TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

I've been investigating USAID spending through usaspending.gov and found that Chemonics International Inc. is the largest recipient of these funds, receiving $6 billion recently. They primarily transport pharmaceutical products, especially AIDS drugs, to developing nations. Chemonics earned $1.8 billion in the last year and has a troubling track record, with only 7% of health shipments arriving on time in 2017. Despite scandals, including issues in Haiti and Afghanistan, they continue to secure lucrative contracts. Their operations raise questions about effectiveness and accountability in USAID funding. If anyone has more information on Chemonics, please share.

Most of the time, when we send money as donations to developing countries, they spend it by employing Chinese, Turkish, or Russian companies, rarely French ones. However, some claim that 50% of the calls for tenders are won by French companies and that 50% of the money given for development aid is used by French companies. But there is a cosmetic effect in the way development aid is accounted for. For a French company to be counted in a project, for example, a water supply project, it is enough for a French company to have been involved in the project. For example, in a project worth two or three million euros, if a French company has invoiced, say, ten thousand euros of the total, the French Development Agency considers that the market has been filled by a French company. As you can see, it's a huge sleight of hand.

This is a green slush fund. The Biden administration parked $20 billion in an outside bank, giving it to eight NGOs, many created just to get this money. The EPA entered into an agreement with these entities, designed to tie the government's hands, so we don't know where the money is going. Only about 5% actually goes towards the environment. One CEO, serving on the White House Environmental Justice Council, received $20 million. Account control agreements were amended to reduce EPA oversight. The Justice Department and FBI are working with us, and we must ensure accountability. There should be zero tolerance for wasted money.

There's significant fraud in USAID, with radical groups receiving funds they don't deserve. A staggering amount, like a hundred million, is being misallocated. It's crucial to investigate the kickbacks associated with this spending. Who would invest such sums in questionable projects? It's likely that those who received the funds are not returning any to the government, indicating a high level of corruption. The key issue is understanding the extent of these kickbacks.

My team faced significant obstruction from USAID while trying to access records on taxpayer money. Partnering with Representative Mike McCall, we initiated a congressional investigation, but USAID only provided limited data. Our findings revealed excessive spending with minimal results. Notably, USAID funded the Wuhan Institute of Virology for dangerous coronaviruses, and also allocated money for pottery classes in Morocco and tourism in Lebanon, despite travel warnings from the State Department. There are numerous examples of questionable expenditures.

They tell us that with our money, they finance global public goods, like replanting trees in Indonesia or the Amazon. Deforestation in Brazil and Indonesia is authorized by these very states. Multinational corporations are profiting from deforestation. Then, French development agencies, authorities, President Macron, the EU, and the UN try to guilt us, holding out the begging bowl, citing climate change. Those countries and corporations profited, but they won't pay. Instead, taxpayers like you will pay. People have been paralyzed by the fear of being seen as pro-climate change, so they say nothing. But it's scandalous! Brazil, Indonesia, and the deforesting multinationals should pay, not French taxpayers. This fleecing must stop immediately.

It is claimed that 7,000 politically connected NGOs receive 90% of all taxpayer money allocated to nonprofits. Approximately $300 billion in government funds are allegedly funneled through nonprofits annually, lacking transparency regarding the money's destination. The speaker asserts that the American public has a right to access the financial records of any organization receiving government funds. They state that all information pertaining to the use of these funds and related communications should be considered public record. The speaker concludes that these NGOs must be accountable to the public.

During my brief work involving budget review, a high-ranking official at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs revealed a shocking detail. I questioned why the state holds a minority stake in the board overseeing Mr. Rioux and the French Development Agency (AFD). The official explained that if the state became the majority shareholder, the AFD's debt, totaling €50 billion loaned to countries unlikely to repay, would have to be included in France's national debt. So, beyond the uncontrolled spending with little benefit for France or the aided populations, a significant portion of France's debt is concealed within the AFD's balance sheet.

Taxpayer money is sent to government organizations, then to NGOs. If it's a government-funded NGO, it's effectively just the government. A fraud loophole exists because the government can send money to an NGO that is no longer governed by U.S. laws. The money is sent overseas to one NGO, then through others. The speaker is highly confident that some of that money returns to the U.S. and enriches certain people. There are strangely wealthy members of Congress, and it's unclear how they accumulated millions while earning comparatively little. The speaker aims to investigate this and prevent it from continuing.

Most of these projects never actually materialize, often leading only to investigations or studies. French companies, NGOs, associations, and businesses connected to the Agence Française Développement, including international consultants like McKinsey and French consulting agencies, travel to distant countries. They get paid handsomely, sometimes €500 to €1,000 per week, or even €500 per day. With studies lasting weeks or months, the bill can reach €10,000, €100,000, or even €150,000, all paid by French taxpayers for projects that never come to fruition. This not only brings no benefit to France but, more importantly, it also fails to help the countries it's intended for.

Here's where some of our money is going: $520 million to consultants for environmental, social, and governance investments in Africa, and another $25 million to promote biodiversity in Colombia. We're also giving $42 million to Johns Hopkins for social and behavioral research in Uganda. Then there's $70 million for Purdue to research solutions to global developmental challenges. Other expenditures include $10 million for circumcisions in Mozambique, $9.7 million for enterprise skills training for Cambodian youth, and $32 million to the Prague Civil Society Center. We've also allocated $14 million to improve public procurement in Serbia, $21 million for voter turnout in India, and $20 million for fiscal federalism in Nepal. Millions more are going to biodiversity in Nepal, voter confidence in Liberia, and learning outcomes in Asia.

The shocking part of investigating government-funded NGOs is that small decisions lead to massive, multi-billion dollar outcomes. I saw one instance of $1.9 billion being sent to an NGO that was formed a year prior and had no prior activity. Government-funded NGOs are essentially a loophole, allowing actions that would be illegal for the government directly but become permissible through nonprofits. These nonprofits are then used for personal enrichment, with individuals cashing out and paying themselves exorbitant sums. It's a giant scam where people can establish an NGO for a relatively small investment and then lobby politicians to funnel vast sums of money into it. There might be some good that comes from them, maybe 5 or 10%, but the rest is not.

Let's talk about where money is being spent. We've got $520 million for environmental, social, and governance investments in Africa and to mobilize private sector resources. There's $25 million to promote biodiversity in Colombia, $40 million to improve social and economic inclusion of migrants, and $42 million for Johns Hopkins to research social and behavior change in Uganda. Then we see $70 million for Purdue to research solutions to developmental challenges, $10 million for circumcisions in Mozambique, and almost $10 million for UC Berkeley to train Cambodian youth. Plus, millions more are going to various projects, including election and political processes strengthening, voter turnout in India, fiscal federalism in Nepal, biodiversity in Nepal, and learning outcomes in Asia. It's a lot of money going to a lot of different places.

It is claimed that 7,000 politically connected NGOs receive 90% of all taxpayer money allocated to nonprofits. Approximately $300 billion in government funds are allegedly funneled through nonprofits annually without transparency. The speaker asserts that the American public has a right to access the financial records of any organization receiving government money. They state that all information pertaining to the use of these funds and related communications should be considered public record. The speaker concludes that these NGOs should be accountable to the public.

It's crucial to address what's called tied aid, which is allocating development aid to friendly countries and exclusively to French companies. For example, when funding transportation upgrades or water access in developing nations, ensuring French companies benefit from these contracts is paramount. I was told this is not allowed by the OECD, an international organization that tracks and compares development aid amounts across countries. If we restrict our development aid to French companies, the OECD won't count it. So what? There are no real consequences. We can still do it; the OECD will just exclude it from their count. Is it better to support French companies, promote France through development aid, and control how we assist countries in need, or appease OECD officials? I don't understand the issue.

It is claimed that 7,000 politically connected NGOs receive 90% of all taxpayer money allocated to nonprofits. Approximately $300 billion in government funds are said to flow through nonprofits annually with no transparency. The speaker asserts that the American people have a right to access the financial records of any entity receiving government money. They state that all information regarding the use of these funds and related communications should be public record. The speaker concludes that these NGOs must be accountable to the public.

We spent $9 billion to resettle around 90,000 Afghan refugees since the fall of Afghanistan, averaging about $100,000 per person, which seems excessive. My question is, why are we providing any funds when we don't even have an embassy or diplomats in Afghanistan? The funds we provide come through partners like UN agencies and NGOs. We could apply that reasoning to all foreign aid, including funds going to foreign adversaries.

The speaker discusses various financial contributions made by France to different countries and causes. They mention that France has given 138 million euros to Papua New Guinea and Congo for forests, 500 million euros to Brazil for forest preservation, and 1.5 billion euros to the Sea Summit. Additionally, they mention that France has given 50 million euros to the Pas-de-Calais municipalities and 100 million euros to Gaza. The speaker expresses confusion about why President Macron would allocate such large sums of money to these causes and asks for an explanation.

In April 2024, the Biden-Harris administration, through the EPA, allocated $7 billion to the United Climate Fund, part of a larger $20 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund hidden within the Inflation Reduction Act. This money was funneled to Power Forward Communities, connected to Stacey Abrams, lacking transparency and accountability. An EPA official revealed this as an "insurance policy" against Trump winning the election, indicating a rushed cash dump. The $20 billion was stashed at Citibank but is now being reclaimed by the government. This isn't incompetence; it's calculated theft.

Where's the money going? $520 million for environmental, social, and governance investments in Africa. $25 million to promote biodiversity in Colombia. $40 million to include sedentary migrants. $42 million for Johns Hopkins to research social change in Uganda. What about us? $70 million for Purdue to research solutions to developmental challenges. Then, $10 million for circumcisions in Mozambique, $9.7 million for UC Berkeley to develop Cambodian youth enterprise skills. $2.3 million to strengthen independent voices in Cambodia, $32 million to the Prague Civil Society Center, $14 million to improve public procurement in Serbia, $486 million to strengthen elections, including $21 million for voter turnout in India. It continues: $20 million for fiscal federalism in Nepal, $19 million for biodiversity in Nepal, $1.5 million for voter confidence in Liberia, and $47 million for improving learning outcomes in Asia. This involves hundreds of billions of dollars, and I could continue reading examples all day.

Where is all of our money going? $520 million to consultants for environmental, social, and governance investments in Africa. $25 million is going to Colombia to promote biodiversity conservation and socially responsible behavior. $40 million to improve social and economic inclusion of migrants, and $42 million for Johns Hopkins to research social and behavior change in Uganda. Purdue is getting $70 million to research solutions to developmental challenges, while $10 million goes to Mozambique for voluntary medical male circumcisions. UC Berkeley receives $9.7 million to develop enterprise skills in Cambodian youth. The Prague Civil Society Center, a very liberal group, gets $32 million. $14 million is for improving public procurement in Serbia. We're giving $486 million to strengthen elections and political processes, including $21 million for voter turnout in India. This is fraud, and it just keeps going on and on.

Speaker 0 highlights that a tremendous amount of money is being sent to nongovernmental organizations. He characterizes this flow of funds as, essentially, one of the biggest sources of fraud in the world. In his view, government-funded nongovernmental organizations create a gigantic fraud loophole because the government can provide money to an NGO, and then there are no controls over that NGO. He asserts that there have been billions of dollars in tech directed to NGOs through this mechanism, and he estimates tens of billions of dollars have been given to NGOs that are essentially scams.

The cost of corruption in France has been estimated by the European Parliament to be 120 billion euros per year, which is more than tax evasion. This corruption is not only limited to France, but also exists throughout the European Union, with a total cost of 980 billion euros. The citizens are often unaware that they are victims of corruption, as it leads to fewer public services, higher taxes, and injustices in accessing jobs and assistance. It is important to inform citizens about the impact of corruption and hope that they will vote differently in the future.

There are concerns about overstocking and the misuse of public funds in relation to vaccine orders. The speaker has been asking questions about this issue since October 2022. They mention that they, along with the ombudsman and the European prosecutor, are investigating these matters. The speaker emphasizes the need for transparency and accountability in managing the budget. They highlight that billions of euros have been spent on vaccine orders, but only a fraction of the doses have been administered. They also mention that Pfizer is suing countries like Poland and Hungary for wanting to reduce their orders. The speaker believes this is the beginning of a major scandal.

We're spending massive amounts of money in other countries on things nobody's ever heard of. $520 million for environmental, social, and governance investments in Africa. $25 million to promote biodiversity in Colombia. $42 million for Johns Hopkins to research social change in Uganda. $10 million for circumcisions in Mozambique. $9.7 million to UC Berkeley for enterprise skills in Cambodia. $32 million to the Prague Civil Society Center, and $14 million for public procurement in Serbia. We're giving $21 million for voter turnout in India, while Nepal gets $20 million for fiscal federalism. Millions more are going to biodiversity in Nepal, voter confidence in Liberia, social cohesion in Mali, and learning outcomes in Asia. It's fraud, and I could go on all day.