reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker discusses the new Department of Government Efficiency, potentially led by Elon Musk. They investigated four instances of wasteful spending that Donald Trump mentioned. $22 billion from Health and Human Services went to housing and transportation for documented migrants. $60 million went to indigenous peoples and Afro-Colombian empowerment in Central America via USAID, with unclear results. $32 million went to the Republic of Moldova for a left-wing propaganda operation, also via USAID. $42 million went to Johns Hopkins University for behavior change in Uganda, funded by USAID. Trump claimed $25 billion in waste. A Rasmussen poll shows that 59% of Americans support auditing Social Security, and 61% believe an audit would reveal widespread fraud. 55% are confident they'll receive promised Social Security benefits. 43% trust Democrats more to handle Social Security, while 44% trust Republicans. The speaker questions whether Democrats will watch spending.

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.

Since 2017, France has spent a staggering amount, allocating 25 billion euros to multilateral funds. This includes contributions to UN agencies, Bill Gates-sponsored vaccine NGOs, and organizations involved in reforestation efforts in the Amazon rainforest. However, according to the Court of Auditors, there's a lack of clarity regarding the allocation and expenditure of these funds, as we're unable to effectively track where the money goes.

Trump says the administration removed wasteful items from the budget, which upset Congresswoman Ocasio Cortez and the socialist wing of the Democratic Party. They took out items that existed under President Biden and are demanding they be put back in. Examples cited include: $3,000,000 for circumcision and vasectomies in Zambia; $500,000 of American taxpayer money for electric buses in Rwanda; $3,600,000 for pastry cooking classes and dance focus groups for male prostitutes in Haiti. I kid you not. $6,000,000 for media organizations for the Palestinians; $833,000 for transgender people in Nepal; $300,000 for a pride parade in Lesotho; $882,000 for social media and mentorship in Serbia; $4,200,000; $4,200,000 for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex people in the Western Balkans and Uganda. The congresswoman and the socialist wing threaten to shut down the government till we get this back in. The fight is about putting this back in the bill.

American tax dollars funded various projects last year, raising questions about their effectiveness. Examples include grants for drag shows in Ecuador, a butterfly study in Germany, and a Sergeant Pepper's exhibit in Brooklyn. Other projects involved a smart toilet study, research on colonial Mexican soundscapes, and a study on seatbelts and helmets in Ghana (despite existing US data). Funding also went to a Yoko Ono art installation, a Napa Valley walking trail, a Hawaiian farmers market, the Metropolitan Opera's fire suppression system, and a study of Parisian butchers' private language. Additionally, taxpayer money supported a climate futurism conference using the parable of the sower and a study on influencing climate change skeptics. Nearly a billion dollars was spent on border facilities, averaging around $500 per person crossing illegally. Ultimately, the question remains: are these the best uses of taxpayer money?

I'm concerned about the scrutiny USAID is facing. It's an organization that promotes national security, human rights, and global health. But, some USAID projects are questionable uses of taxpayer money. For example, millions of dollars have gone to tourism in Egypt, a Democratic Party propaganda arm, transgender opera in Colombia, sex changes in Guatemala, bat research in Wuhan, and even a new Sesame Street show in Iraq. These expenditures raise serious questions about how taxpayer money is being spent. We need to take a closer look at these allocations.

USAID has allocated significant funds for various projects, including $1.5 million for DEI initiatives in Serbia, $70,000 for a DEI musical in Ireland, $47,000 for a transgender opera in Colombia, and $32,000 for a transgender comic book in Peru. Many American taxpayers are concerned about these expenditures, believing they do not reflect their priorities. President Trump has tasked Elon Musk with addressing issues of fraud, waste, and abuse within the federal government.

Here's the latest edition of wasteful spending courtesy of USAID. Over $849,000 is going to a transgender job fair in Bangladesh, where the median monthly income is around $220. Nearly $2,000,000 will fund sex change surgeries in Guatemala, provided by a trans-led organization. Millions more are allocated to various global initiatives, including $55,000,000 to strengthen Libyan financial processes, $20,000,000 for an Iraq Sesame Street program, and smaller amounts for similar programs in Bangladesh and Nigeria. We're also spending $22,000,000 to boost tourism in Tunisia and Egypt. Additionally, funds are directed towards climate change initiatives in Africa ($520,000,000), green transportation in Georgia ($24,400,000), and LGBTQ+ support in various countries like Uganda ($5,500,000) and North Macedonia ($1,300,000). Even China is getting $5,000,000 to reduce carbon emissions. This is just the latest list of wasteful spending. Time for change.

Here's a glimpse at some wasteful spending I've uncovered. We're talking $22 billion from HHS for housing and cars for illegal immigrants, and $45 million for diversity scholarships in Burma. Millions more are going towards initiatives like sedentary migrant inclusion, LGBTQI+ promotion in Lesotho, and indigenous empowerment in Central America. I've also found $8 million allocated to making mice transgender, $32 million for a left-wing propaganda effort in Moldova, and $10 million for male circumcision in Mozambique. There's nearly $2 billion tied to a decarbonization committee, plus millions more for fish monitoring, voter confidence in Liberia, and illegal alien hotel rooms in NYC. Other questionable expenditures include vegan climate action in Zambia, social change in Uganda, public procurement in Serbia, learning outcomes in Asia, and a record-breaking $101 million in DEI contracts at the Department of Education.

I'm exposing some initiatives USAID has funded and asking a yes or no question: Do these expenditures of American taxpayer dollars put America First? USAID awarded $2,000,000 to strengthen trans-led organizations for gender-affirming health care in Guatemala. Does paying for this advance American interests? USAID awarded over $750,000 to alleviate loneliness among migrant garment workers in India. Does this advance America's interest? USAID awarded $1,500,000 for a gender-sensitive response to migration at the Venezuelan border. Does this advance American interests? Other expenditures include; $4,300,000 for health services for men who have sex with men in South Africa, $1,500,000 to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion in Serbia, $70,000 for a live musical event promoting US and Irish shared values, $1,500,000 to upscale LGBT rights advocacy in Jamaica, $28,000,000 to facilitate the economic insertion of Venezuelan migrants in Peru and Ecuador, $17,500,000 for voluntary medical male circumcision overseas, and nearly $150,000 for HIV prevention targeting men who have sex with men and transgender people. Our foreign assistance system is broken, and this ends now.

USAID, with 10,000 employees and a $40 billion annual budget, has drawn scrutiny for its spending. Examples cited include funding for electric vehicles in Vietnam, a transgender clinic in India, and $1.5 million to a Serbian LGBTQ group. A Middle East Forum study revealed $164 million to radical organizations globally, including $122 million to groups linked to terrorist organizations. Millions were also allocated to sex changes in Guatemala, a Sesame Street show in Iraq, combating misinformation in Kazakhstan, and meals to a group linked to Al Qaeda. Further examples include funding for LGBT advocacy in Jamaica, rebuilding Cuba's media, and projects related to gendered language in Sri Lanka and disability inclusion in Belarus. These expenditures raise questions about the agency's priorities and oversight.

Musk uncovered that American taxpayers fund foreign aid, including significant amounts to countries like Afghanistan, Yemen, and Syria. The USAID employs 10,000 people and distributes $40 billion annually. Notably, taxpayer money supported electric vehicles in Vietnam, a transgender clinic in India, and an LGBTQ group in Serbia. A report revealed that USAID allocated $164 million to radical organizations, including $122 million to those linked to foreign terrorist groups, and millions to Gaza organizations controlled by Hamas. Other expenditures included $2 million for sex changes in Guatemala, $20 million for a new Sesame Street show in Iraq, and $8 million for teaching Sri Lankan journalists about gendered language. Additionally, funds were given for LGBT advocacy in Jamaica, rebuilding Cuban media, and equity education in Nepal. Many are upset with Musk for exposing this, but some believe he deserves recognition.

Today, we're investigating where government funds for migrant kids are going. Nonprofits receive billions, with CEOs like Chip Fulghum making $600,000. Endeavors spent $500,000 on music, pet, and plant therapy for kids. Another nonprofit, Southwest Key Programs, led by Dr. Anselmo Villareal, received over a million. Despite issues like sexual abuse charges and fund misuse investigations, they still received $800 million in contracts from the Biden administration.

Democrats are defending questionable spending priorities, including $1.5 million for DEI initiatives in Serbia, $20 million for Iraqi Sesame Street, and millions on projects in Afghanistan that failed, like a dam that was never used. USAID has been criticized for funding programs that seem wasteful or ineffective, such as a million dollars for bat research in Wuhan and support for Fashion Week in Paris. Allegations suggest that USAID operates like a dark money entity, with ties to various foundations and questionable contracts, including one involving Hunter Biden. Billions have been funneled into open borders groups, effectively funding illegal immigration.

These grants are framed as universally appealing, like "save the baby pandas." However, some programs have a "show panda" for special occasions, while others have no panda at all, despite significant funding. When asked for pictures, they can't even produce one panda. Similarly, with Ebola money, the speaker questions where the funds are going. The money is allegedly going to Deloitte in DC, raising questions about why an accounting firm is handling Ebola funds.

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.

USAID, with 10,000 employees and a $40 billion annual budget, has drawn scrutiny for its spending. Investigations revealed funding for electric vehicles in Vietnam, a transgender clinic in India, and $1.5 million to a Serbian LGBTQ group for diversity initiatives. A Middle East Forum study showed $164 million spent on radical organizations globally, including $122 million to groups linked to terrorist organizations. Millions were also directed to Hamas-controlled organizations in Gaza, groups calling for the removal of Jews, and projects in Guatemala for sex changes. Other questionable expenditures include funding for a Sesame Street show in Iraq, combating misinformation in Kazakhstan, and providing meals to a group linked to Al-Qaeda. Additional examples include funding LGBT advocacy in Jamaica and projects in Cuba, Belarus, and Macedonia. These findings raise concerns about how taxpayer money is allocated.

Under president Biden, they were spending $3,000,000 for circumcisions and vasectomies in Zambia; we took that out. The congresswoman says, we're gonna shut down government till you put that back in. We found $500,000 for electric buses in Rwanda and $3,600,000 for pastry cooking classes and dance focus groups for male prostitutes in Haiti—again, we took it out. Ocasio Cortez and the socialist wing of the Democratic Party say we gotta put these back in or shut the government down. They demand: $6,000,000 for media organizations for the Palestinians; $833,000 for transgender people in Nepal; $4,200,000 for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex people in the Western Balkans and Uganda. We took all that out; it upsets Ocasio Cortez, and they threaten all other Democrats to shut down the government till they get what they want.

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.

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.

The speaker explores the grants data of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, starting with the highest amounts given. They discover that the Gavi Alliance received the largest grants, totaling $5.8 billion. The speaker also mentions the foundation's contributions to the World Health Organization, amounting to over $1 billion. They express surprise at the smallest grant of $50 given to Mount Rainier. The total amount given by the foundation is $82.6 billion. The speaker then discusses organizations like Access Health International, Achieve Inc, and Achievement First, questioning their use of funds and lack of transparency. They end by mentioning Achieving the Dream Inc and their involvement in education. The speaker plans to continue investigating Bill Gates' philanthropic activities.

The speaker describes a massive UN and NGO–driven immigration infrastructure in Mexico and Central America. In Tapachula, Mexico, the UNHCR is constructing a 75,000 square foot “illegal immigration mall” on Mexican land, with the UN and various NGOs under one roof. There is also a large tent city space, indicating a planned, long-term hub for migrants. The speaker notes similar NGO complexes in Colombia and Panama, where NGO villages resemble big swap meets with storefronts for different organizations and permanent billboards directing immigrants to resources needed to continue their journey. They claim hundreds of NGOs operate in the region, including US NGOs, European NGOs, and Latin American NGOs, many affiliated with Catholic dioceses or well-known groups like Doctors Without Borders. These NGOs are described as receiving substantial US taxpayer money to build a cross-border safety net, facilitated by UN agencies and then doled out to national NGOs via US appropriations from the State Department, USAID, and related sources. Financial figures are presented to illustrate the scale: $1.9 billion spent in 2024, $2.2 billion in the previous year, and about $45 billion over the last few years, with 2019 at $377 million in comparison. The speaker suggests this funding is intended to sustain a long-term, high-volume flow of migration from South America to the US border, with Tapachula identified as a key strategic city and the surrounding NGO towns on the migration corridor highlighted as part of the infrastructure. The speaker contends the operations are designed with an expectation of a political outcome, stating they are “betting on a Harris win” and that the system would halt “within an hour of his inauguration” if certain policies were enacted. Specifically, they claim the remain-in-Mexico policy could be immediately implemented, with orders to border patrol and possible invocation of Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to push back and deny asylum to 100% of border crossers. The claim is that this would deter migrants from attempting entry, and that the migrants themselves are closely watching US politics, with many believing that if Trump is in office, entry and asylum access would be substantially harder. The speaker observes that about 50,000 to 60,000 migrants arrive at the border monthly, noting a socioeconomic stratification: wealthier migrants tend to pay human smugglers to reach the border, while the poorer migrants—often from lower-income backgrounds—struggle to finance the final stages of the journey, sometimes needing to borrow or sell assets to reach Mexico, where the poorest end up on the streets in Tapachula. They remark that some nationalities, such as many Chinese and Venezuelans, are described as wealthier within this context.

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.