BREAKING NEWS Marjorie Taylor Greene Leads DOGE Committee Hearing On USAID
01:59:33 Share

Daredevil is born again on Disney+. Why did you stop being a vigilante? The line was crossed. Sometimes peace needs to be broken. And chaos must reign. On March 4th, the nine-episode event begins. I was raised to believe in grace. I was also raised to believe in retribution. Marvel Television's Daredevil, born again. Don't miss the two-episode premiere March 4th, only on Disney+.

Imagine what's possible when learning doesn't get in the way of life. At Capella University, our game-changing FlexPath learning format lets you set your own deadlines so you can learn at a time and pace that works for you. It's an education you can tailor to your schedule. That means you don't have to put your life on hold to pursue your professional goals. Instead, enjoy learning your way and earn your degree without missing a beat. A different future is closer than you think with Capella University. Learn more at capella.edu.

Save on Cox Internet when you add Cox Mobile and get fiber-powered internet at home and unbeatable 5G reliability on the go. So whether you're playing a game at home Yes! Cool! or attending one live Cool! you can do more without spending more. Learn how to save at cox.com slash internet. Cox Internet is connected to the premises via coaxial cable. Cox Mobile runs on the network with unbeatable 5G reliability as measured by UCLA LLC in the U.S. to H2023. Results may vary, not an endorsement. Other restrictions apply.

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 and his groundbreaking work that he's doing with his various companies, including Tesla, SpaceX, The Boring Company, Neuralink, and of course, X. And before we dive into today's episode, I wanted to share a quick insight from our show's analytics. It turns out that 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 Doge Subcommittee hearing on U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. interests 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 million Americans, almost 30% of Americans, formally volunteered through 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 EcoHealth 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 U.S. taxpayer dollars, as their party piggy bank to push their 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 PACs. That's 96%.

Not only is USAID giving $70,000 for a DEI musical in Ireland or $50,000 for transgender opera in Colombia or to entrench their left-wing ideology across the globe, USAID has been transformed into an America Last movement

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 a 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 U.S. 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 terrorists, 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 U.S. interests and counter American foreign policy goals under the guise of foreign aid. This is unacceptable, and the American people agree. Thankfully, President Trump has taken 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 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 DOJ or Project 2025, as we'll see here during the Q&A. So today, in 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 before we dive into the details, I want to zoom out and provide some critical context 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 longstanding allies and now suddenly embracing and enabling U.S. 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 addressed European leaders

and informed 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 threatened 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 Putin and repeating Russian propaganda, trying to rewrite history and falsely claim 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 U.N. 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 2,000 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 U.S. 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,

ourselves, what is really going on here, folks? Why the hell are they so hellbent 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 U.S. farmers is continuing.

I'm pleased to introduce our witnesses today. Max Primorak 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 as 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 American University and Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya.

Tyler O'Neill is senior editor at The Daily Signal and author of The Wokedopus, The Dark Money Cabal Manipulating the Federal Government. He is a writer and commentator on federal policy and 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 U.S. Department of State. Again, I want to thank all of you for being here to testify today.

Pursuant to Committee Rule 9G, the witnesses will please stand and raise their right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you are 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 five 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 four minutes, the light will turn yellow. When the red light comes on, your five minutes have expired and we would ask that you please wrap up. I now recognize Max Primorak for his opening statement.

Madam Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to testify before this very important subcommittee. The views I express 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 inter-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 BRICS. 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 two-week military exercises with the People's Liberation Army, expanding communist China's power projection to the lip of our Atlantic Ocean. Nineteen of the top 20 USAID recipients are members of China's Belt and Road Initiative. While acting Chief Operating Officer at USAID, 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 U.S. 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 interests 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 officials over the past four years has done tremendous damage to foreign aid's credibility and America's standing in the world. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

Want a website with unmatched power, speed, and control? Try Bluehost Cloud, the new web hosting plan from Bluehost. Built for WordPress creators by WordPress experts. With 100% uptime, incredible load times, and 24-7 WordPress priority support, your sites will be lightning fast with global reach. And with Bluehost Cloud, your sites can handle surges in traffic no matter how big. Plus, you automatically get daily backups and world-class security. Get started now at Bluehost.com.

Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile with a message for everyone paying big wireless way too much. Please, for the love of everything good in this world, stop. With Mint, you can get premium wireless for just $15 a month. Of course, if you enjoy overpaying, no judgments, but that's weird. Okay, one judgment. Anyway, give it a try at mintmobile.com slash switch. Upfront payment of $45 for three-month plan, equivalent to $15 per month required. Intro rate first three months only, then full price plan options available. Taxes and fees extra. See full terms at mintmobile.com.

Have you ever spotted McDonald's hot, crispy fries right as they're being scooped into the carton? And time just stands still. 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 henhouse 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. And 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. In 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 a $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 warlords, 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.

The USAID dollars helped pad the pockets of this financial institution, later designated by the U.S. 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 Bayadar 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 four images.

which don't just show members of Bayadar and UFA associating with members of Hamas, but also USAID officials, employees of the U.S. 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 a U.S. 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 in 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 a house of cards in a windstorm, like handing out cash in a dark alley and hoping it doesn't buy trouble. USAID's 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 affiliations 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 in 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 have featured 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 expose in my book, The Woke-Topus. 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 three examples of how the left's dark money network intersects with just one agency focused on foreign aid, the U.S. 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 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's spending, the Soros-founded nonprofit has a long history with USAID.

In 2001, the Soros Foundations 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 Salih Barisha, 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 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 woke elites have captured the enterprise of foreign aid. Thank you. Thank you.

I now recognize myself for five minutes of questions, and I will inform this committee and 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 five minutes. Madam Chair, Ranking Member Stansberry, distinguished members of the subcommittee, I am honored to share my views with you. They are my own and not those of my current or former employers.

I have served at USAID and the State Department in multiple roles and in non-governmental positions focused on U.S. 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 U.S. administration since World War II 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 U.S. countered communism and enhanced 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 million lives over the past couple decades. U.S. assistance has also built partnerships and economic growth, so much so that 11 of America's 15 biggest trading partners were former recipients of U.S. foreign assistance.

We are now in a period of renewed geostrategic competition. China has been vying with the U.S. for partnerships across the global south, inking deals where it can. China can and will fill soft power voids left by the U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S.-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 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 purchased 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: 1. A 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. 3. In highly insecure contexts, 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 this 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. U.S.A.I.D. Madam Chair, are we going member to member, or do you get to make a speech in between 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 five 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, Viktor Shokin, was investigating Burisma for corruption. Biden threatened and is on video to withhold $1 billion of USAID grant to Ukraine if Shokin wasn't fired. Mr. Primarak, is USAID supposed to be used as leverage by a president to protect his son? No, we call that corruption.

Mr. Primarek, 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 hard work of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Senator Joni Ernst, that USAID has been paying out over 50% to overhead charges. The Office of Inspector General of USAID

criticize 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. Permarack, Samantha Power...

Biden's USAID administrator openly spoke about her agency's efforts to promote democracy around the world. In your estimation, Mr. Primerak, is that what she was doing? If not, 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 movement

ideology onto the developing world that is anti-family and anti-life. It has been asserted that USAID spent tens of millions of American taxpayer dollars to promote propaganda in Brazil in the lead up to the Bolsonaro Lula election in 2022. It has been claimed that this funding was used to pass censorship laws and silence Bolsonaro's online presence.

and even bar him from running for office in the future. Mr. Primerak, can you offer any insight into these allegations or at least comment on whether the U.S. 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 Brazil. It also happened, for instance, in very pro-America Poland and Hungary as well.

One of the most extensive examples of 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 USAID's financial trails documented in Congressional budget reports and criticized by Syrian officials as interference masks its 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. Mm-hmm.

In 2014, during the Euromaidan uprising in Ukraine, which led to the ousting of President Viktor Yanukovych, USAID is estimated to have spent billions of dollars on civil society initiatives that were allegedly designed to destabilize Ukraine.

the pro-Russian government. USAID specifically funded NGOs and media outlets that amplified the anti-Yanukovych sentiment in an effort to align Ukraine more closely with the West. We also know that nine 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 five 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. Musk, 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. Primrak, 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 who 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 U.S. 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 recognize that, Mr. Pomerack, you didn't really touch on this in your oral testimony here today, I was surprised

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 in DEI. Is that correct?

Yes. Yes. And although you did not testify as much today here about these issues, I want to just make sure 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 document, you understand about our Pacific allies of people killed by climate change. Ninety nine percent drop. So the question is, 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. Okay, 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 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 1. 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 is alienating billions of people than pushing an ideology that they resent.

Okay. Well, 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. Nope.

I am out of time and I will circle back. Thank you. I now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Cloud, for five minutes. Thank you, Sharon Women, 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 history. And so I would like to think that if 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 transgender operas in other countries or to send people to Paris Fashion Week and the like. 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 shouldn't be funding. But you've 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 NGOs 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've 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. Primack, I'd like to ask you, where are these decisions being made? Who's making the decisions about where these dollars go?

This is a combination of cooperation between the Congress 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 someone in an agency somewhere. Is that right? Making the decision at a 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 starts with the administrator, goes down to the bureau level and the office level. But in the end, contract officers have to make sure at the Office of Acquisition Procurement that these are following U.S. laws and the policies of the president. 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 people sending money are not elected officials. OK, just wanted to clarify that. One of the issues we've had is trying to track this dollars once it goes out to bring accountability to it. 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 or the contract money is going out. We're working on legislation 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, Mr. Roman. Could you speak to that for a second? It's to the tune of billions of dollars. Correct.

Correct. Miscellaneous foreign awardees. The issue with it is, is that while the individual grantees have to apply for a vetting process that USAID conducts in terms of a government review, including with counterterrorism databases, there's a self-certification process by their subgrantees.

It's as if though you hire a contractor has to redo your living room and he are so much 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 so some of these dollars have been going to support terrorist organizations right and taxpayer dollars going to 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 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, though, a private citizen can't do this. But if a U.S. 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. Prubrack, I want to touch on one thing because 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 gotten 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 even as I talk to pastors across our country who are working to send millions into missionaries, their eyes in 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 spoken to many 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 five 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 wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan. And in the midst of that, members of this committee, I was in the lead because I was chair of the National Security Subcommittee.

We went to Iraq and Afghanistan and we vetted some of the billions of dollars that the president spent over there. Some of it was wisely spent in the best interest of protecting our sons and daughters in uniform. Others, purely wasted, that I think fell into the hands of our enemies. I think that has been true of every administration that has tried as they might to protect

to strengthen America's national security by investments abroad. I do want to say that 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 aid from the U.S. 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. Ninety percent of that on the defense side. And then when you look at 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 would like to ask for unanimous consent just to submit this article from the Associated Press entitled The USAID Shutdown is Upending the Livelihoods of Farmers and Other Americans. Without objection. Thank you, Madam Chair. So and what also troubles me is that now we have a president saying that Ukraine started the war.

And, Mr. Allman, you're a really smart guy. You're up on this stuff. You pay attention. 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 you say that. I expected that. But look.

Members on this committee, some are new, so some weren't there, but we all sat in classified briefings for months where our defense and intelligence personnel would brief us and say, okay, this week Vladimir Putin is moving his armored divisions from Vladivostok in eastern Russia,

4,000 miles 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 Ukraine invaded Russia. They started the war. And it's just, you know, to restate Mr. Primorak'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 U.S. 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 had instances where I agreed with George W. Bush on some things and I had plenty that 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 an attack on...

American national security for this country. And we should be more careful. I agree. Let's look at the years we're spending foreign aid in an area and in a way that is good for U.S. national security. And let's 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 five minutes. Thank you, Madam Chair. My colleagues across the aisle are quick to judge the actions of this president in 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 U.S. 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. Oh, guess who's on the way to Washington to sign the minerals deal?

So I get it that my colleagues across the aisle 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 him 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 DEI 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 million on sex changes in Guatemala or $32,000 for a transgender comic book. 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 first is no more miscellaneous listings, as we had heard from the gentleman before. We have to use public vetting processes that require complete transparency, encourage independent audits, and mandate strict screening. Why did we not have transparency before?

I have, for 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 at USCID has stonewalled me for the last year and a half. And this goes back all the way to 2015. 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 to 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. Mr.

Mr. Roman, continue. What else can we do to make sure? I'll go quick. I know we're limited. Stronger accountability mechanisms, clawback provisions, stiff penalties for misuse, criminal investigations if you go towards the terrorism financing. The State Department, under Secretary Rubio's review, must have a roadmap 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 limitations. We all know sunlight is the best disinfectant, and 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.

At LinkedIn, we know hiring is a big deal for your small business. Sometimes it can feel a little overwhelming. LinkedIn uses data that you can't find anywhere else to give you the best candidates. Also, you can feel confident you're hiring the best person for the job and even a little hiring bliss. See why 86% of small businesses who post a job on LinkedIn get a qualified candidate within a day. Post a job for free at LinkedIn.com slash achieve.

LinkedIn, your next great hire is here. The PC gave us computing power at home, the internet connected us, and mobile let us do it pretty much anywhere. Now generative AI lets us communicate with technology in our own language using our own senses. But figuring it all out when you're living through it is a totally different story. Welcome to Leading the Shift.

a new podcast for Microsoft Azure. I'm your host, Susan Etlinger. In each episode, leaders will share what they're learning to help you navigate all this change with confidence. Please join us. Listen and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance.

Do you ever find yourself playing the budgeting game? Well, with the Name Your Price tool from Progressive, you can find options that fit your budget and potentially lower your bills. Try it at Progressive.com. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and Affiliates. Price and coverage match limited by state law. Not available in all states. Point of order or point of clarification, Madam Chair. Well, never mind. Do you have a parliamentary inquiry?

No. Okay. I'm okay now. Okay. I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Garcia, for five minutes. Okay. 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 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 rating 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 health care away from millions. He's pushing tax cuts that will benefit him and his billionaire friends. And he is 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 1,500 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 F-35 fighter jet, which 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 F-35 is $183 billion over budget. Mr. Unger, which is more, the $183 billion cost overrun of the F-35 or the entire USAID budget? The former that you mentioned, sir. And this is the littoral combat ship. The Navy, by the way, thinks this is basically useless in actual combat.

could have a lifetime cost of over $100 billion, according to ProPublica. 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 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 costs. 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 USAID's budget and the programs that it manages. The majority isn't talking about Elon Musk's programs or asking him here to testify. They're attacking USAID.

and are supporting a billionaire who gets richer every single day. We've got to push back every single time. And with that, I yield back. I now recognize the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Burchett, for five minutes. Thank you, Chairlady. Mr. Roman, are you aware that we are sending $40 million a week 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, Qatayib al-Hezbollah, Hayat al-Khudr al-Sham in Syria. Dozens of terror organizations have received indirect assistance from U.S. foreign aid. Could you elaborate a little bit on the mechanisms in place 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 aks sks's some snipers some 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 terrorist 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 by way of its agents in Gaza ended up in Hamas-controlled areas. And this is ridiculous.

Essentially what the U.S. 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 itself. Correct.

Mr. Primorak, is that correct? How do you say that? Primorak? I got Burchett, man. Nobody gets mine right, so don't worry about it. What is it, Primorak? Perfect. All right. Thanks, brother. How did terrorists explore our foreign aid loopholes? Well, we have a lot of our international— Can you pull your mic up? I'm sorry. I'm—

Can you hear me? Yes, sir. You have international NGOs and U.N. agencies actively lobby here in Washington, D.C., against vetting vetting policies that would prevent it. I was the senior vetting officer at USAID. And what did you say? United Nations is doing this. You sure that 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 worked 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. Correct. 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 of the U.S.? No, they have not. They have actually helped China. Mr. Roman? No. Okay.

How do these programs compromise our national security, Mr. Premier? They actually push China. They actually push 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? A lot of these countries don't even have to lobby because they get the money anyway, like South Africa.

And in fact, these lobbyists have come to the House and they've tried to kill legislation like H.R. 160, which was meant to increase transparency in U.S. I.D.'s funding of overseas organizations. Is that a current piece of legislation? That's from the last session. And give me that number again. H.R. 160. And what does it do? It was meant to give U.S. lawmakers the ability to have higher transparency in terror financing investigations aimed at scrutinizing extremist groups. Mr. Premier.

We had a regulation before we left in the last administration that anybody who touches money in area in countries where there's terrorists Those names have to go through databases terrorist databases that was overturned by Biden overturned by bud chair lady I am currently a five 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 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 PEPFAR 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're 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, if I allowed to respond or not, it's fine either way. No, no, it's just a report. Okay, 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 five 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, a plea 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, 150,000 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 Greene 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 four and a half inches around, then that means you could die of starvation tomorrow. Think of a kid's arm fitting through this hole. Think of your kid's 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 and to 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 email. Please put politics aside. Get the food out of the warehouse. Save these kids' lives. 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 U.S. farmers with Title II 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 U.S. counterparts

and all our donors to ensure consistent, uninterrupted emergency food assistance to hunger hotspots that span Sudan, South Sudan, Gaza, Haiti, and other crisis areas. I now recognize the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Burleson, for five 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 USAID program for what it actually is. It is a disgraceful betrayal of the American taxpayer. 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 Mr. 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 U.S., but it's also detrimental to the very countries that the aid is supposed to be helping subsidize by anti-competitive energy policy. Can you touch on the impact that this policy has?

Without being a meteorologist or climatologist or 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 three 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. Pimerak, it was once quoted by Samantha Power. She declared that USAID is a climate agency. And so DOGE recently canceled 10 climate and clean energy programs, including a nearly $85 million award aimed at increasing clean energy in Africa.

Also, a $18.7 million program for electric vehicles to be adopted in Nepal. 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 costs 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. My last question

has to do with the promotion of values outside of the, really the values of the United States and Western culture. 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.

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 Mr. O'Neill, 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's dark 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. Are you back?

I now recognize the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Crockett, for five 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.

Yes, absolutely. Okay. So for the American people, because I don't know that there's been a conversation about self-power, but self-power is basically our way of 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 talk to them about the programs that we have, we talk 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, and countering regional threats from Russia and China. Not only is pro-Putin President Trump threatening economic warfare against our climate,

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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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 gonna stop here really quickly because I think what happens is that when the American people hear 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 firstborn 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 gonna say, no, no, no, we're gonna take care of our farmers. We're gonna make sure that our farmers are the ones that are giving you the food. We're gonna 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 sending 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. Is 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, FFAR was created by Republicans. It was created by Republicans. Thank you for 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. Okay. So 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, sir. The money that goes to AID is less than one cent if all of the federal budget is one dollar. Thank you. It is less than one percent of our budget. So we are focusing on less than one percent instead of the other ninety nine percent. I need the American people to wake up and recognize and start asking questions about these other areas such as the gentle lady's time has expired. I now recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Jack, for five 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 U.N. World Food Program is owed more than $820 million in funds from just this morning. Without objection, so ordered. Mr. 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 is

are some of the general waste, fraud, and abuse we've seen within the USAID program. So if I could start with Mr. Primarak, what was USAID's original mission and mandate, and how has 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 natural disasters, did a good job, helped to integrate former Warsaw Pact countries

as allies of the United States did a good job during the Clinton administration, but especially afterwards in the Obama administration, and it went full scale under the Biden administration, started pushing a social reengineering agenda. And if I can speak to that for a moment, what would you say are the main deficiencies in USAID's vetting and oversight process that has led to this waste, fraud, and abuse?

It's an aid industrial complex 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 in 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 '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-linked 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 touch one individual, that individual or that organization has to report back to be compared against U.S. vetting databases before a check is cut to them. And if I could ask the same question to you, Mr. Primarack, what are some steps we could take to ensure the grant recipients don't evade some of the requirements needed?

I think we need to have a consolidated website where every single award and sub-award is on there, where 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 appreciated that example with what time I have left. Could you offer any other examples of mechanisms by which

entities evaded transparency requirements, something that 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 into the record to the extent you could share. There's a bifurcation of the problem. One is the organizations which are abusing U.S. taxpayer dollars, but the second is the bureaucrats who are allowing them to get away with

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 authorize. 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 U.S. 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 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 could just spend, Madam Chairwoman, the last 20 seconds of my questioning today 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'd just like to note, Madam Chairwoman, that I think.

You're not recognized, Ms. Stansbury. You're not recognized. You're spreading lies. You're not recognized, Ms. Stansbury. So I will just close by saying we should have more decorum in this and expect it, especially from the American taxpayers who are paying our salaries to be here. Thank you.

Thank you. And 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 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 five minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, 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 efforts.

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 it relates to foreign aid, to the extent that we do engage in foreign aid, it of course should advance American strategic geopolitical interests, our commercial interests, and of course should help ameliorate major humanitarian crises.

But it ought to be rooted in realism, which is a recognition that we have strategic interests abroad that we ought to advance. And it ought to be rooted in a rational conception of the way the world actually is and not the way some leftist secular bureaucrat at USAID 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 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 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've got a couple of questions for you. You've mentioned USAID is representing American ideas in action. Is that right? Yes. Do you believe that spending over $3 million for being LGBTQ in the Caribbean is a reflection of American ideas in action?

I believe that the programs that are focused on global health. Yes or no is fine.

Yes or no. The programs in global health and food security and economic growth. 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 seventy thousand dollars for the production of a D.I. musical in Ireland? Is that a reflection of American ideas in action?

Yes or no? Yes. Yes. Okay, great. Do you think that spending $2 million 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 a yes or no question. No, 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 an accurate reflection of American values abroad. Is that a yes or no question? 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 USAID program three times. You're not going to filibuster. We're claiming our time here.

We'll go to another one. How about $1.5 million 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 would like to maybe challenge you. If you really believe in promoting DEI, I've got about 20 seconds left, then...

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 five 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 Doge subcommittee, but we hear it in oversight from our friends across the aisle. The sky is falling. The world is going to end. People are going to die. And when they say Elon Musk's name, it's never Elon Musk. It's Elon Musk.

reckless gutting of the federal workforce and this hyperbolic fear-mongering is brought to you by the American left. And you, why at the, I ask 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 is

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 USAID the perfect vehicle?

For this aid? Of course not. We found that it isn't. And we also recognize that China has that Belt and Road 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.

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?

Our aid has created an international aid dependency. It's become international welfare. We need to put terms on these programs. The whole point of this is to help strengthen countries economically, politically, and become strong allies. We don't do that when we celebrate 30, 40, 50 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 will make us stronger in combating the China challenge. So you're talking about self-sufficiency, it sounds like. You're talking about taking a developing nation and helping it develop.

And that's what they want. 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 foreign financial aid from the United States. They're a wealthy city state now. Are they not? Yeah. Countries like South Korea, Taiwan and other places benefited. Look at them now. Wild successes. OK. So also, Mr. Pringler, while I got you, do you know 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 our foreign aid to China when they're our greatest adversary. Mr. Juncker, thank you for being here. Just to follow up on some of the things that Mr. Gill was asking you.

Two million, and this is a source, this is from the federal award identification numbers, so this clearly happened on the USspending.gov website. Two million dollars 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 and was notified about the program. I believe it's in the interest of the American people. 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. 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 tens 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 tens of thousands of U.S. aid staff. They're hacking federal data systems. They're stranding aid workers across the world. International food aid is rotting in ports. American farmers have lost millions of dollars in income. And a global

The level of realignment with our foreign adversaries, including Vladimir Putin, 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.

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 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 tens 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. 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 add 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

Because the reality is, everyone, we are flat out broke. If the U.S. 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 PACs. Perhaps that's why we're hearing all the complaining. The revolving door between USAID employees and NGOs 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' 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 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 five 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 this 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 slash stage zero.

And please take care of yourselves and each other. And I'll see you tomorrow.