TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

I was concerned by a video of an EPA political appointee talking about tossing gold bars off the Titanic to distribute billions of dollars before inauguration day. The appointee mentioned getting money out fast before the new administration came in, referencing "gold bars" going to nonprofits, states, and tribes. I don't know what grants they were referencing, but they mentioned tossing gold bars off the Titanic to get jobs from recipient NGOs. They claimed to have given out tens of billions of dollars last year, including $50 million, or maybe $50 billion, for a Climate Bank, suggesting they could then go work for one of these organizations. I don't know what any of that's about, but it's concerning. I want to be a good steward of tax dollars.

I voted for Donald Trump, and now our farm is at risk. We're in danger of losing it because the NRCS isn't upholding their contract with us regarding the EQIP program. This program, which cost-shares improvements like fencing and wells, was funded by the Inflation Reduction Act. However, executive orders have frozen the funding, preventing payments for completed work and future projects. This isn't just affecting me; other farmers are in the same situation. Before making business decisions, I verified the funding was secured per contract, not contingent. Now, they're breaking the contract due to the funding freeze.

The speaker denies inventing the state law banning DEI in higher education. Student-funded programs are not affected by changes in regulation and law. Programs are being moved to student activity fee funding to circumvent the ban. Department money cannot be used for outreach and education, but partnerships with student government are allowed. Although scholarships are taxpayer-funded, student funding is not affected by regulation. The name of DEI programs may be adjusted for logistical and political purposes. The goal is to maintain services for students, despite potential adjustments to program names.

As an attorney and former public high school teacher, I've seen firsthand the issues within our education system. I loved my students, but the bureaucracy is stifling. Only 9% of the Department of Education's massive budget actually reaches K-12 schools. A lot of federal funding requires schools to meet certain criteria, turning it into a game for administrators to grab money. This funding often doesn't directly benefit teachers or students. Instead, it goes to programs that can make teachers' jobs harder. Why does the Department of Education spend over 90% of its budget on things other than K-12 education? What are your thoughts on this?

The discussion centers on a video in which Speaker 1 acknowledges, "We can't directly fund DEI programming. So we have been looking for loopholes." He confirms, "That is me." He adds, "Part of this position would be working with some of that. We have some funds through our PBI grant that we would like to dedicate to that." He also says, "we do still have a chief diversity officer currently they're flexing out of that role because we have to for state purposes. If we want to continue to have state funding we had to discontinue the law DEIP." The other participant notes, "Just it going go like Florida when you're not having to completely go away it's just that you can't use state funds." They discuss payroll funds: "Part of that would be payroll funds." "Payroll funds are funds that are used to pay people. They come from the state, do they not?" "Most of them do. Yes." "Well, then they are state funds being used for DE."

President Trump signed executive orders eliminating DEI programs, and federal offices are canceling DEI initiatives. Some people lost their jobs because they were hired exclusively to run DEI programs. However, similar cancellations occurred during Trump's previous presidency, and people worked around them by renaming DEI activities as multicultural activities or team building. Concerns arise about writing proposals with terms like "climate change" due to the administration's disbelief in it. A proposed solution is to replace "climate change" with terms like "natural hazards" to secure funding. Despite potential funding cuts, there's hope that space-related programs will remain funded due to Trump's interest in space exploration. Earth science programs may be defunded. People are trying to come up with alternative terms for climate change.

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.

I work on environmental climate policy, focusing on implementation at the EPA. My work involves allocating the approved billions of dollars, ensuring the funds are used properly and create good jobs. Currently, the focus is on distributing the money as quickly as possible before the new administration takes over and potentially interferes. We're trying to get the money out to nonprofits, states, tribes, and cities before the inauguration on January 20th. After that date, the new administration could halt all grants and reevaluate the programs. The goal is to get the money to organizations that can continue the work, even if the government changes its policies.

"We can't directly fund DEI programming, we have been looking for loopholes." "It's not. No," "So we have been looking for loopholes." "we have some funds through our PBI grant that we would like to dedicate to that." "we had to discontinue the law DEIP." "Like with Florida when you're not having to completely go away it's just that you can't use state funds." "Part of that would be payroll funds." "They come from the state. Do they not?" "Most of them do. Yes." "It's a marketing thing essentially." "It's just 90% of it from a communication standpoint you understand that." "Ours is already being funded through our PBI grant, which is a federally funded initiative." "We will catch you."

For context, USAID has been around for more than sixty years with bipartisan support, earmarks in every budget, and a workforce of about 10 to 14,000 staff, plus roughly $40,000,000,000 in procurement each year. We read Project Twenty Twenty Five and felt somewhat prepared for this administration in some ways, but not in others. Ahead of the inauguration, the Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI), which works in countries transitioning from authoritarian or wartime to more peaceful and structured governments, was a major player and had organized during the previous administration to respond to threats to U.S. democracy. Also notable to our group, including our gender and sexual minorities employee resource group, is that we had moved our group away from the USAID main systems into Signal chats to protect the community there. January 20, the inauguration, brought one of 200 executive orders to stop foreign assistance, creating a ninety-day pause on all funding. In addition, there were executive orders to stop DEI programming, which affected a large number of our awards immediately. In that first week, we experienced threatening emails across staff, a takeover of the DEIA, truth@opm.gov email address, which was unusual in its centralization to all government staff, and many staff under a particular hiring mechanism were immediately put on furlough or laid off. I am part of that hiring mechanism. Within that initial period, over the weekend, our senior staff, including our general counsel, were put on administrative leave. In response, we moved quickly to establish the USAID stop work order website and a Signal group, organized by a longtime implementing partner and strategic communications specialists. They moved immediately to begin gathering people, creating community, and collecting information. This is also when some of the first lawsuits began to be discussed. In the second weekend, additional Signal groups were stood up. USAID is an agency of about 10 to 14,000 people within the United States, and we have about 50,000 people who are hired into the ecosystem of awards and grants contracted by USAID. This community began gathering in Signal, especially as disinformation about USAID emerged from X (Elon Musk’s platform) and escalated attacks. In that second week after the administration, almost all USAID staff were put on administrative leave, including our ethics lawyers, our HR, and our security. DOES took over, and our buildings were closed. By February 5, we had our first large-scale protest organized, with several congressional leaders standing up with us along with agency leadership. Many developments followed, and I will discuss those next.

People are really scared because overnight, many lost their next paycheck and ability to pay for childcare and medical bills. Christina Drey and Adam Dubard were fired this month amidst the chaotic shutdown of foreign aid distributed by USAID. Over 8,000 USAID employees were sent home, not based on competency but on loyalty tests. These are people with decades of public service across administrations, and they had to leave the building immediately. As far as I know, they received an email, and if they didn't leave, they were escorted out. There was no process or explanation given to them.

The speakers discuss funding DEI programming and searching for loopholes to comply with state law. "We can't directly fund the programming, so we have been looking for loopholes." They note funds through their PBI grant to dedicate to that and a chief Diversity Officer currently who is flexing out of that role for state purposes. "If we want to continue to have state funding we had to discontinue all the Gotcha." The discussion covers payroll funds and whether they come from the state. They say they will continue to offer programming and events, mindful about how they go about it, a marketing thing essentially, with 90% from a communication standpoint. "Ours is already being funded through our PDI program, which is a federally funded initiative." They consider taxpayer reactions: "They very well might be" and "They would need to contact us to talk about it." "We will catch you."

Federal offices are ending DEI programs due to President Trump's executive orders. State departments have already canceled DEI initiatives, but some suggest renaming DEI programs to circumvent the rules, such as using "multicultural activities" or "team building." Concerns arise about writing proposals with terms like "climate change" under the new administration, as they may not approve of such terms or provide funding. One workaround is to replace "climate change" with "natural hazards" in proposals to secure funding. While NASA may not lose funding as a whole due to Trump's interest in space, Earth science may be affected. There is a sense of depression and uncertainty, with concerns about potential funding cuts and the need to carefully adjust language in proposals.

We are halting all grant funding to NGOs that facilitate illegal immigration. Millions of taxpayer dollars have been misused to support this issue, and we are reevaluating how these funds are spent to ensure they strengthen our country and enhance safety. Many NGOs operate not only in the U.S. but also in Mexico, encouraging illegal immigrants to cross the border. Initially, I viewed NGOs as charitable organizations, but I've come to see that some function as shadow governments, using taxpayer money for actions the federal government cannot legally undertake. This has compromised our national security, and we will no longer support these operations with federal funding.

My National Cancer Institute funded study on safely collecting sexual orientation and gender identity data in cancer care was terminated due to the president's executive orders, specifically the one supposedly "defending women." This order defines sex in a way that erases intersex individuals and dehumanizes transgender people, contradicting scientific truth and endangering public safety. LGBTQI individuals have unique healthcare needs, and my research aimed to improve their care. Terminating this research damages our ability to understand important patterns, improve clinical guidelines, and address the health disparities faced by LGBTQI individuals. This politicization of federal funding erodes community trust, censors scientific language, and undermines American biomedical innovation. No one voted to cut cancer research, and it is our duty to defend the threatened, speak the truth, and protect scientific truth and public safety.

The pause was implemented to allow for better management of federal funding and to ensure taxpayer dollars are used wisely. An executive order from the president initiated this pause, which includes a hiring freeze and a freeze on foreign aid. During this time, it was discovered that $37 million was about to be allocated to the World Health Organization, which the president has opted out of. Additionally, $50 million was set to fund condoms in Gaza, deemed an inappropriate use of taxpayer money. The focus of this pause is to be responsible stewards of public funds.

We can't directly fund DEI programming, so we have been looking for loopholes. The discussion centers on circumventing state law to fund DEI. "We have been looking for loopholes." "So part of this position would be working with some of that. We have some funds through our PBI grant that we would like to dedicate to that." They say the work will continue under a different title because "we had to discontinue the law DEIP" to keep state funding. They explain "Payroll funds are funds that are used. She's used to pay people. Sure." "They come from the state. Do they not?" "Most of them do. Yes." They indicate funding can come from federal sources via "PBI grant," a federally funded initiative. They call it "a marketing thing essentially." They warn taxpayers: "We will catch you."

We're announcing that we've halted all grant funding to NGOs that facilitate illegal immigration. It's shocking how much federal money has been misused in this way. I've taken action to reevaluate these funds to ensure taxpayer dollars are used to strengthen our country and keep it safe. We need to scrutinize how federal grants are utilized. No more money will be spent to undermine our nation. We will uphold President Trump's commitment to secure our border, remove those here illegally, and ensure taxpayer funds are not used to support this situation.

My National Cancer Institute funded study was terminated abruptly, hindering research on safely collecting sexual orientation and gender identity data in cancer care. This work was crucial for creating better clinical guidelines for LGBTQI individuals, as recommended by leading medical organizations. The termination, linked to executive orders like "defending women from gender ideology," actually harms women by erasing intersex individuals and denying the existence of LGBTQI people. This undermines trust, damages data collection, and impairs our ability to improve clinical practice for a significant portion of the population. Politicizing federal funding jeopardizes public health, erodes community trust, and stifles scientific innovation, threatening decades of progress in healthcare and research. No one voted to cut cancer research. It's our duty to defend truth and protect the vulnerable.

We've cut $4,000,000 in DEI contracts here at HUD. These contracts were intended for culture transformation, outward mindset thinking, and subscription services. This money should be used to serve the American people and ensure that our time is well spent serving those we are called to serve. DEI at HUD is dead.

Secretary: Today, we are announcing that we have stopped all grant funding that's being abused by NGOs to facilitate illegal immigration into this country. It's amazing to me the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been spent by the federal government that has been sent to NGOs to facilitate this invasion of our country. I have taken action to stop that funding, to reevaluate it, and to make sure that we're actually using taxpayer dollars in a way that strengthens this country and keeps us safe. People are curious how grants given out by federal agencies are utilized, and that evaluation needs to be done. We're not spending another dime to help the destruction of this country. We're going to follow through on what president Trump promised, to secure our border, depart those who are here illegally and committing criminal actions, and ensure taxpayer dollars aren't spent to assist it. Speaker: And, Madam Secretary, I don't think people fully understand the role that NGOs play in facilitating illegal immigration. I want to share these numbers up on the screen: we spend over $380,000,000 in 2024 for sheltering and service programs for illegal immigrants. But the vast network of NGOs that help facilitate it through Panama, through Mexico, and make it a landing spot here in the United States is a massive contributor to illegal immigration. So what you're telling us today is that now stops? At least the federal funding of that stops? Secretary: Yes. The Department of Homeland Security has stopped spending those dollars to fund those NGOs. What’s been revealing is that many of these NGOs actually have infrastructure and operations set up in Mexico on that side of the border, telling illegal immigrants to come to them, and they will get them across the border. So they're not just operating in the United States. They're operating outside of the United States to help make it easier for those who want to break our laws. And while I was one of those Americans years ago when somebody said NGO to me, I thought, oh, that's amazing—a nonprofit telling somebody about Jesus or spreading faith and charitable work, helping people less fortunate. Then I realized over the years it's been perverted into this shadow government. An NGO is sometimes an operation that does things the government cannot do, can't legally do, so they create an entity to use government dollars, taxpayer dollars, to do something that the federal government isn't allowed to do—to perform a shadow government operation that has recently been used to undermine our country's national security.

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.

If we were seen as a sanctuary program, especially one using federal dollars, we'd face a lot of problems. To avoid scrutiny, we strategically omit status inquiries from our federal statutes by subtly influencing bill language in congress. Now, with the new efficiency team's surveillance, communication has moved offline to encrypted apps like Signal, even though we're not supposed to conduct business there. They've installed software to track keystrokes and monitor our calls. If I end up on leave, I'm headed to the beach, taxpayer money well spent! Many in administrative roles are already leaving since we can't do much anyway. If I'm in Mexico, don't worry about it.

Federal offices are ending DEI programs due to President Trump's executive orders, mirroring a previous instance where DEI was rebranded as "multicultural activities" or "team building" to circumvent restrictions. State departments have already canceled DEI initiatives. Concerns arise about writing proposals using terms like "climate change" due to potential disapproval from the administration, with suggestions to replace it with "natural hazards." This strategy was previously used to secure funding. While NASA's overall funding may remain intact due to Trump's interest in space, Earth science funding is expected to decrease. There is uncertainty and concern about the future, with some expressing a lack of hope for the coming year.

The speaker claims research funding has not been cut, but indirect funding to institutions has been targeted. According to the speaker, the administration wants to cut indirect funding, meaning more money goes to researchers. The speaker says the guidance from Bobby Kennedy and the Trump administration empowers frontline researchers and disempowers government bureaucrats. The speaker states that more money will flow to researchers, not university or government bureaucrats, and no services have been cut. The speaker says there's an attack on bureaucracy, citing Harvard getting $0.70 on the dollar for bureaucracy, not research. Cutting indirect costs gets more money to researchers. The speaker claims the administration is focused on empowering researchers, getting money to scientists, and asking them to do bold research on why people are getting sick.