President’s Office, where an employee reiterates to contact the media relations office for official comment. A member of the team attempts to obtain the best contact for comment, and staff explain that the media relations office does not have a physical on-site office. The team is told to reach out to media relations, emphasizing that the university’s response would come from that office. The footage then shows the team at the graduate building at 111 Massachusetts Avenue NW, where Franklin teaches a graduate-level course on “sourcing and interview technology.” The segment frames Georgetown’s Downtown DC satellite campus as the site of this teaching, noting the class will explore how to find sources and how to interview them effectively. The video closes with James O’Keefe introducing himself as the founder of Project Veritas and OMG Media, and referring to ongoing investigative reporting to hold elites accountable. Note: The promotional financial-ad content present in the latter portion of the transcript has been omitted per guidelines.

An undercover video by O'Keefe Media Group features Raja Cholan from the NIH, who claims that COVID health initiatives were fabricated. He expresses skepticism about the effectiveness of vaccines, stating, "I don't even know if these vaccines stop you from getting COVID." Cholan also reveals that the six feet social distancing guideline lacked scientific backing and was "completely made up." He suggests that a Democrat in office would be better for the NIH, as they would face less scrutiny. The NIH has admitted to funding gain of function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, contradicting previous statements by Dr. Fauci. Allegations of kickbacks from pharmaceutical companies related to COVID vaccines are also mentioned. More undercover videos from the NIH tapes series are expected.

James O'Keefe and Keith are investigating Google. An individual, Dakota Liazer, is interviewed about Google's practices. Liazer is questioned about Google "reorienting the search engine" to favor Kamala Harris. He initially denies making the statements, but is confronted with video evidence. Liazer is asked about Google coordinating with the Kamala Harris campaign and whether others at Google share his sentiment. He declines to elaborate and walks away. He admits to feeling uncomfortable with Google coordinating with the Harris campaign. The video also mentions a Disney HR controversy involving alleged discriminatory hiring practices against white men. The Wellness Company's first aid emergency kit is advertised as a means to access life-saving medications and personal protective equipment. Bishop Gold Group is promoted as a way to protect assets with gold and silver.

James O'Keefe confronts an NIH employee about a video where he allegedly discusses changing the word "race" to "ancestry." O'Keefe questions if this is deceitful and suggests ancestry isn't the same as race for clinical trials. The employee defends the change as scientifically accurate, claiming expertise. O'Keefe disputes this, accusing him of avoiding accountability. The employee states he believes in good science and protecting people. As the employee drives away in his Tesla, he claims O'Keefe doesn't care about people. O'Keefe finds this ironic and asserts his organization cares deeply about informing the public.

James O'Keefe confronts an NIH employee about a video where the employee discusses changing the word "race" to "ancestry" in a protocol. O'Keefe questions if this is deceitful and suggests ancestry isn't the same as race for medical trials. The employee denies lying and claims the change was for scientific accuracy, stating he is an expert. O'Keefe questions why he would change the words and accuses him of avoiding accountability. The employee drives away in his Tesla, claiming O'Keefe doesn't care about people. O'Keefe says he cares about people knowing what's going on in their government. He describes running after the employee in boat shoes, calling it an adventure.

O'Keefe Media Group reported on a secretly recorded meeting with the president of Florida Institute of Technology, John Niklow, concerning DEI and funding. Niklow allegedly changed wording to circumvent a presidential executive order and retain funding. Niklow reportedly obtained $7,000,000 in funding after a meeting with a state official, where he tweaked language related to climate change. The university president allegedly went against the deal after the meeting, deciding to fight back with the $7,000,000. Another professor asked Niklau if certain courses would be barred, to which Niklau responded that the government isn't smart and is just searching the web for DEI courses. The president said he would support getting an exemption to change the course catalog. O'Keefe Media Group was asked to leave the premises and told they could be on the sidewalk. A cease and desist letter was sent to O'Keefe Media Group.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the politicization of science and changes at the NIH. Over the last fifteen to twenty years, the NIH incorporated what Speaker 1 characterizes as political agendas rather than scientific agendas into its portfolio, with DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) being the most prominent example. A chunk of NIH funding went to projects focused on achieving social objectives rather than the health mission. Every NIH employee allegedly had to write a loyalty oath to DEI principles and was evaluated on devotion to the cause. Researchers inside and outside the NIH could access funds, with outside researchers more easily securing money if they promised to conduct DEI research, according to Speaker 1. Much of that research allegedly lacked a real scientific basis and was not science. Speaker 1 provides an example of projects they worked to deprioritize: a project asking whether structural racism is the root reason why African Americans have worse hypertension outcomes. The problem, they say, is that there is no way to test the hypothesis because, if structural racism is the cause, there is no workable control group to test the idea as true. They assert that such research did not translate into better health for anybody, including minority populations. They describe these projects as political agendas that do not belong in a science agency. The stated mission is to improve the health of everybody, including minority populations, but only if projects are clearly scientific, well defined, and have a real chance of improving health. Speaker 0 asks for clarification, summarizing that there were ideological or political projects receiving NIH funding. Speaker 1 confirms and adds another practice: when a good science project ended the year with leftover funds, program officers would approach researchers with leftover money and offer a “diversity supplement”—an add-on tied to DEI that was not actual science—to obtain extra funding. This, they claim, was a waste of taxpayer money with no real health benefit. They say they have since gotten rid of all of that.

This memo from Health and Human Services, it's a warning: anyone who interferes with so-called gender affirming care will be targeted by the federal government, who will use its full power to achieve its political goals. The Biden administration is giving the green light to prosecutors to manipulate HIPAA. HIPAA is meant to protect patient privacy, but it's being used to protect billion-dollar hospital corporations. Federal agents from Health and Human Services showed up at my door, investigating a case about medical records and gave me a target letter. The U.S. Attorney's Office in Texas is investigating potential federal law violations, and I am a potential target in a criminal investigation. I knew everything was going to change.

Hi. I'm Robert F. Kennedy Jr, your HHS secretary. Should doctors make decisions based upon what's best for their patients or based upon what makes them the most money? It rewards certain treatments, not because they're better for the patient, but because someone profits. Take what happened during COVID. Hospitals were paid to report staff vaccination rates. We're scanning every corner of the health care system for hidden incentives at corrupt medical judgment. What we're finding is alarming. Doctors are being paid to vaccinate not to evaluate. We've recently uncovered that more than 36,000 doctors had their Medicare reimbursements altered based upon childhood vaccination rates. That's not medicine.

I'm James O'Keefe, and I caught a White House advisor, Byron, on hidden camera discussing the "deep state." People joke about it, but it’s real to some degree. One way the bureaucracy slows things down is by creating commissions to study issues, which can delay progress for years. I also recorded him saying the bureaucracy could crush incoming leadership, like RFK Jr. Byron admitted the bureaucracy exists and should implement the policies of elected leaders while also advising them. He said he advises on research and development policy. To all the bureaucrats in Washington, you're on notice. Speak openly, or we'll record you. We're going to be recording you en masse.

The speaker discusses internal resistance to RFK Jr.’s policies and the idea that “deep staters” have been entrenched in government. They mention being forwarded an anecdote from a “good career employee.” They point to the FDA, noting that when Marty Makary came in, he had only about 10 political appointees he could choose. Jay Bhattacharya at the NIH allegedly had one political appointee. The speaker claims that every government employee is a “deep stater” who has been there a long time and that an email from a good employee circulates a CIA manual called How to Be a Bad Bureaucrat and Subvert an Institution from Within. The email supposedly asserts that 90% of employees at HHS, which has 70,000 employees, are talking in lunchrooms about the manual and telling each other that their job is to save America and save science from the agenda of President Trump and RFK Jr. The speaker asserts this reflects how people think across major departments and asks how to get rid of them, suggesting firing them as a solution, and mentions SIOP in this context. The CDC is presented as a case study of failure, described as a public health disaster in its COVID-19 response. The speaker alleges that the CDC’s guidance on school lockdowns copied directly from a teacher union document with which they were aligned, reproducing paragraphs from the teacher’s union advocating for two years of school shutdowns. It is claimed that the CDC also said that cloth masks were fine. The speaker says the CDC led the response and that the NIH funded the entire pandemic, including gain-of-function research, asserting that this constitutes “the creation of the pandemic.” In contrast, RFK Jr. is said to have fired three employees, and this action is described as national news. The overall narrative emphasizes a view of pervasive internal opposition within federal agencies, a controversial and sweeping critique of the CDC, NIH, and HHS responses to the pandemic, and a framing of RFK Jr.’s personnel decisions as transformative and newsworthy.