Hi everyone, and welcome back to the Elon Musk Podcast.
I'm your host, Will Walden, and if you're new here, this is a
show all about Elon Musk. It is groundbreaking work that
he's doing with his various companies, including Tesla,
SpaceX, The Boring Company, Neurolink, and of course, X.
And before we dive into today's episode, I wanted to share a
quick insight from our shows analytics.
It turns out the 45% of you listening right now are
subscribed to the show and thank you for that.
But that means that 55% of you are not.
So I'm offering you a deal. I promise to do everything in my
power to keep bringing you the latest and most interesting news
about Elon Musk every single day and about his companies.
If you'll do me one favor and hit the subscribe or follow
button on your podcast platform right now, that's it.
Pretty simple and straightforward.
It takes just a second for you, but it makes a huge difference
for the show. Hearing of the Subcommittee on
Delivering on Government Efficiency will come to order.
Welcome everyone. Without objection, the Chair may
declare a recess at any time. I recognize myself for the
purpose of making an opening statement.
Good morning. I want to welcome everyone today
to today's Dodge Subcommittee hearing on US foreign aid.
This hearing comes at an important time, a time where all
of us are witnessing billions of dollars in taxpayer waste, fraud
and abuse being exposed across every agency of our federal
government. It comes at a time where
oversight of US foreign aid has uncovered billions of dollars
that have been weaponized in furtherance of globalist far
left ideologies. The American people want change.
The American people voted for change.
The American people have spoken that they no longer wish to be
enslaved by the bureaucracy's agenda of undermining US
interest abroad. In 2023 alone, Americans
privately donated over 557 billion of their own money.
Corporations donated over 37 billion.
Foundations donated over 103 billion.
That is incredible, incredible of the American people.
In 2023, nearly 76,000,000 Americans, almost 30% of
Americans formally volunteered through in an organization
volunteered. The government did not make them
do that. They did this on their own.
Donated and volunteering time is what supports schools and
shelters, hospitals and hotlines, food banks and more
across only our country. Not only our country, but across
the world. Ask anyone in Western North
Carolina, whether it be individuals, churches, or
businesses. The American people are the most
generous people in the entire world, and I'm so proud of that.
They should be the ones who decide where their money goes.
They can choose if they want to donate to a charity, a school, a
church, or a nonprofit. They can choose if they want to
privately donate to a transgender salon in Mumbai.
They can choose if they want to privately donate to the British
Broadcasting Corporation. They can choose if they want to
privately donate to the Wuhan Institute of Virology through
Eco Health Alliance or to electric vehicles in Vietnam or
to changing the national census in Bangladesh to be more gender
inclusive. That is something they should be
able to choose. That is something they should
never be forced to do by our government.
The Democrat run USAID should not get to use our federal
government, our US taxpayer dollars as their party Piggy
Bank to push the radical agenda in countries that we have no
business giving money to. 96% of all political contributions from
USAID employees go to Democrat Party candidates or packs.
That's 96%. Not only is USAID giving $70,000
for ADEI musical in Ireland or 50,000 for Transgender Opera in
Colombia or entrenched to entrench their left wing
ideology across the globe, USAID has been transformed into an
America last foreign Aid Slush fund to prop up extremist
groups, implement censorship campaigns and interfere in
foreign elections to force regime change around the world.
That is the dark truth about USAID.
That is the story the American people deserve to know.
Not only was USAID never designed to be what it has
morphed into, but these things should never have been funded in
the first place. In fiscal year 2023, USAID
dispersed roughly 44 billion of aid across 160 countries and
regions around the world. During the four years of the
Biden administration, 181 countries received approximately
240 billion in US development aid, with Ukraine being the top
recipient. Other top recipients include
Ethiopia, Jordan, Israel and Somalia.
So after hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars have been
distributed throughout the world, has the world become
safer? No.
Has the world become more stable?
No. Is the perception of the United
States around the globe any better?
No. But have some of the most anti
democratic principles like censorship and the canceling of
elections been funded through USAID because of opposition to
the ruling regimes? Yes.
Has money through USAID been funneled to terrorists?
Yes, foreign aid from USAID to the UN, particularly the UN
Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near
East, is directly funding Hamas terrorists.
Humanitarian relief intended for the Afghan people was diverted
to the Taliban. Money intended to support
democracy is being used as a slush fund for liberal
propaganda supporting terrorist gender ideology, diversity,
equity and inclusion, climate activism, censorship and regime
change. Do you think this is what the
American people think of when they think of foreign aid?
Absolutely not. Taxpayer funds have literally
been used to undermine US interests and counter American
foreign policy goals under the guise of foreign aid.
This is unacceptable and the American people agree.
Thankfully, President Trump is taking action to address these
issues. The election of President Trump
was a clear mandate by the American people that they will
no longer tolerate this. He is putting an end to the
foreign aid slush fund, ensuring the hard working American
taxpayers dollars are. Some are supporting America
First policies and taking care of our own people at home and we
will do the same with that. I now recognize Ranking Member
Stansbury for the purpose of making an opening statement.
All right. Well, good morning, everyone,
and welcome to the Elon Musk Chainsaw Massacre, except for
this remake of a classic is terrible because it's hurting
real people and its lead character, Mr. Musk, hasn't
shown up in front of this committee or Congress at all.
We also, of course, call this the Subcommittee on DOGE or
Project 2025, as we'll see here during the Q&A.
So today and this hearing on foreign aid, which the GOP has
called, you're going to hear all kinds of wild conspiracy
theories, accusations and unfounded data.
It's designed to confuse and provide cover for Donald Trump
and Elon Musk in their reckless gutting of our foreign aid and
our reordering under the Trump administration of international
Affairs. But if but before we dive into
the details, I want to zoom out and provide some critical
context text here about why this is happening.
So first of all, let's talk about what happened over the
last two weeks as the administration took an abrupt
about face in international relations after 64 years of
USAID and supporting our allies in Europe, turning its back on
long standing allies and now suddenly embracing and enabling
US foreign adversaries. Let's do a little oversight
here. Last week, the administration
shocked the world as the vice president took to the global
stage and address European leaders and inform them that the
Trump administration believes that the greatest threat to
Europe is not the autocratic leader who invaded our Western
ally three years ago and committed war crimes and
atrocities against the Ukrainian people and threaten Western
democracy. But instead, the VP said it was,
quote, a threat from within. He then snubbed our German
allies and in a unprecedented move, tacitly endorsed and then
met with a far right candidate from the German parliament who
Elon Musk has spent months backing.
This is a party that is so extreme that even conservatives
in Germany will not form a government with them.
Then over the weekend, Donald Trump went on a wild rant on
social media, embracing Vladimir Vladimir Putin and repeating
Russian propaganda trying to rewrite history and falsely
claimed that Ukraine started a war against its own people.
Then on Monday, Trump had the United States of America vote
against Russia vote, vote with Russia, North Korea, and China
as four of the only eight countries in the world voting in
the UN against a resolution supporting Ukraine and affirming
Ukraine's sovereignty. When you think about what this
means in the context of American history, it's truly astonishing.
That same day, which was only two days ago, the administration
announced that they would proceed with firing another 2000
USAID workers, even as a court ruled that the administration's
dismantling of the aid organization is illegal.
And interestingly, one of the main opponents of USAID programs
is Donald Trump's buddy Vladimir Putin.
Why? Because among the programs that
the US was funding before the funding was frozen was aid to
Ukraine, including safe houses on the front lines, a free and
open press to help keep people informed what was happening in
the war, not to mention refugee resettlement in the United
States. USAID was also engaged in
democracy building in Eastern Europe and the Balkans,
especially with the fall of the USSR.
Of course, Mr. Putin didn't like that either, and these
investments have been totally decimated over the last several
weeks. Over the last five years, USAID
has funded international aid to 212 countries around the world
to promote international peace and security to help maintain
stability and ensure that we are making good on America's
promises. These investments are a fraction
of the cost of weapons and defense.
And the US in the process is able to help promote national
security, stop global pandemics, prevent hunger and mass
migrations, and make the world and the United States a safer
place. So when we hear conservative
allies of Donald Trump repeat wild and unfounded claims about
international aid, and we see a coordinated attack by
conservative media think tanks like those who are here today,
members of Congress, the administration, we have to ask
ourselves what is really going on here, folks?
Why the hell are they so hell bent on dismantling an
organization that has been so vital to American interests and
Western democracy for so long? Over the last several days, they
have fired thousands of federal employees.
It really does make you wonder, doesn't it?
And by the way, while they've been doing that, China has
actually moved in already to places in South Asia that had
their funding cut and is beginning to replace American
diplomacy and aid in those places.
So as we listen to this hearing today and hear from our
witnesses, which I look forward to, I hope that we can get to
the bottom of what is actually going on here today.
And with that, I look forward to hearing the testimony.
January 24th, Secretary of State Marco Rubio gave an order that
came with a waiver for emergency food assistance, which was
broadened even further several days later for life saving
services. Secretary Rubio has stated very
clearly we have a blanket waiver and anybody who tells you they
don't understand it, let me repeat it in very simple words.
If it saves lives, if it's emergency life saving aid, food,
medicine, whatever, they have a waiver.
I don't know how much clearer we can be.
And if we're not applying it, then maybe we're not a very good
organization and maybe they shouldn't be getting any money
at all. Additionally, in kind, food
assistance purchased from US farmers is continuing.
I'm pleased to introduce our witnesses today.
Max Primarac is a senior research fellow at the Heritage
Foundation's Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom.
He has more than 30 years of international work experience,
including his acting chief operating officer at USAID and
as a USAID contractor. From 2018 to 2019, he was an
administration envoy to Iraq, overseeing a 400 million
genocide recovery initiative to facilitate returns of Christians
and other persecuted religious minorities.
Greg Roman is the executive director of Middle East Forum.
He is a frequent commentator about Middle East affairs on
both national and international news channels and studied
national security and political communications at America
American University and Interdisciplinary Center in
Hurts. Hurts.
Yeah, sorry. Tyler O'Neill is senior editor
at The Daily Signal and author of The Woktopus, the dark money
cabal manipulating the Federal Government.
He is a writer and commentator on federal policy, and it has
appeared on both local and national news outlets.
Finally, Noam Unger is the director of Sustainable
Development and Resilience Initiative at the Center for
Strategic International Studies and a senior fellow with the
Project on Prosperity and Development.
He has served at both USAID and the US Department of State.
Again, I want to thank all of you for being here to testify
today pursuant to Committee Rule 9.
G. The witnesses will please stand
and raise their right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm
that the testimony that you were about to give is the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God.
Let the record show that the witnesses answered in the
affirmative. Thank you.
You may take a seat. We appreciate you being here
today and look forward to your testimony.
Let me remind the witnesses that we will have read your written
statement and it will appear in full in the hearing record.
Please limit your oral statement to 5 minutes.
As a reminder, please press the button on the microphone in
front of you so that it is on and the members can hear you.
When you begin to speak, the light in front of you will turn
green after 4 minutes. The light will turn yellow when
the red light comes on. Your 5 minutes have expired and
we would ask that you please wrap up.
I now recognize Max Premarack for his opening statement.
Madam Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to testify
before this very important subcommittee.
The views I expressed here today are my own.
Over the past few weeks, indeed, we have been treated to daily
litany of examples of waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayer
funded foreign aid. USAID and the State Department
used foreign aid as a global platform to push radical and
even obscene ideas that have shocked and angered the American
people. One cannot help but ask, was
there anyone in the room raising their hand to say this is not a
good idea? This might cost us our
bipartisan support in Congress. We might lose the trust of the
American people. Yes, foreign aid should be a
tool to advance our national security interests.
In the past it did. Today it does not.
Frankly, it has been doing harm while spending more on aid.
There is more world poverty and hunger today, more political
instability, and developing countries are more beholden to
our adversaries. At USAID, I Co chaired an inner
agency working group that put all aid projects through a
counter China lens that was dismantled.
Instead, the Biden administration wasted billions
of dollars on a global green agenda that forced poor
countries to rely on China for their energy needs.
These countries sought more trade with an investment from
the United States to bind our countries closer together.
Instead, they got transgender diversity and abortion programs
that have alienated billions of people.
Despite what we hear in the media, there is no linkage
between how we do aid and our national security.
South Africa has received billions of American aid
dollars, yet is China's main Africa partner.
South Africa is the S in brick bricks.
It supports Hamas and Iran and opposes us at every turn.
At the United Nations last summer, Mozambique and Tanzania,
other large aid recipients conducted 2 week military
exercises with the People's Liberation Army, expanding
Communist China's power projection to the lip of our
Atlantic Ocean. 19 of the top 20 USAID recipients are members of
China's Belt and Road Initiative.
While acting Chief Operating officer at USCID, I approved
strong vetting policies for our humanitarian assistance in
countries swarming with terrorists, but that too was
ignored by the Biden administration.
Vast sums of US money have been diverted to fund terrorists in
Gaza, Syria, Yemen and Afghanistan.
NGOs have been hit with heavy fines for violating our anti
terrorism financing laws, but closer scrutiny is warranted,
for the problem is endemic in the aid culture.
Last year, USAID launched its $45 million Global Civil Society
program based on the social theories of an Italian Marxist.
Literally, we have been funding radical NGOs around the world
that oppose capitalism, democracy, NATO, and
Christianity. None of this is counter China.
This is counter America. Again, A resounding yes that
foreign aid can be a powerful tool of diplomacy to promote
freedom, prosperity and peace in accordance with our national
interest and our values, but not as an instrument of progressive
imperialism. Regardless of which party
controls the executive branch, aid officials must ensure that
every single foreign aid program can pass the Middle America
smell test on waste, fraud, and abuse.
Aid decisions must always secure bipartisan support.
There must be full transparency on who is being funded and what
they're doing, not only for the members of Congress, but
especially for the American people.
The fiduciary failure of our aid of aid officials over the past
four years has done tremendous damage to foreign AIDS
credibility and America's standing in the world.
Thank you and I look forward to your questions.
Thank you. I now recognize Greg Roman for
his opening statement. Madam Chairman, Ranking Member
and distinguished members of this committee, thank you for
the opportunity to speak today. My name is Greg Roman, director
of the Middle East Forum, and I'm here because there's a fox
loose in the hen House of our foreign aid system, a system
intended to uplift lives abroad that instead has funneled
millions of taxpayer dollars to radical and terrorist linked
organizations. If we don't fix these fences
now, we risk fueling violence against our allies, our troops,
and potentially ourselves. Let me be clear, This is a
problem that began under the Obama administration and was
exacerbated under the Biden administration.
It's a problem that has been brewing across both of these 12
years of governance by a bureaucracy so insulated it
can't always tell teachers from terrorists.
The result is moral confusion among grant officers who
unwittingly and in some cases may intentionally bankroll
extremist causes. At the Middle East Forum, for
the last 12 years, we've engaged in oversight over all public
spending relating to foreign aid, specifically those relating
to Middle East and Islamist causes.
We have identified over $122 million which has ended up
supporting radical organizations or even directly bankrolling
organizations which are considered to be terrorists by
the US government. That's not pocket change, that's
a jackpot for the wrong crowd. Terms of our specific findings,
World Vision. Over the past two decades, this
major evangelical NGO has received nearly $2 billion from
USAID. But in 2014, World Vision
facilitated $125,000 grant to the Islamic Relief Agency, an
entity linked to al Qaeda. Even after a whistleblower
raised red flags, USAID rammed through the funding, pressured
by World Vision, Sudanese War Words and even U.S. officials
who lobbied to delist the terror organization Helping Hand Relief
and Development in 2023. Only two years ago, it received
a $78,000 grant from USAID despite openly working with the
terrorists who orchestrated the 2008 Mumbai massacre in India.
Worse, the offer and grant came after the USAID Inspector
General launched an investigation into a prior grant
to the same group, the Jamal Trust Bank in Lebanon.
USAID dollars helped pad the pockets of this financial
institution, later designated by the US Treasury Department as a
terror sponsor for sponsoring Hezbollah.
This was no mere oversight. It points to a broken system
that handed cash to a future terror financing entity.
Some graphical evidence. Behind me you'll see the Bayadar
and Unlimited Friends Association, two groups in Gaza.
Members of the Gazan charity by Adar cozy up the senior members
of the Hamas Poly Bureau like Abdul Salam Haniya, the son of
slaughtered Hamas leader Ismail Haniya, credited as one of the
planners of the October 7th attacks on Israel which kill
Israelis and American citizens. Meanwhile, UFA officials have
called for their lands to be cleansed from the so-called
quote impurity of the Jews. You'll see behind me 4 images
which don't just show members of Bayidar and UFA associating with
members of Hamas, but also USAID officials, employees of the US
government receiving awards because of their cooperation
with these two Hamas linked entities.
You even have a Facebook post from a few years ago, which is
the USAID office in Jerusalem, celebrating their relationship
with a Hamas entity. I can't find anything more
disgusting. And as the ranking member said,
we're looking for evidence. This is not a conspiracy.
This is AUS government communication.
Lastly, masking the money trail, billions of dollars in USAID
grants are lumped under miscellaneous foreign awardees,
making it impossible for Congress, the media, or the
public to track who's really getting the funds.
According to public testimony and another hearing in this
Congress, a portion of this money has ended up in the hands
of Al Qaeda affiliates in Syria. How does this happen?
The oversight conducted by USAID is as weak as the House of Cards
in the windstorm. Like handing out cash in a dark
alley and hoping it doesn't buy trouble.
USAI DS vetting system is archaic, relying heavily on self
reported data with no real time checks or teeth.
Primary grantees are entrusted to vet their own subcontractors,
even when those grantees themselves might sympathize with
radical causes in places like Gaza or Sudan.
Groups with blatant extremist affiliation slip through because
the so-called gatekeepers have no incentive or even an
ideological desire to shut them out.
This isn't a glitch, it's a feature of a broken system.
And here's the kicker. It's a problem caused by
bureaucrats now threatening American interests at home and
abroad. It's not just about fraud, waste
and abuse. This is a threat to American
National security and potentially criminal.
And this committee should take action to ensure that the
Department of Justice acts on it and does everything that can.
Congress's power to not just investigate, but refer criminal
actions to the proper authorities.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Roman.
I now recognize Tyler O'Neill for his opening statement.
Chairwoman Green, Members of the subcommittee, the last few weeks
a feature revelation after revelation of how our tax
dollars have been spent propping up radical left wing causes
across the world. Yet what struck me about the
abuse of foreign aid has been the connections with leftist
activists here at home. As a senior editor at The Daily
Signal, I researched the Left's Dark Money Network, which
propped up the influence campaign I exposed in my book,
The Woke of Us. I found that leftist elites prop
up NGOs that staffed and advised the Biden administration,
pushing unpopular policies on the American people through the
bureaucracy. In my remarks, I will present 3
examples of how the Left's Dark Money Network intersects with
just one agency focused on foreign aid, the US Agency for
International Development. The views I will express in this
testimony are my own. The Left's Dark Money Network
features George Soros and his Open Society Foundations, the
Tides Foundation, and the network of nonprofits
established by Arabella Advisors.
These groups, which you can see on this chart, funnel cash to
DEI, transgender and climate alarmist causes divisive issues
that the Biden administration prioritized over addressing the
concrete needs of the American people.
The Left's Dark Money Network has deep ties to USAID, which
has rightly received renewed scrutiny under Doge and and
after Elon Musk shined a light on it.
While the Open Society Foundations has stated that it
does not receive funds from USAID or direct USAID spending,
the Soros founded nonprofit has a long history with USAID.
In 2001, the Soros Foundation's network, which became Open
Society, listed USAID among its donor partners.
Open Society and USAID have jointly funded the Organized
Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, a news outlet that
attacked conservatives for, you guessed it, criticizing Soros.
Open Society and USAID also jointly fund the East West
Management Institute. Among other things, the
institute launched court changes in Albania that critics allege
resulted in the prosecution of Albanian opposition leader Sali
Borisha silencing the opponent of the country's socialist Prime
Minister. Open Society has hired at least
five former USAID staff, including at least one high
level official who worked at USAID providing services amid
political transitions in foreign countries.
Former USAID administrator Samantha Power met at least
twice with Open Society leaders. USAID has directly funded a
different organization in the left's dark money network, the
Tide Center. The agency has awarded more than
$27 million in grants to the center.
You'll find the Tides Foundation right here.
The Tides Center has funded many of the leftist groups that
influenced the Biden administration and it also
operates its own in house nonprofit called Palestine Legal
which represents anti Israel rioters in court and gives them
legal advice. Former USAID staff have also
gone on to work for Arabella Advisors which is a for profit
company that set up pass through nonprofits.
These groups allow donors to support specific projects
without being associated with these projects.
One of the nonprofits, New Venture Fund, set up a secretive
group called Governing for Impact, even though Governing
for Impact had existed for barely two years and did not
appear on in a Google search at the time.
Its leaders met with and advised top staff in the Biden
administration, executive level bureaucrats who oversaw the vast
federal bureaucracy. Leaders of the Rockefeller
Foundation, another funder in the left's dark Money network,
previously held roles at USAID, including the former
administrator who now serves as the foundation's president.
Other USAID staff have gone on to work at the nonprofits that
staffed and advised the Biden administration, including the
Center for American Progress, the Human Rights Campaign and
the American Civil Liberties Union.
Personnel is policy, and these connections between the left's
influence campaign on the Biden administration and USAID reveal
how local elites have captured the enterprise of foreign aid.
Thank you. Thank you.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes of questions and I will
inform this, this committee and the the public watching that if
pardon. Oh, sorry.
I'm sorry Mr. Unger, apologize. I didn't mean to skip over you.
I now recognize Mr. Unger for 5 minutes.
Madam Chair, Ranking Member Stansbury, Distinguished members
of the Subcommittee, I'm honored to share my views with you.
They're my own and not those of my current or former employers.
I've served at USAID in the State Department in multiple
roles and in non governmental positions focused on US foreign
aid reform and global development.
My government service took place during the administrations of
Presidents George W Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump.
Every US administration since World War 2 has wanted to shape
foreign aid in line with its goals.
But strangling the system into extinction is akin to
unilaterally disarming. At a time of mounting
geopolitical competition for partnerships globally, Throwing
away our toolbox does not make us safer or well positioned to
influence the world. Our set of foreign aid tools
reflects enlightened self-interest.
With it, the US countered communism and enhance the
education, farming, productivity and health of people around the
world, while also saving lives. Our international AIDS and
malaria programs have collectively saved more than
35,000,000 lives over the past couple decades.
US assistance has also built partnerships and economic
growth, so much so that 11 of America's 15 biggest trading
partners were former recipients of US foreign assistance.
We are now in a period of renewed geostrategic
competition. China has been vying with the US
for partnerships across the global S inking deals where it
can. China can and will fill soft
power voids left by the US. Other potential threats to our
security are also connected to developing countries and fragile
states, from the potential resurgence of ISIS in the Middle
East to the spreading influence of Islamist militants and
Russian mercenaries across the Sahel.
On the eastern edge of Europe, Russian aggression may continue
to grow unchecked. And in Colombia, the strife from
neighboring Venezuela is spilling over to yield the worst
violence in a generation. With that backdrop, the
administration has abruptly and collectively disabled US tools
of foreign assistance. The White House has said it is
cutting programs that do not benefit Americans.
But their approach is dismantling many programs that
help Americans, thereby cutting off our nose to spite our face.
This is evident in many ways. First, the government has
purchased more than $2 billion in food aid annually from
American farmers. And American farms supply more
than 40% of the food aid USAID sends around the world.
But with the foreign aid freeze and stop work order, rice, wheat
and soybeans are going to waste in transit and in ports.
In Houston alone, hundreds of tons of American grown wheat
have been stranded. The recklessness of the current
approach is evident in health efforts too.
We need our foreign aid to prevent outbreaks of infectious
diseases from spreading before reaching our shores.
But US funded early detection and treatment for deadly
diseases like Ebola have sputtered to a standstill.
Even where very few waivers have been issued for some life saving
assistance. Reports from implementers
indicate that few, if any, programs have actually resumed
due to payment systems not functioning and USAID staff
layoffs. It is also counterproductive to
eviscerate programs focused on other transnational concerns
ranging from conflict and corruption to migration and the
trafficking of people and drugs. This unserious review process is
additionally causing our government to be tied up in
court cases that may drag on for years and prove costly in
connection to broken contracts and potential violations of law.
These losses are unnecessary even if, or perhaps especially
if you believe, like I do, in need the need for reforms.
It is critically important to be able to differentiate between
waste and congressionally appropriated projects that may
reflect different policy priorities.
Waste is the food rotting in ports, it's the purchase
medicines that cannot be distributed.
It is the cutting of programs and firing of people that then
in turn prevents this administration from being able
to meet its own foreign policy goals.
Going forward, government will need an oversight approach to
programming that includes the following 1A Congressional
notification and review process so committees can pause or halt
projects. 2 Implementing partners should undergo audits
and submit detailed plans and quarterly expenditure reports.
3IN highly insecure context, there should be a vetting of key
program staff against classified counterterror databases before
U.S. dollars are spent. And four, an Inspector General
should be empowered to conduct investigations and other
activities to help identify, prevent, and punish any proven
misuse of taxpayer funding. The issue before you today is
that these elements are precisely the safeguards that
have already been in place at USAID.
But the staffing to carry it out has just been gutted.
By destroying the system of oversight, the administration
has done more damage to effective programming than any
specific project, failures critics of foreign aid may
choose to highlight. We should all care about foreign
aid. We should care enough to make it
better, not kill it. Congress has a role to play.
Thank you. Thank you, witnesses, for your
testimony. Again, Mr. Unger, I apologize.
We can also confirm the World Program posted that the recent
pause concerning in kind food assistance to WFP has been
rescinded. This allows for resumption of
food purchases and deliveries. Madam Chair, USAID.
Madam Chair, are we are we going member to Member?
Or do you get to make a speech in between each each witness?
If you're going to offer evidence, you're not, you're not
recognized. You're not recognized.
It's my time. I now recognize myself for 5
minutes of questions, and this committee, based on this hearing
and witness testimonies, will consider recommending
investigations and criminal referrals.
When Joe Biden was president, his son Hunter was on the board
of a Ukrainian energy company called Burisma.
The prosecutor general of Ukraine at the time, Victor
Shokin, was investigating Burisma for corruption.
Biden threatened and is on video to withhold 1 billion of USAID
grant to Ukraine if Shogun wasn't fired.
Mr. Premarat is USAID supposed to be used as leveraged by a
president to protect his son. No, we call that corruption.
Mr. Premarack, in your estimation, roughly what
percentage of USAID funding is doled out to bad actors or to
efforts that don't have the best interests of Americans in mind?
I think what troubles me most is learning.
I believe last year, following the the hard work of the House
Foreign Affairs Committee and Senator Joni Ernst, that USAID
has been paying out over 50% is of to overhead charges.
The Office of Inspector General of USAID criticized the agency
for not knowing the overhead charges being handed out to all
of these actors for $142 billion of disbursements.
That is extremely troubling. Yes, Mr. Premarat.
Samantha Power, Biden's USAID administrator, openly spoke
about her agency's efforts to promote democracy around the
world. And your estimation, Mr.
Primarac, is that what she was doing?
If not, was USAID do? What was USAID doing during the
Biden administration? Let me cite the Holy Father,
Pope Francis, who accused USAID and other donors of promoting
ideological colonization, pushing a radical ideology onto
the developing world that is anti family and anti life.
It has been asserted that USAID spent 10s of millions of
American taxpayer dollars to promote propaganda in Brazil in
the lead up to the balsa narrow Lula election in 2022.
It has been claimed that this funding was used to pass
censorship laws in silence Bolsonaro's online presence and
even bar him from running for office in the future.
Mr. Primer, can you offer any insight into these allegations,
or at least comment on whether the US should play a role in
toppling democratic processes around the world?
I think what we saw was USAID weaponized by the Biden
administration and by Samantha Power to attack any party that
was conservative. It just didn't happen in in
Brazil. It also happened for instance
very pro America, Poland and Hungary as well.
One of the most extensive examples of regime regime change
operations fueled by USAID is that of their role in the Syrian
civil war aimed at toppling Bashar al-Assad.
Reports from DD Geopolitics and other sources estimate that
USAID funneled over 15 billion into Syria over a decade,
covertly funding opposition groups, mercenaries and anti
government networks under the cover of humanitarian aid.
This included support for militant factions and propaganda
efforts, often in collaboration with the National Endowment for
Democracy. The operation culminated in
Assad's overthrow in 2024 by Western backed groups with USAI
DS financial trails documented in Congressional Budget reports
and criticized by Syrian officials as interference masses
assistance. Mr. Roman, do these kinds of
activities carried out by an American agency make Americans
safer at home, or do they risk embroiling us in more deadly and
costly foreign conflicts? When the agency is doing it
according to the way in which represents American National
security interests, it's correct.
But when it's abused for political purposes, ideological
umbrage, and sponsoring Islamism, which is inherently
anti American, it is the worst exhaustion of American taxpayer
money that can be thought of, especially when it leads to the
loss and danger to American lives.
In 2014, during the Euro maiden uprising in Ukraine which led to
the ousting of President Viktor Yanukovich, USAID is estimated
to have spent billions of dollars on civil society
initiatives that were allegedly designed to destabilize the pro
Russian government. USAID specifically funded NGOs
and media outlets that amplified the anti Yanukovich sentiment in
an effort to align Ukraine more closely with the West.
We also know that 9 out of 10 of Ukraine's major media outlets
receive funding from USAID. Mr. Roman, Should Americans tax
dollars be funding propaganda? When it's pro American
propaganda, yes, but if it's supporting another regime which
is inherently anti American, no, it should have no involvement
with that, which is the pattern we've seen under the Biden and
Obama administrations. Thank you.
I now recognize the ranking member for 5 minutes.
All right, Well, thank you, everyone, and good morning.
I appreciate that this committee is going to shed some light on
what's going on at USAID, but I do really wish that our friend
with his golden chainsaw would drop on by.
Because you know what, Mr. Moss? We really would like to know
what you're up to. And so far, our friends across
the aisle have shielded you from appearing in front of Congress.
So come on down, bring your chainsaw.
We'll be happy to host you. Let's dive into some of our
questions with the witnesses here.
Mr. Primrock, I appreciate your federal service.
Thank you for serving as a Fed. I hope that you do not share
some of the same sentiments we've heard here in Congress
over the last several days, that our federal workers are somehow
enemies of the state, but in fact, are selfless, dedicated
individuals to serve our federal government and dedicate their
life to this work. And I understand that you were
the author of the USAID chapter Project 2025.
Is that correct? Yes, that is correct.
And I was intrigued to read it last night because there was a
number of things that I agreed with, both in your testimony and
in the chapter. In fact, some of the things that
I agreed about are that US foreign aid is a powerful tool,
that it should align with national security interests,
that we should not be empowering foreign adversaries.
And I too, am also deeply concerned about autocratic
regimes like our adversaries in China, who are aggressively
investing in soft power at the expense of the United States.
And I also agree strongly with all the witnesses that we need
reforms to our foreign aid, that we need more oversight, vetting,
auditing and inspection of what is going on.
However, and I I recognize that Mister Premarat, you didn't
really touch on this in your oral testimony here today.
I was surprised that in Project 2025 and some of your other
statements that one of the primary areas that you really
have disagreed with the foreign aid that has happened under
other administrations is in the areas specifically of climate
change, LGBTQ rights issues and promoting diversity and DEI.
Is that correct? Yes.
And although you did not testify
as much today here about these issues, I want to just make sure
you you do believe in climate change, correct?
Climate change, Sure, climate change is all the time.
I'm a big reader of history. You can see throughout the
millennia. Absolutely.
And you understand that right now, our allies in the Pacific,
who are on the front lines and pushing back against Chinese
authoritarianism are requesting climate assistance from the
United States because they are facing some of the most extreme
impacts of climate change, correct?
According to USAID documents. Yes or no, Sir?
You understand that about our Pacific allies, right?
Of people killed by climate change, 99% drops.
Sir, the question. Radicalism.
Do you? Understand that our Pacific
allies, who we have defense agreements and compacts with,
are asking the United States for climate assistance.
As for the exchange, to provide a place for the United States,
for example, to push back against Chinese
authoritarianism. You understand that, correct?
Yes. Under Trump, yes.
OK, So that is why we are involved in providing financial
assistance and foreign aid around climate change in
addition to the fact that it is a global threat.
Now I understand that you also, and I'm not even going to use
the language here because I don't, I very much disagree with
it, but I, I just want to ask you agree that LGBTQ people
exist and have human rights, right?
Absolutely. We were doing that under.
Trump one and and you also agree that our governments and our
institutions should look like and reflect the people that they
represent, especially overseas. It's part of being able to
actually engage with foreign governments, correct?
If we want to do counter China, there's nothing more that has
alienated billions of people. Than pushing an.
Ideology that they resent. OK, well, I I see that you're
not interested in engaging in the conversation.
And while we can agree to disagree, I'll take this as a
difference in values, maybe worldview.
But I just want to point out here that this perfectly aligns
with what the Trump administration is doing and
trying to gut programs around diversity, equity, inclusion,
supporting LGBTQ rights and human rights overseas and
climate change and helping our allies overseas.
And this is not waste, fraud and abuse.
This is a different worldview. You can't just call something
waste, fraud and abuse because you disagree with it.
Now, Mr. O'Neill, it's nice to see you here again.
So I am out of time and I will circle back.
Thank you. I now recognize the gentleman
from Texas, Mr. Cloud, for 5 minutes.
Thank you, Sharon woman, and I appreciate you holding this
hearing. I appreciate you witnesses for
being here. It's been astonishing to watch.
We already knew that there was a tremendous amount of waste,
fraud and abuse in our federal government, but to watch over
the last few weeks as the extent and egregiousness of it has been
revealed. I've said a number of times how
aggravating it is that this government is forcing the
American people to pay for the demise of their own country.
We've seen this a number of times, especially in how foreign
aid is treated. And much of this funding we're
realizing now, as Mr. O'Neill has pointed out, we're
uncovering is the world's largest money laundering scheme
in in history. And so I would like to think
that if this these kind of things were put to a vote that
our friends on the left wouldn't vote to support a pickle maker
in the Ukraine or to have a transgender operas in other
countries or to send people to Paris Fashion Week and the like.
I, I would like to think if that was a vote that that would also
get a no vote on the other side of the aisle that this dollar
should be funding. But you got to wonder about the
vitriol you see when these things come in cover to protect
these things. Now, definitely the border
trafficking institution that was set up, the complete industry,
the censorship apparatus. Those are examples where we
really saw that these taxpayer dollar funds were going to these
Ng OS that were purely leftist organizations that were turning
out voters and getting all this basically being a campaign front
at taxpayer expense. And so you got to wonder how
this is happening because this is not in the legislation.
There's no line item in the legislation that has these sort
of things in it. So Mr. Primark, I'd like to ask
you where, where are these decisions being made?
Who's who's making the decisions about where these dollars go?
This is a combination of cooperation between the Congress
and and the White House. I can tell you that during my
tenure at USAID, everything that we did had strong bipartisan
support, unfortunately, when President Biden came in.
But it's it's someone in an agency somewhere.
Is that right? Making the decision at a how,
how's that decision made? Who's making that decision Like
that is before the check goes out, who's pushing the button
that says send this, check it cut.
It starts with the administrator, goes down to the
Bureau level and the office and the office level.
But in the end, contract officers have to make sure at
the Office of acquisition procurement that these are
following US laws and the policies of the press contract
officers. Now, are these people elected?
We hear a lot about elected officials making these, you
know, certain decisions. There's no one at USAID that is
elected. So yeah, so the the people
sending money are not elected officials.
Okay. Just wanted to clarify that one
of the issues we've had is trying to track this dollars
once we it goes out to bring accountability to it.
And, and, and there is no connection that we've been able
to find to an employee ID number, for example, connected
to where the grant money is going out of the contract money
is going out. We're working on legislation to
to fix that. But one of the things that's
really disturbing is the fact that some of the money that's
going out doesn't even have a name of where it's going out.
You talked about that, Mister Roman, could you speak to that
for a second? It's to the tune of billions of
dollars. Correct.
Miscellaneous foreign awardees. The issue with it is, is that
while the individual grantees have to apply for a vetting
process that USCID conducts in terms of the government review,
including with counterterrorism databases, there's a self
certification process by their sub grantees.
It's as if though you hire a contract in your house to read
your living room and he hires a bunch of robbers to take
everything out and you're left with the spades on the wall
rather than having a fully renovated room itself.
And, and so some of these dollars have been going to
support terrorist organizations. Right.
And his. Spare dollars going to support
support. Now, what would happen if we
found a business that was funneling money to the Taliban?
They would be indicted, they would be charged, go before
trial and go to jail for a 20 year sentence for money
laundering or for material support for terrorism.
So, so this is one of those cases where it's only, it's only
legal if the government's doing it.
Right in the opening chairman's remarks, she was saying that
this is about fraud, waste and abuse and if there was anyone
else, it's as if there were. Private citizen can't do this,
but if AUS government agency or bureaucrat wants to give money
to a terror organization it's OK.
Yeah, I find that atrocious. I think the American people do
too. Mr. Prerak, I want to touch on
one thing because I've, I've, I've talked to ambassadors
across the world and you hear this.
We'd like to align ourselves with the United States.
We don't want to align ourselves with China.
But when we're talking to China, they're talking roads, bridges,
infrastructure, those kind of things, things we traditionally
know in a soft power. But right now when they're
talking to the United States, what they've got from our State
Department over the last few years is social reengineering.
Many of them have come to say, you know, our nation espouses
judeo-christian values. They don't.
And and even as I talked to pastors across our country who
are working to send millions into missionaries, their eyes
and Christian universities to understand the fact that our
State Department is actually sending billions to counteract
those ideals. Could you speak to that?
You can quickly answer. We have to move on.
I've speaking to many foreign African officials, for example,
when they're meeting with Mr. Blinken.
They were ready to talk counter genocide.
Instead they got to social re engineering.
I now recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Lynch,
for 5 minutes. Thank you, Madam Chair.
First of all, I want to thank the witnesses for helping the
committee with its work. I've been here a while.
So I was here actually when President George W Bush was
confronted with, with wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
And, and in the midst of that, members of this committee, I, I,
I was in the lead because I was chair of the national, the
National Security Subcommittee. We went to Iraq and Afghanistan
and we we vetted some of the billions of dollars that that
the president spent over there. Some of it was wisely spent in
in the best interest of protecting our our sons and
daughters in uniform. Others purely wasted that that I
think fell into the hands of of our enemies.
I think that has been true of every administration that has
that I tried as they might to to to strengthen America's national
security by investments abroad. I do want to say that what, what
troubles me greatly is that now we have a cessation of all
foreign aid. And, you know, just take Ukraine
for example. You know, I know it's been $174
billion in, in aid from the US to to Ukraine.
It's important to note that that 174 billion, most of it was
spent here in the United States. And paying defense workers and
defense contractors and putting Americans to work 90% of that on
on the defense side. And then when you look at the
the grain shipments that we have made not only to Ukraine but to
others, because obviously their agricultural systems are
inoperable right now. Those are American farmers.
And Madam Chair, I I would like to ask for unanimous consent
just to submit this article from The Associated Press entitled
The USAID Shutdown is Up, Ending the Livelihoods of Farmers and
Other Americans. Without objection.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So, and and what also troubles
me is that now we have a president saying that Ukraine
started the war. And Mr. Roman, you're a really
smart guy. You're up on this stuff.
You pay attention. Do do you seriously believe
that? That Vladimir, I'm sorry that
Zelensky invaded, invaded Russia, OK.
No, Sir. OK, I'm just happy to hear say
that I expected that. But look, members on this, this,
this committee, some someone new, so some weren't there, but
we, we all sat in classified briefings for months.
Where our defense and intelligence personnel would
brief us and say, OK, this week Vladimir Putin is moving his
armored divisions from Vladivostok in, in, in eastern
Russia, 4000 miles and, and, and, and positioning them in
front of the Ukraine border, anticipating an invasion.
And then, you know, afterwards, after the invasion, actually
2020 I think it was. Putin took credit, said I
ordered the special operation against Ukraine.
And yet, you know, we have a president saying the opposite.
He's saying that that that Ukraine invaded Russia.
We start they started the war. And it's it's just, you know, to
to restate Mr. Primarak's question, was there one
Republican in the room that raised their hand and said, no,
Mr. President? No, Mr. President, that is a
lie. That is false.
I didn't hear anything. Not one of my colleagues
corrected the president and stood up to him and said no, Mr.
President. No, Mr. President.
It was Russia. It was.
Russia that started that war, they invaded, they invaded
Ukraine and it's right for the US to stand with Ukraine and
their people. I didn't hear any of that.
That's what, that's what troubles me.
You know, I, I had instances where I agreed with George W
Bush on some things and I had plenty that I, I disagreed.
But you know, that that's, that's Congress's role here.
That's our job to call out, call out the truth to power.
And so this this idea that that all foreign aid should be should
be suspended is is is is an attack on common sense.
It's a it's an attack on on American National security for
this country. And we should be more careful.
I agree. Let's look at the years worth
spending foreign aid in an area and in a way that is good for US
National Security and less. Let's get rid of the stuff some
of it you've already pointed out that it is not in our in our
central interest that that's a good process that I would like
to engage in. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I yield back. I now recognize the gentleman
from South Carolina, Mr. Timmons, for 5 minutes.
Thank you, Madam Chair. My colleagues across the aisle
are quick to judge the actions of this President in the early
days of his administration. But I didn't hear any loud
voices from across the aisle when President Biden, who is
clearly experiencing severe cognitive decline, ran this
country. I don't even know who was
running the country. I don't know who was making the
decisions. I don't know how those decisions
were being formed and who was signing the executive orders he
was engaging in. You know, so it's just very rich
that I'm hearing all of these concerns about President Trump's
efforts. To negotiate peace in Ukraine
and the manner in which he's going about it.
And I hate it, but I think I have to set the record straight
because President Trump and his team went to Munich, to the
security conference just weeks ago, and they were engaged in
diplomacy. They were trying to create an
opportunity for the United States to have a financial and
economic interest in the future of Ukraine.
And that was through a minerals deal. the US has a strategic
interest in having a long term supply chain for rare earth
minerals. And so President Trump said we
can get on board with this. Let's do this.
It might not be the NATO membership that they want, but
it's a close second. And so your concern is related
to those conversations because Zelensky originally said, yes,
let's do it. That sounds like a good deal.
And then within 24 hours, he backtracked.
He did 180. And he actually started
disparaging President Trump, and he was disparaging the
administration. So, yeah, President Trump said
some things and tried to create pressure to then bring Zelensky
back to the table. Whoa, guess what?
Guess who's on the way to Washington to sign the minerals
deal? So I get it that my colleagues
across the House want to throw stones at everything that
President Trump does. My favorite was when President
Trump was engaging with Canada and Mexico and the Democrats
didn't even have time to throw stones at his attempt to bring
them to the table, secure their side of the border, because it
only took them four or five hours to come to the table.
The articles hadn't even gone to print yet.
So, look, President Trump is going to negotiate peace in
Ukraine. He's going to bring all of our
hostages home in Gaza, and he has deserved the leeway.
Now to the issue at hand. USAID, 77 million people voted
for President Trump because we are out of balance.
The Biden administration, whoever was running the show,
engaged in ridiculous policies that the American people
disagree with, whether it's with ADEI or, you know, trans
policies, Whatever it is, we're turning the page and we're not
going to abdicate our leadership in the global community.
We're going to hit reset because we are so out of balance that
all we can do is go to zero and then build back because we're
not going to spend $2,000,000 on sex changes in Guatemala or
$32,000 for a transgender comic book improve.
These are ridiculous policies that the American people have
overwhelmingly said they do not want.
So, Mr. Roman, to the issue at hand, how do we make sure when
we get our foreign aid back running that we don't give money
to terrorists? That's a great question.
So there's four recommendations that I would offer.
The 1st is no more miscellaneous listenings.
As we had heard from the gentleman before, we have to use
public vetting processes that require complete transparency,
encourage independent audits and made a strict screening.
Why did we not have transparency before?
I have the last 18 months been trying to get information about
a grant made to what we believe is a Hamas affiliate and the
Freedom of Information Act department or the Freedom of
Information officer. USCID has stonewalled me for the
last year and a half, and this goes back all the way to 2015.
It's as it feels, bureaucrats. Think they know?
Better bureaucrats think they know better.
Guess what, we're going to create transparency across all
of government and that is what President Trump is doing through
Elon Musk. Elon Musk has been asked by the
president to serve and he is going to bring transparency, not
just USAID, to every single nook and cranny of the government
because that is what the American people want.
And it's 2025. We have the ability to do that.
Mister Roman, continue. What else can we do?
Make sure I'll go quick. I know we're limited, stronger
accountability mechanisms, claw back provisions, stiff penalties
for misuse, criminal investigations.
If you go towards the terrorism financial.
The State Department Under Secretary Rubio's review must
have a road map for better oversight.
And lastly, the Legislature must give teeth to its funding bills.
We have to be able to have robust penalties, transparency
mandates and real time oversight tools rather than waiting three
years to get reports from contractors when they've already
committed the violation past the statute of limitation.
We all know sunlight is the best disinfectant and that's that's
the path forward. With that, Madam Chair, I yield
back. Thank you.
A member of the public audience made an obscene gesture.
It was caught on camera to a member of Congress.
I would like to remind everyone in the hearing room to follow
the rules of decorum. Capitol Police will now remove
the offender, and I expect members of the audience to
maintain decorum. We'll take a pause for a brief
moment. Point of order or a point of
clarification, Madam Chair? OK, well, never mind.
Do you have a parliamentary inquiry?
Nope. OK, I'm OK now.
OK, I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr.
Garcia for 5 minutes. OK.
Well, thank you to our working member, our chairwoman, and I
want to thank our witnesses for also for being here today.
Thank you all for for joining us.
So this is obviously our second hearing on DOGE and certainly as
Elon Musk and Donald Trump work together to destroy our federal
agencies. Now, a lot has happened in just
the last few weeks since DOGE has been off raiding the federal
agencies that we care so much about.
We know that FAA staff have been fired, making our airspace less
safe. Veterans Affairs staff have been
fired, risking services for our vets.
Food safety and health staff have been fired as we face a
bird flu pandemic. And all of our agencies have
been thrown into chaos by Elon Musk's emails demanding, of
course, that federal workers respond to what they're doing in
the last week, which he's now had to, of course, retract.
Now, we're here today to discuss Elon's attack on foreign aid,
which has been severe. And I want to also bring again,
this is a pic of Co president Elon Musk, who of course, is
leading doge. And I brought this pic, of
course, to our last hearing. And I know some folks were upset
by it. But just to be clear, we know
that Elon Musk is dangerous. He's incompetent, he's chaotic,
and he's killing programs that we rely on.
We know that he's helping to push through massive cuts to
Medicaid that could RIP healthcare away from millions.
He's pushing tax cuts that will benefit him and his billionaire
friends, and he's causing real harm to federal workers.
Now, some of Mr. Musk's most damaging actions have actually
been towards USAID, which we're discussing today.
Over 14,000 adults and 1500 infants have now been estimated
to have possibly died because of the Trump administration's
attack on AIDS treatment programs that are actually
ongoing as we know they're hurting real people and damaging
our national security. Now, if you look at this chart
and you look at all spending in the government and you want to
look at foreign aid, of course, of which USAID is a part of,
it's less than 1% of our total budget.
USAID spends around $40 billion per year, around $40 billion per
year of this entire federal budget.
Meanwhile, other parts of the budget, including, for example,
the Defense Department, spend almost 16% of all federal
spending in fiscal year 2025. In fact, about half of other
discretionary spending in this chart.
Now, the Department of Defense is the only agency to never pass
an audit. USAID actually passes audits all
the time. And yet we're attacking the one
agency that actually is able to pass an audit, while we leave
untouched the agency, of course, that can't even pass an audit.
Last year, the Department of Defense failed to account for
63% of its assets. Trillions of dollars worth of
equipment haven't been properly documented.
And it's not just their failure to pass an audit.
I want to just quickly ask about some key programs that are over
budget and behind schedule. This, of course, we know here is
the F35 fighter jet will cost us 2 trillion over the course of
its life cycle. These planes are often delivered
late. They often cannot fly.
And right now we know that the F35 is $183 billion over budget.
Mr. Unger, which is more, the 183 billion cost over one of the
F35 or the entire USAID budget? The former that you mentioned,
Sir. And this is the literal combat
ship. The Navy, by the way, thinks
this is basically useless in actual combat.
Could, could have a lifetime cost of over $100 billion,
according to Pro Publica. Mr. Unger, that's also way more
than the entire USAID budget, Is that right?
Yes, way more. Thank you.
And I also want to just ask you about the Central
Intercontinental, the, I'm sorry, the Central
Intercontinental ballistic missile program, which has seen
its costs soar over 81% during its program cycle.
It costs $141 billion with cost overruns and soaring program
cost. Mr. Unger, you know what I'm
going to ask you, but is $141 billion more than the entire
USAID budget? Absolutely.
Mr. Unger, Elon Musk and his companies have received about
almost $40 billion in government contracts, loans, subsidies, and
tax credits. That amount, that roughly $40
billion is basically enough to run USAID for an entire year.
Is that correct, Mr. Unger? That is correct for USAI DS
budget and the programs that it manages.
The majority isn't talking about Elon Musk programs or asked in
here to testify. They're attacking USAID and are
supporting a billionaire who gets richer every single day.
We got it pushed back every single time.
And with that I yield back. I now recognize the gentleman
from Tennessee, Mr. Burchett, for 5 minutes.
Thank you, Chair. Lady, Mr. Roman, are you aware
that we are sending $40 million a week to the to the Taliban?
Yes, Sir. Can you name other instances of
foreign aid going to terrorist organizations?
We have assisted al Shabaab in Somalia.
There's been instances of the Hamzi network in Sudan, Hamas,
Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, Kapaiba, Hezbollah, Haya Takut
Al Shams in Syria. Dozens of terror organizations
have received indirect assistance from US foreign aid.
Could you elaborate a little bit on the mechanisms in place that
are to stop foreign aid from going to terrorist groups?
And why are they not working if we have any in place?
And I would note that these are, you notice these are terrorist
weaponry. You see some AKSSKSS, some
snipers and clips, some clip carriers probably made in China.
And I believe these are small land mines here beside right
there. Let's use Gaza as our case
study, $2.1 billion in American taxpayers money to Gaza since
October 7th when Hamas invaded southern Israel.
USAID money was going in terms of an emergency use
authorization to try to go to parties that USAID formerly had
a relationship with in the Gaza Strip.
They had to have been vetted by OFAC.
They should have been vetted against the special designated
terrorists from the State Department and from other
treasury organizations. Waivers were granted because
they said that there was an emergency use to have that money
come in to Gaza, thereby jettisoning the usual typical
screening procedures. As a result, 90% of aid that was
going from the United States States by way of its agents in
Gaza ended up in Hamas controlled areas.
And this is ridiculous. Essentially what the US
assistance to Gaza did was underwrite the ability for Hamas
to survive until the ceasefire was just passed a few weeks ago.
There was no strategic thought for it and there was no
screening. Seems like the emergency might
have been armed terrorists to kill civilians.
Would that be accurate? That's accurate.
And even more than that, Samantha Powers, the
administrator for USAID, was intent on having Israel not be
able to defend itself. To not be able to defend it,
Correct, Mr. Primarac? Is that correct?
How do you say that, Primarac? I got Birch it, man.
Nobody gets mine, right? So don't don't worry about it.
What is it Primarac? Perfect.
All right, Thanks, brother. How did terrorists explore our
foreign aid loopholes? Well, we have.
We have a lot of our Internet. You pull your mic up.
I'm sorry, I'm can you hear? Me.
Yes, Sir. You have international NGOs and
UN agencies actively lobby here in Washington, DC against
vetting, vetting policies that would prevent it.
I was the senior vetting officer at USCID.
And what? I'm saying, did you say United
Nations is doing this? Sure.
They everybody's, everybody's getting money lobbies here.
That they're lobbying against us.
I'm sorry, Mr. Roman, you're there's actually someone who
used to work for one of those lobbies, the largest NGO lobby
interaction. One of our Co witnesses here
work for them from 2018 to 2023. USAID effectively self funds its
own external private lobby that then goes back to Congress and
asks for more money for USAID. So the taxpayers fund this
lobbyist who's working against American interests, possibly
killing our allies and possibly Americans.
They bring together groups in Washington that overseas work
with groups that kill Americans. Yeah.
I don't need a flow chart to show that.
I appreciate it. Do you think USAID programs have
been aligned with the national security interests the US?
No, they have not. They have actually helped China.
Mr. Roman No OK, How do these programs compromise our national
security? Mr. Premarack.
They actually push China, they actually push so much of the
world towards China on the green energy agenda.
They push people, ordinary people, billions of people,
towards China because of the resentment caused by our social
reengineering. Are we being lobbied by these
pro communist China groups currently?
Well, a lot of these countries don't even have to lobby because
they get the money anyway, like South Africa.
Yeah, and in fact, these lobbyists have come to the House
and they've tried to kill legislation like HR 160, which
was meant to increase transparency in USAID's funding
of overseas organizations. Got a current piece of
legislation that's from the last session last, And give me that
number again, HR 160. And what does it do?
It was meant to give US lawmakers the ability to have
higher transparency and terror financing investigations aimed
at scrutinizing extremist groups.
Mr. Premierck. We had a regulation before we
left in the last administration that anybody who touches money
in the area, in countries where there's terrorists, those names
have to go through databases, terrorist databases.
That was overturned by Biden. Overturned by Biden chair lady.
I am currently 5 seconds but I wanted to mention something.
There's a lot of rhetoric used on this committee and I would
urge my friends on both sides of the aisle, let's stick to the
actual information. This rhetoric is.
I've received death threats and I know the chair lady has, and
it needs to stop. We need to tone it down.
Thank you, Chair lady, and thank you.
Thank. Thank you, Mr. Burchett.
Madam Chairwoman, I'd like to ask for unanimous consent to
enter a few items into the record relating to the waivers
that have been provided by the Secretary.
And because Mr. Burchett just went, now there is some
reporting and perhaps he's in the room if he'd like to
respond. Madam Chair, in this reporting
it says that Representative Burchett told a reporter that he
has a real problem with a report that two DOGE employees blocked
for funding that should have been granted a waiver by the
Secretary and said that if it was a mistake they should have
been fired. We also have a numerous reports
here that these waivers may exist, but they are not being
enforced and there are thousands of federal aid workers across
the world right now that are stranded as well as
international aid that is sitting in ports and docks.
If you have the documentation without objection, I'm.
Not sure if my name was besmirched.
Could I Did my letter respond or not?
It's fine either way, no? No, it's it's just a report.
I'm not OK. I, I just.
But anybody that works for the president, that goes against
what he says, he has a right to fire them.
So thank you. Absolutely.
I now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Kassar, for 5
minutes. I'm going to do something that
I've never done in a congressional hearing before,
and that is plead for help from the American people, plead for
help from my Republican colleagues on something that we
actually all agree on because lives are at stake right now.
I'm going to start by describing the facts on the ground.
Millions of people are at risk of dying of starvation in areas
of the world where Democrats and Republicans have already agreed
and committed to feeding them with American grown food for
humanitarian reasons and for global stability.
But yesterday I spoke with people in charge of warehouses
in Sudan and Ethiopia, warehouses full of food.
But because of Doge, that food is trapped in the warehouse out
of reach of starving and dying moms and kids.
In those two countries alone, 150 thousand children and moms
are at risk of dying this month if that food is not delivered
from the warehouse to them right up the road.
Everyone agrees that's not supposed to happen.
Republicans voted for this food and Democrats voted for this
food to get out. Secretary of State Marco Rubio
says the food should go out as part of his life saving waiver.
DOGE Chairwoman Marjorie Taylor Green started this hearing by
saying that life saving food programs should still be
running. We have paid for the food and we
have shipped it and it is sitting trapped in the warehouse
because DOGE is blocking the payments needed to get the food
out to the people who need it. So here's what that means.
It means that kids are dying and more will die tomorrow of severe
acute malnutrition. If you want nightmares just
Google severe acute malnutrition and look at the photos.
The way that healthcare workers determine if a kid is dying of
this is they measure their bicep and if their bicep is less than
4 1/2 inches around then that means you could die of
starvation tomorrow. Think of a kid's arm fitting
through this hole. Think of your kids arm fitting
through this hole. These kids could die tomorrow.
You've heard today about the waiver for life saving
humanitarian assistance and all I'm asking is for Rubio's waiver
to be made real. People watching at home, you can
do something about this. I know many of these hearings
are live on Fox News. I'm a Democrat for many of the
people watching. You may not agree with me on
many issues, but I think we can all agree that this food needs
to get out of the warehouse into these kids.
I've gotten phone calls from conservative friends, people of
faith that moved to Africa to live out their faith of I was
naked and you clothed me, I was hungry and you fed me.
And they agree that this food should be given out.
So call your Republican congressperson, call the White
House, tell them you know they didn't mean to do this, that
this food needs to go out tomorrow.
If you're in the press, cover this story.
Ask questions about Ethiopia, ask questions about Sudan.
Tell the world about this. And to my Republican colleagues,
Doge is not going to listen to me, but you can fix this.
Pick up the phone, make a phone call.
Y'all could save lives today. Send an e-mail.
Please. Put politics aside.
Get the food out of the warehouse.
Save these kids life. You can save these kids lives.
With that I yield back. The gentleman yields without
objection and I'm entering for the record a post from the World
Food Program that states we can confirm that the recent pause
concerning in kind food assistance to WFP purchased from
US farmers with Title 2 funds has been rescinded.
This allows for the resumption of food purchases and deliveries
under existing USAID agreements. It also enables WFP to continue
working with our NGO partners who play a vital role in
distributing emergency food assistance to people affected by
war, floods, droughts and other disasters around the world.
WFP continues to work closely with the US counterparts and all
our donors to ensure consistent, uninterrupted emergency food
assistance to hunger hotspots that span Sudan, then South
Sudan, Gaza, Haiti, and other crisis areas.
I now recognize the gentleman Where's my W?
Now recognize the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Burleson, for 5
minutes. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and
good morning to our witnesses. I want to talk a little bit
about the difference between real charity and fake charity or
phony charity. Real charity is an individual
seeing a need, feeling the love in their heart, the compassion
for their fellow man, digging money out of their own pocket
and giving it to the people in need.
Government charity, fake charity is taking from somebody else and
giving it to whoever you think that you want to give it to.
Let's call this this USA program for what it actually is.
It is a disgraceful betrayal of the American taxpayer.
It it's all under the guise of being charity.
But for years the Democrats have turned USAID into their personal
slush fund, funneling billions of our hard earned tax dollars
into a cesspool of left wing propaganda, all masquerading
under the guise of charitable aid.
And what did we get for it? Not stronger allies, not safer
borders, and hardly a dime's worth for the American interest.
No, we got absurdity for it. Taxpayer cash bankrolling
climate activism DEI that are frequently at odds with the
values and the needs of the countries that we're supposedly
aiding. This isn't aid.
It's a shakedown of our taxpayers courtesy of the left
wing bureaucracy working with dark money networks that Mister
O'Neill described so eloquently earlier.
Now I have a question for Mr. Roman.
As Doge has recently brought to the forefront, USAID has often
used American tax dollars to push leftist ideology abroad.
One of these areas is exporting radical renewable energy agenda,
which I believe is not only not in the best interest of the US,
but it's also detrimental to the very countries that the aid is
supposed to be helping, subsidized by anti competitive
energy policy. Can you, can you touch on the
impact that this, this, this policy has?
Without being a meteorologist or climatologist or a geologist, I
can't necessarily speak about energy, but I can speak more
largely about the sponsorship of agendas, which are anathema to
American interests abroad. Specifically, in the report that
we published about 3 weeks ago, we were finding that there were
special interests who would come to USAID contract officers.
They would make recommendations and it was basically the
granting, like a political commissar in the Soviet Union
would do to his favorite unit rather than looking at what was
actually good for the United States.
Thank you, Mr. Pimarak. It was once quoted by Samantha
Power. She declared that USAID is a
climate agency. And so DOGE recently cancelled
10 climate and clean energy programs, including a nearly $85
million award aimed at increasing, you know, clean
energy in Africa. Also a $18.7 million program to
for the electric vehicles to be adopted in Nepal is.
My question to you is, is USAID a climate agency?
They wasted a lot of money on it.
I can't think of any other agenda that has caused as much
poverty and hunger as the climate agenda.
For example, the higher energy cost hits the poor the hardest.
For poor farmers in Africa that have to rely on natural gas
based fertilizers, it became too expensive so crop yields just
plummeted. And these countries at the same
time were prevented from developing their own fossil fuel
industries in which they could generate the income to finance
their own social services. Thank you to my last question
has to do with the promotion of values outside of, you know, the
outside of the really the the values of the United States and
Western culture. As as a member of Congress, I've
had diplomats from other countries come meet with me in
my office and beg us to stop using the aid that we're sending
to their country as a leverage point to force them into doing
things that their country finds their countries find abhorrent.
One of those is the promotion of abortion.
It's which is USAID is being used to push ideologies,
including abortion ideology across the globe.
In fact, during the Biden administration, one of his first
actions was to sign a memorandum reinstituting the foreign aid to
abortion programs. But but Mr. O'Neill, that that
jeopardized the same funding that was supposed to be helping
people with AIDS. Yeah.
We've seen throughout the Biden administration the impact of
these far left organizations propped up by the left Stark
Money Network pushing a host of causes, particularly on
abortion. I have a big chapter talking
about the prosecution of pro-life protesters.
Thank you. I yield back.
I now recognize the gentlelady from Texas, Miss Crockett for 5
minutes. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I just want to see if we can level set because I don't know
if people truly understand the point of USAID.
First of all, can I just ask you really quickly, each of you, yes
or no, do you believe that soft power matters?
Yes or no, Mr. Unger? Yes.
Yes, absolutely.
OK, so for the American people, because I don't know that
there's been a conversation about S power, but S power is
basically our way of building, building diplomacy around the
world. And so how we build that
diplomacy probably looks different in every different
administration. But the issue that I have right
now is that some would argue that we've taken a butcher knife
where we need a scalpel or others would just say that we
are throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
But either way, we are not accomplishing our goal because
as it's been laid out, we have people that have gone hungry, we
have people that have died. So let me try to make sure that
people understand what it is that soft power is, which is
building diplomacy. The next part of that that I
want you to understand, those of you that are watching is that as
members of Congress, we do have congressional oversight.
To the extent that we actually travel the world, we go, we sit
down with world leaders. We talked to them about the
programs that we have. We talked to them about trade.
We also have an opportunity to go and visit and talk and see
exactly how our dollars are being spent.
And if you are a good member of Congress, you do that.
And I do want to tell you about an experience in Africa, but I
got to get through these other remarks.
So if I have a chance, I'm going to tell you why I believe in
this with my whole heart. We all know that my Republican
colleagues have a weird fetish with dictators or wannabe
dictators, so it should not come as a surprise that they're here
attacking global democracy programs.
For six decades, USAID has been vital in reducing global poverty
and hunger, helping to resolve health threats like the Ebola
outbreak, which reached Dallas, where I represent in 2014.
Encountering regional threats from Russia and China not only
is pro Putin President Trump threatening economic warfare
against our closest allies and partners.
He's blaming Ukraine for Russia's invasion, threatening
military force against Greenland and starting tariff wars with
Canada and Mexico. He's also defying a court order
to release billions of dollars in US foreign aid.
This committee should be providing oversight of the
executive branch's illegal impoundment of federal funds.
But we're here today so the chairwoman can peddle new
conspiracy theories about US foreign aid.
The dismantling of USAID is just another part of the Republicans
chaotic foreign policy and pro dictator agenda.
Republicans are turning back, turning their backs on American
farmers who provide nearly half of USAID's global food.
Assistance. I'm a stop here really quickly.
Because I think what happens is that when the American people
here that we're sending out money, they believe that we're
just dropping bags of money places.
And that's not what we do. But let me tell you, China does.
China does. Because I've sat down and I've
talked to people and one of the reasons that we are behind China
is because they have argued that there is no red tape.
And China is like gangsters. Like think about the biggest,
baddest guy offering you money when you want it, like a loan
shark, right? And then when they come back to
get their money, they want your first born, your second born and
everybody else. That is who China is.
But a lot of people that are desperate for money, they go for
that because in America, we're going to say no, no, no.
We're going to take care of our farmers.
We're going to make sure that our farmers are the ones that
are giving you the food. We're going to make sure that if
you want arms, those arms are going to come from us.
So I want people to understand we don't just go with black bags
and drop off bags of money like that.
It's not that simple, but I want to get to a couple of questions
because I know I'm running out of time.
Mr. Unger, the chairwoman, stated that, quote, the federal
government has been sitting billions after billions of
dollars to push left wing ideology, fund radical extremist
groups and usurp the will of the people abroad and here at home.
It's saving 20 million lives through the President's
Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR, part of some left
wing ideology. Yes or no?
No, in fact, PEPFAR was created by by Republicans.
It was created by Republicans. Thank you for that, that fact.
In fact, it was a Bush, a Texan. What about eradicating polio in
nearly every country and cutting malaria deaths in half?
No. OK, so here's here's the other
thing and I don't know if anybody knows the answer to this
question. We have been talking about USAID
and trying to pretend like it's the devil.
But when we look at the numbers, is it 50% of our budget that
goes to USAID, Mr. Unger? Yes, the money that goes to AID
is less than one cent if all of the federal budget is $1.00.
Thank you. It is less than 1% of our
budget. So we are.
Focusing on less than 1% instead of the other 99%.
I need the American people to wake up and recognize and start
asking questions about these other areas such.
As the gentlelady's time has expired, I now recognize the
gentleman from Georgia, Mister Jack, for 5 minutes.
I wanted to ask for unanimous consent to enter an article into
the Record from this morning. It is an article from the
Washington Post this morning titled Judge orders Trump
Administration to Pay Millions in USAID Funds.
That the UN World Food Program is owed more than $820 million
in funds from just this morning. Without objection.
So ordered Mister Jack. Well, thank you, Madam
Chairwoman, and I want to commend you for holding
hearings, trying to ensure that the taxpayer dollars is held
accountable. Our last hearing, I just want to
note for the record, we discussed the $2.7 trillion over
the last 20 years that has been distributed through improper
payments and wasted taxpayer dollars wasted over the last 20
years, 2.7 trillion. And one of the things I want to
talk about today are some of the general waste, fraud and abuse
we've seen within the USAID program.
So if I could start with Mr. Primrak, what was USAI DS
original mission and mandate and how is the agency strayed from
those initial priorities from your perspective?
It was started in 1960s to combat Soviet imperialism,
communist imperialism and it did a good job.
It responded to a lot of of natural disasters, did a good
job, helped to integrate former Warsaw Pact countries as as
allies in the United States, did a good job during the Clinton
administration, but especially afterwards in the Obama
administration. And it went full, full scale
under the Biden administration started pushing so a social
reengineering agenda. And if I can speak to that for a
moment, what would you say are the main deficiencies and USAID
is vetting an oversight process that has led to this waste,
fraud and abuse? It's an an aid industrial
conflicts that refuses to have accountability and oversight.
And Mr. Roman, if I could ask you just to expand upon that.
Sure. I'll give you an example of the
Together project in civic space. Islamist organizations which
work with designated terror organizations, different Middle
Eastern countries and territories came under attack by
our organization, the Middle East Forum back in 2017.
They put together a lobby which acted as an umbrella to go to
Congress to say, ignore that organization that's exposing
public data about money going to radical organizations.
They're so-called, quote UN quote, Islamophobic.
So by using politically charged language, they try to cover up
their associations with terror organizations.
Then they went back to USCID, said, look, Congress is going to
fund us now because we lobbied for successful bills and they
got more money. And what steps would you say,
Mr. Roman, are needed to be taken to ensure grant recipients
follow the rules and cooperate with the policies in place?
I think there's a gap in vetting and enforcement, allowing funds
to move both directly and indirectly to extremist link
groups. You have to have a pipeline
where all the money that's coming out of U.S. government
coffers is traceable exactly to which organization and sub
grantee it goes to. And then once if you have $1.00
touch one individual, that individual or that organization
has to report back to be compared against US vetting
databases before a check is cut to them.
And if I could ask the same question to you, Mr. Prime Rack,
what are some steps we could take to ensure the grant
recipients don't evade some of the requirements needed?
I think we need, we need to have a consolidated website where
every single award and sub award is on there.
We're not only members of Congress can look at it, but the
American people who fund this can go through it.
And that's the kind of transparency and accountability
that's going to force folks to be careful what they do.
And if I can just ask, we'll go back to Mr. Roman.
I really appreciate that example.
With what time I have left, could you offer any other
examples of, of mechanisms by which entities evaded
transparency requirements, something that you know, we all
talk about and we've all seen the egregious spending across
the board that's been illuminated by many members of
this committee over the last two weeks.
But when it comes to evading some of these requirements, I
want to speak directly to that and enter that at the record.
To the extent you could share, there's a bifurcation of the
problem. One is the organizations which
are abusing US taxpayer dollars, but the second is the
bureaucrats who are allowing them to get away with it,
sometimes because they're not looking and being blind to the
issue, other times because they're intentionally pursuing
an ideological agenda that Congress didn't appropriate or
authorized. You have to direct funding to
have individuals that are getting money to be able to
authorize that money. And the reports on the grants
that they make after the funding period is over should also be
publicly available rather than just how much money was spent.
In addition to that, there is many other individuals and
partnerships that go beyond USAID, For instance, foundations
supporting extremists, persistent lapses in sanctions
enforcement, and also potential violations of US criminal
statutes. The report that we put out
suggests that funding streams may have contravened laws
prohibiting material support to terrorism, sanctions,
violations, fraud, and false statements, both by the grantees
and some of the grantors. Well, I appreciate the testimony
from both of you all today and for all witnesses for appearing
before the committee. Ultimately, I think what the the
chairwoman's been trying to do through these hearings is try to
ensure that American taxpayer dollars are protected and used
to the betterment of American citizens and our interests here
in our country, and they're not wasted.
And if I can just spend, Madam Chairwoman, the last 20 seconds
of my test or my my questioning today, a noting that we in our
committee should have a decorum. And the other side after our
last committee hearing, which should have been a bipartisan
issue, talking about waste, fraud and abuse within
government programs going out the door.
Shortly after that hearing, one of our committee members called
for real weapons to be brought to this political debate.
And I think that's atrocious. I think that's egregious.
And I would just like to note and I would just like to note, I
will reclaim my time. But I just like to note, Madam
Fair woman, that I think. You're not recognized, Miss
Stansbury. You're not recognized.
Time. You're spreading lies.
You're not recognized, Miss Stansbury.
So I. Will just.
I will just close by saying we should have more decorum in this
and expected, especially from the American taxpayers.
We're paying our salaries to be here.
Thank you. Thank you.
And I, I do want to agree with that.
There was a member of this committee that went on CNN and
said it's time for actual weapons to be used.
That is documented. It's on video and and we will
not tolerate that type of language and calls for violence
on this committee. I now recognize the gentleman
from Texas, Mr. Gill for 5 minutes.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and, and thank you so much for
holding this hearing today. We've heard throughout this
hearing a bit more of the same shrill calumny against President
Trump and Elon Musk that we've been hearing for months now.
But I am happy that a few of our colleagues did concede that we
need more oversight and auditing of our foreign aid.
I'd like to remind them that every time Republicans try to do
that and audit where government money is going, they try to
Stonewall us. So I hope that they will get on
board with protecting the American taxpayer.
I think as as it relates to foreign aid, to the extent that
we do engage in foreign aid, it of course should advance
American strategic geopolitical interests are commercial
interests and of course should help ameliorate major
humanitarian crises. But it ought to be rooted in in
realism, which is a a recognition that we have
strategic interests abroad that we ought to advance And and it
it not to be rooted in a rational conception of the way
the world actually is and not the way the some, you know,
leftist secular bureaucrat at USIAID believes the world should
be. I think that forcing
transgenderism and novel sexual fetishes on more traditional
cultures does not advance American interests.
It alienates the United States on the world stage.
We've also seen USAID money going to.
Oppose many of our allies abroad.
Madam Chair gave a few examples and and I'll give a few more
here. We've seen USAID money funding
efforts to influence elections in India against Prime Minister
Modi. We've seen our our ally,
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban accusing USAID of funding
left wing media outlets that are opposing him.
We've seen USAID give $12.5 million just last year to the
American Near East Refugee Agency, whose staff openly
called for violence against Jews.
The refugee agency also funded projects of the Unlimited
Friends Association, which is a proxy organization for Hamas.
This is not advancing our strategic interests abroad, and
these are not promoting American values.
Mr. Unger, I, I, I've got a couple questions for you.
You've mentioned USAID is, is representing American ideas in
action, Is that right? Yes.
Do you believe that spending over $3,000,000 for being LGBTQ
in the Caribbean is a reflection of a American ideas in action?
I believe that the programs that are focused on global health.
Yes or no is fine the. Programs that in global health
and food security and economic growth, no.
Absolutely. I'm not.
I'm talking about being LGBTQ in the Caribbean.
Is that a reflection of American values, Yes or no?
I believe the programs that you're referring to are a
reflection of. I'll take that as a yes.
What about spending $70,000 for the production of ADEI Musical
in Ireland? Is that a reflection of American
ideas in action, Yes or no? Yes, yes, OK, great.
Do you think that spending $2,000,000 for sex changes and
LGBTQ activism in Guatemala is a reflection of American values?
The information that you are using is so faulty that it
doesn't. It's it's a yes.
Or no project. No, that, that is a direct
description of what we're spending our tax dollars.
Do you think that? Sex changes and LGBTQ activism
in Guatemala, is that coming? Is an.
Accurate reflection of American values abroad.
Is that? A yes or no question is, is that
a yes or is that a yes or a no? What I want to?
Understand is this is a yes. Or no question, because they
counted the same. You're not filibuster reclaiming
my time here. We'll go to another one.
How about one and a half, $1,000,000 to promote job
opportunities for LGBTQ individuals in Serbia?
Is that a reflection of American values?
Providing job opportunities for allies around the world is
absolutely in the interest of the American people.
Well, I, I would like to maybe challenge you if you, if you
really believe in promoting DEI. I've got about 20 seconds left
then in in giving jobs to somebody based on their minority
status or the color of their skin or their sexual
proclivities, you might want to consider stepping down from your
job and giving it to somebody who has more minority.
Points than you do. Well, if that were what DEI is
about, maybe I would. But it's not what it's about.
I now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Fallon, for 5
minutes. Thank you, Madam Chair, and my
colleague from. Texas did a very good job.
You know, look, the sky is falling.
We hear it now, and not just in the DODE subcommittee, but we
hear it in oversight from our friends across the aisle.
The Sky's falling. The world's going to end.
People are going to die. And.
Then. When they say Elon Musk's name,
it's never Elon Musk. It's Elon Musk reckless gutting
of the federal workforce in this hyperbolic fear mongering is
brought to you by the American left and and you why at the I
ask and and so many others these the doge committee Dems are
using this quite frankly, sloppy, lazy, wildly inaccurate
and really boring rhetoric because this administration and
this president is finally acting boldly because so many
administrations in the past have it.
They're acting boldly and courageously to ensure wait for
it that the American taxpayers dollars fund federal workers
that work. I know that may be a radical
concept to some. Now let's set the record
straight as well. Secretary Rubio has made it sure
he'd issued a blanket waiver for any life saving aid.
I think it's $72 billion that we're spending.
Is USA the perfect vehicle for this aid?
Of course not. We found that it isn't.
And we also recognize that China has that Belt Rd. initiative and
they're licking their chops. And if we took that 72 billion
out, they're going to fill that vacuum.
So that's just hyperbolic nonsense that we do not
recognize that there's a role to play for the United States in
the federal aid space. But what we want to expose is
$164 million going to radical organizations, 122 million of it
to organizations that have aligned or at least tied to
terrorists. So, Mr. Premarack, putting aside
the massive issues of handing money over to terrorists and
such, can you speak to other ways that our foreign aid has
actually hurt United States efforts and interests to counter
the malign influences, let's say, of the Chinese Communist
Party? RA has created an international
aid dependency. It's become international
welfare. We need to put the terms on
these programs. The whole point of this is to
help strengthen countries to economically, politically, and
become strong allies. We don't do that when we
celebrate 30-40, fifty years in a place that means we are
failing. The point of our jobs is to work
ourselves out of a job. If we do that, if we focus more
on trade, if we focus more on investment, we're going to
create the kind of allies in the developing world that'll make us
stronger in combating the the China challenge.
So you're talking about self-sufficiency.
It sounds like you're talking about taking a developing nation
to help them develop and that's what they want.
What one of the countries that come to mind, for instance, that
had a successful journey over the last six years is like a
Singapore. They don't need finance, foreign
financial aid for the United States.
They're a wealthy city state now, are they not?
Yeah. Countries like South South
Korea, Taiwan and Taiwan and other benefited.
Look at them now. Wild successes.
OK, so also Miss Prank, while I got you, do you know of if USAID
sent any funding toward lab research in Wuhan, China?
Just what I've seen in the in the in the newspapers.
Yeah, I clearly we shouldn't be sending R4A to China when
they're our greatest adversary. Mr. Hunger, thank you for being
here. Just to follow up on some of the
things that Mister Gill was asking you, 2 million that and
this is a, this is a source, this is from the federal award
identification number. So this clearly happened on the
US spending.gov website, $2,000,000 to quote active
activity to strengthen trans LED organizations to deliver
transgender surgeries. Do you think that's a good use
of taxpayer money? I defer to Congress, Sir.
If Congress appropriated the money notified about the
program, I believe it's in the interest of the American.
I think it's a good use of taxpayer money.
I believe it's a good use of taxpayer money for Congress.
That is very telling. Thank you.
I yield back to the chair. Thank you.
In closing, I want to thank our
witnesses once again for their testimony today.
And Chairman Comer was going to be here but got tied up.
I now yield to the Ranking Member Stansbury for closing
remarks. All right, Well, thank you,
Madam Chairwoman. It's always a wild adventure
here in the Oversight Committee. And as the language was just
used, wild and sloppy is not what's happening in this
committee, but what Elon Musk and Donald Trump are doing to
our foreign affairs and foreign aid.
And in fact, if my friends across the aisle would like to
understand the real world impacts of the 10s of thousands
of Americans who've been laid off and the people who are
suffering around the world, go home and talk to your own
constituents. Because we know they're coming
to your town halls. And we know that behind closed
doors you are calling the president and you are calling
secretaries and telling them that your constituents are upset
and that you don't support what they're doing.
So I do not appreciate you all sitting here pretending like
this is not what you support. Okay, so let's talk a little bit
about the gutting of foreign aid and global realignment that's
happening under Trump. They're dismantling this agency.
They're withholding funds. They're firing 10s of thousands
of USAID staff. They're hacking federal data
systems. They're stranding aid workers
across the world. International food aid is
rotting in ports. American farmers has lost
millions of dollars in income and a global realignment with
our foreign adversaries, including Vladimir Putin, and is
happening at a scale unlike anything we have seen in
American history. And the administration knows
that these activities are illegal.
They know that they've overstepped their constitutional
authority. They know they're violating
statutory law. They know they're violating
appropriations law. They know that they're violating
federal employment laws. And they know that they are
reversing American foreign policy in a way that we have
never seen before. And Donald Trump and his allies
are trying to redefine the Constitution by tweet.
They're threatening federal judges, intimidating federal
employees, and yes, even members of Congress using the Department
of Justice. And why?
We don't know because not a single person from the
administration has come here to testify in this committee or in
any committee about what Doge and Elon Musk are actually
doing. And if you look at the so-called
transparency that Elon Musk put online, the math does not add
up. Talk about wild and sloppy.
Our friends across the aisle like to talk about how he's some
sort of genius, and this dude couldn't even post a simple
spreadsheet that adds up. It's literally off by 10s of
billions of dollars. You guys, That's wild.
I mean, like literally that's wild.
But in spite of this, our friends across the aisle are
acting like everything's normal. And yesterday, last night, they
passed a budget resolution that not only is going to gut
Medicaid and Medicare, but is going to make these cuts and
federal firing permanent, even though they know it is making
America less safe. And in the meantime, Elon Musk
is actually awarding himself additional federal contracts.
In fact, yesterday, it was reported that he gave himself
the FAA contract for communications.
I mean, you guys, this is like graft, waste, fraud, abuse, all
of the things, it's happening in front of your eyes, literally.
And they are breaking the law while they cozy up to our
foreign adversaries. And I know that Donald Trump
thinks that he's a king because of social media.
Of course, he keeps repeating this.
But let me say this to you, Mr. Trump, 250 years ago, the people
of this great nation rejected a reckless, abusive king, and we
won't go back. And for the thousands of federal
workers out there, the aid workers, the advocates, and the
people around the world who are impacted by these reckless and
heartless and harmful and disgusting cuts that are
impacting people across the world, know that we see you.
We stand with you. We are fighting for you.
We are in the courts, We are in Congress.
We are in our communities. And we will hold this
administration accountable and we will not abandon our allies
or our humanity. So with that, I say to all of
you, be strong. We will fight back.
I now recognize myself for closing remarks.
And threats against the president of the United States
will not be tolerated by anyone. And the math does that up.
The United States is 36 trillion in debt, 36 trillion.
There's plenty of spreadsheets that show that.
As a matter of fact, there's a debt clock.
You can watch it continue to tick upwards every single day.
In fiscal year 2024, the government spent over 1.8
trillion more than it took in. And in fiscal year 2025, the
interest on our debt is expected to exceed $1 trillion.
That's everybody. I don't care how you vote, the
American people do not want to continue to fund these
propaganda campaigns, regime changes, terrorist LGBTQ
initiatives, diversity, equity and inclusion, and other
Democrat globalist initiatives. And even if the people did want
to continue supporting such causes, guess what?
They can support them with their own money through private
donations. Because the reality is,
everyone, we are flat out broke. If the US government operated
like any other private business, which it should by the way, it
would be completely bankrupt and it would be out of business.
Last year we spent almost $2 trillion more than we took in.
the United States government is not a charity, and it is not to
be used and abused by the bureaucracy to implement the far
left's agenda and impose it on the entire world.
Again, 96% of all political contributions from USAID
employees go to Democrat Party candidates or packs.
Perhaps that's why we're hearing all the complaining.
The revolving door between USAID employees and Ng OS that receive
USAID funding is undeniable. Maybe we should consider
investigating whether USAID funding has made it back to
Democrat campaigns. Has it affected elections?
The real questions the American people deserve to know answers
to are these Why are we funding 9 out of 10 news outlets in
Ukraine? Why was former USAID
Administrator Samantha Power visiting Hungary for the purpose
of strengthening democratic institutions when Hungary is a
country that is strongly democratic and members of the EU
and NATO? Why was USAID Co funding joint
programs with George Soros's Open Society to promote radical
social agendas throughout the developing world?
Why is USAID involved in the canceling of elections in
Romania? Why is USAID involved in funding
court changes in Albania that resulted in the prosecution of
the Albanian opposition leader? Why is USAID funding censorship
laws in Brazil to silence Bolsonaro?
Why is USAID funding involved in funding the Syrian civil war?
What we have learned here today is that USAID has been used as a
tool by Democrats to brainwash the world with globalist
propaganda to force regime changes around the world.
But if USAID funded terrorism that resulted in the death of
Americans, then this committee will be making criminal
referrals. Lastly, if this is the funding
that has come from the USAID, the United States Agency for
International Development needs to be abolished.
With that and without objection, all members have 5 legislative
days within which to submit materials and additional written
questions for the witnesses, which will be forwarded to the
witnesses if there is no further business.
Without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned.
Hey, thank you so much for listening today.
I really do appreciate your support.
If you could take a second and hit the subscribe or the follow
button on whatever podcast platform that you're listening
on right now, I greatly appreciate it.
It helps out the show tremendously and you'll never
miss an episode. And each episode is about 10
minutes or less to get you caught up quickly.
And please, if you want to support the show even more, go
to patreon.com/stagezero and please take care of yourselves
and each other and I'll see you tomorrow.