[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
AMERICA LAST:
HOW FOREIGN AID UNDERMINED
U.S. INTERESTS AROUND THE WORLD
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DELIVERING ON
GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY
of the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 26, 2025
__________
Serial No. 119-9
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on: govinfo.gov
oversight.house.gov or
docs.house.gov
_______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
59-000 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman
Jim Jordan, Ohio Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia,
Mike Turner, Ohio Ranking Minority Member
Paul Gosar, Arizona Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Columbia
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Michael Cloud, Texas Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Gary Palmer, Alabama Ro Khanna, California
Clay Higgins, Louisiana Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Pete Sessions, Texas Shontel Brown, Ohio
Andy Biggs, Arizona Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
Nancy Mace, South Carolina Robert Garcia, California
Pat Fallon, Texas Maxwell Frost, Florida
Byron Donalds, Florida Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Greg Casar, Texas
William Timmons, South Carolina Jasmine Crockett, Texas
Tim Burchett, Tennessee Emily Randall, Washington
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia Suhas Subramanyam, Virginia
Lauren Boebert, Colorado Yassamin Ansari, Arizona
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida Wesley Bell, Missouri
Nick Langworthy, New York Lateefah Simon, California
Eric Burlison, Missouri Dave Min, California
Eli Crane, Arizona Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Brian Jack, Georgia Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
John McGuire, Virginia
Brandon Gill, Texas
------
Mark Marin, Staff Director
James Rust, Deputy Staff Director
Mitch Benzine, General Counsel
Peter Warren, Senior Advisor
Lisa Piraneo, Senior Professional Staff Member
Carina Bergal, Senior Counsel
Mallory Cogar, Deputy Director of Operations and Chief Clerk
Contact Number: 202-225-5074
Jamie Smith, Minority Staff Director
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
------
Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia, Chairwoman
Michael Cloud, Texas Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
Pat Fallon, Texas Ranking Minority Member
William Timmons, South Carolina Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Tim Burchett, Tennessee Columbia
Eric Burlison, Missouri Stephen Lynch, Massachussetts
Brian Jack, Georgia Robert Garcia, California
Brandon Gill, Texas Greg Casar, Texas
Jasmine Crockett, Texas
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on February 26, 2025................................ 1
Witnesses
----------
Mr. Max Primorac, Senior Research Fellow, The Margaret Thatcher
Center for Freedom, The Heritage Foundation
Oral Statement................................................... 5
Mr. Gregg Roman, Executive Director, Middle East Forum
Oral Statement................................................... 7
Mr. Tyler O'Neil, Managing Editor, The Daily Signal
Oral Statement................................................... 8
Mr. Noam Unger (Minority Witness), Director, Sustainable
Development and Resilience Initiative; Senior Fellow, Project
on Prosperity and Development, Center for Strategic and
International Studies
Oral Statement................................................... 10
Written opening statements and bios are available on the U.S.
House of Representatives Document Repository at:
docs.house.gov.
Index of Documents
----------
* Statement for the Record, by J. Brian Atwood; submitted by
Rep. Connolly.
* Article, Washington Post, ``Judge orders Trump administration
to pay millions in USAID funds''; submitted by Rep. Casar.
* X Post, WFP, ``Pause on in-kind food assistance has been
rescinded; submitted by Rep. Greene.
* Article, Associated Press, ``The USAID Shutdown Is Upending
the Livelihoods of Farmers''; submitted by Rep. Lynch.
* Article, New York Times, ``Trump's Foreign Aid Freeze Causes
Fear of HIV Resurgence in Africa''; submitted by Rep.
Stansbury.
* X Post, ``Burchett Opposes PEPFAR Funding Block - Nathaniel
Reed; submitted by Rep. Stansbury.
Documents are available at: docs.house.gov.
Additional Documents
----------
* Questions for the Record: to Mr. Unger; submitted by Rep.
Stansbury.
This document was submitted after the hearing, and may be
available upon request.
AMERICA LAST:
HOW FOREIGN AID UNDERMINED
U.S. INTERESTS AROUND THE WORLD
----------
Wednesday, February 26, 2025
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:01 a.m., in
room HVC-210, Capitol Visitor Center, Hon. Marjorie Taylor
Greene [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Greene, Cloud, Fallon, Timmons,
Burchett, Burlison, Jack, Gill, Stansbury, Lynch, Garcia,
Casar, and Crockett.
Ms. Greene. This 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 percent
of Americans, formally volunteered through an organization.
Volunteered. The government did not make them do that. They did
this on their own.
Donating and volunteering time is what supports schools and
shelters, hospitals and hotlines, food banks, and more across
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 am 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. Ninety-six percent of all political
contributions from USAID employees go to Democrat party
candidates or PACs. That is 96 percent. 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 foreign aid slush fund to prop up extremist
groups, implement censorship campaigns, and interfere in
foreign elections to force regime change around the world. That
is the dark truth about USAID. That is the story the American
people deserve to know.
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. Ninety-six percent of all political
contributions from USAID employees go to Democrat party
candidates or PACs. That is 96 percent. 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 foreign aid slush fund to prop up extremist
groups, implement censorship campaigns, and interfere in
foreign elections to force regime change around the world. That
is the dark truth about USAID. That is the story the American
people deserve to know. Not only was USAID never designed to be
what it has morphed into, but these things should never have
been funded in the first place. In Fiscal Year 2023, USAID
disbursed roughly $44 billion of aid across 160 countries and
regions around the world. During the 4 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 United Nations, particularly
the U.N. 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 hardworking 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.
Ms. Stansbury. 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 is hurting real
people, and its lead character, Mr. Musk, has not shown up in
front of this Committee or Congress at all. We also, of course,
call this the Subcommittee on DOGE, or Project 2025, as we will
see here during the Q and A.
So, today in this hearing on foreign aid, which the GOP has
called, you are going to hear all kinds of wild conspiracy
theories, accusations, and unfounded data. It is designed to
confuse and provide cover for Donald Trump and Elon Musk and
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 us talk about what happened over the last
2 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 us 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 3 years ago and
committed war crimes and atrocities against the Ukrainian
people and threatened Western democracy, but instead, the VP
said it was ``a threat from within.'' He then snubbed our
German allies, and, in an 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 claimed that
Ukraine started a war against its own people. Then on Monday,
Trump had the United States of America 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 is
truly astonishing.
That same day, which was only 2 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 U.S. 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
on 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 did
not like that either, and these investments have been totally
decimated over the last several weeks.
Over the last 5 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 ourself, 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 have
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.
Ms. Greene. January 24, 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 lifesaving services. Secretary Rubio has stated very
clearly, ``We have a blanket waiver, and anybody who tells you
they do not understand it, let me repeat it in very simple
words. If it saves lives, if it is emergency life-saving aid,
food, medicine, whatever, they have a waiver. I do not know how
much clearer we can be. And if we are not applying it, then
maybe we are not a very good organization and maybe they should
not be getting any money at all. Additionally, in-kind food
assistance purchased from U.S. farmers is continuing.''
I am pleased to introduce our witnesses today. Max Primorac
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.
Gregg 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'Neil is Senior Editor at The Daily Signal and
author of ``The Woketopus: 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 and 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 9(g), 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?
[A chorus of ayes.]
Ms. Greene. Let the record show that the witnesses answered
in the affirmative. Thank you. You may take a seat. We
appreciate you being here today and look forward to your
testimony.
Let me remind the witnesses that we will have read your
written statement, and it will appear in full in the hearing
record. Please limit your oral statement to 5 minutes. As a
reminder, please press the button on the microphone in front of
you so that it is on, and the Members can hear you. When you
begin to speak, the light in front of you will turn green.
After 4 minutes, the light will turn yellow. When the red light
comes on, your 5 minutes have expired, and we would ask that
you please wrap up.
I now recognize Max Primorac for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF MAX PRIMORAC
SENIOR RESEARCH FELLOW
THE MARGARET THATCHER CENTER FOR FREEDOM
THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION
Mr. Primorac. 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. The 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 interagency working group that
put all eight 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 and 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 United
Nations. Last summer, Mozambique and Tanzania, other large aid
recipients, conducted 2-week military exercises with the
People's Liberation Army, expanding communist China's power
projection to the lip of our Atlantic Ocean. 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 antiterrorism financing laws, but closer scrutiny is
warranted, for the problem is endemic in the aid culture.
Last year, USAID launched its $45 million global civil
society program based on the social theories of an Italian
Marxist. Literally, we have been funding radical NGOs around
the world that oppose capitalism, democracy, NATO, and
Christianity. None of this is counter China. This is counter
America. Again, a resounding ``yes'' that foreign aid can be a
powerful tool of diplomacy to promote freedom, prosperity, and
peace in accordance with our national interest and our values,
but not as an instrument of progressive imperialism.
Regardless of which party controls the executive branch,
aid officials must ensure that every single foreign aid program
can pass the Middle America smell test on waste, fraud, and
abuse. Aid decisions must always secure bipartisan support.
There must be full transparency on who is being funded and what
they are doing, not only for the Members of Congress, but
especially for the American people. The fiduciary failure of
our aid officials over the past 4 years has done tremendous
damage to foreign aids credibility and America's standing in
the world.
Thank you and I look forward to your questions.
Ms. Greene. Thank you. I now recognize Gregg Roman for his
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF GREGG ROMAN
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
MIDDLE EAST FORUM
Mr. Roman. Madam Chairman, Ranking Member, and
distinguished Members of this Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to speak today. My name is Gregg Roman, Director of
the Middle East Forum, and I am here because there is 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 do not 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 is a problem that has been brewing across
both of these 12 years of governance by a bureaucracy so
insulated, it cannot 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 have
engaged in oversight overall 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 U.S. Government. That is not pocket change.
That is a jackpot for the wrong crowd.
Terms of our specific findings. World Vision: Over the past
2 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 2 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 Jammal Trust Bank in Lebanon: The USAID dollars help
pad the pockets of this financial institution, later designated
by the U.S. Treasury Department as a terrorist sponsor for
sponsoring Hezbollah. This was no mere oversight. It points to
a broken system that handed cash to a future terror-financing
entity.
[Poster]
Mr. Roman. Some graphical evidence, behind me you will see
the Bayader and Unlimited Friends Association, two groups in
Gaza: members of the Gazan Charity, Bayader, cozy up the senior
members of the Hamas Politburo, like Abdul Salam Haniyeh, the
son of slaughtered Hamas leader, Ismail Haniyeh, credited as
one of the planners of the October 7 attacks on Israel, which
killed Israelis and American citizens. Meanwhile, UFA officials
have called for their lands to be cleansed from the so-called,
``impurity of the Jews.''
You will see behind me four images which do not just show
members of Bayader 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 cannot find anything
more disgusting, and as the Ranking Member said, we are looking
for evidence. This is not a conspiracy. This is a U.S.
Government communication.
Last, 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 is 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 does not 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 is not a glitch. It is a feature of a broken system,
and here is the kicker--it is a problem caused by bureaucrats
now threatening American interests at home and abroad. It is
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 it can in Congress'
power to not just investigate, but refer criminal actions to
the proper authorities. Thank you.
Ms. Greene. Thank you, Mr. Roman. I now recognize Tyler
O'Neil for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF TYLER O'NEIL
MANAGING EDITOR
THE DAILY SIGNAL
Mr. O'Neil. Chairwoman Greene, 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 exposed in my book, ``The Woketopus.''
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.
[Chart]
Mr. O'Neil. 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 Foundation's Network, which became Open
Society, listed USAID among its donor partners. Open Society
and USAID have jointly funded the Organized Crime and
Corruption Reporting Project, a news outlet that attacked
conservatives for--you guessed it--criticizing Soros. Open
Society and USAID also jointly fund the East-West Management
Institute. Among other things, the Institute launched court
changes in Albania that critics allege resulted in the
prosecution of Albanian opposition leader, Sali Berisha,
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 Tides Center. The Agency has
awarded more than $27 million in grants to the Center. You will
find the Tides Foundation right here. The Tides Center has
funded many of the leftist groups that influence the Biden
Administration, and it also operates its own in-house non-
profit 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 2 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.
Ms. Greene. Thank you. I now recognize myself for 5 minutes
of questions. And I will inform this Committee and the public
watching that if----
I am sorry, Mr. Unger. I apologize. I did not mean to skip
over you.
I now recognize Mr. Unger for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF NOAM UNGER
DIRECTOR
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND RESILIENCE INITIATIVE
SENIOR FELLOW
PROJECT ON PROSPERITY AND DEVELOPMENT
CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
Mr. Unger. Madam Chair, Ranking Member Stansbury,
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 nongovernmental 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
percent 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 lifesaving
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 is 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: one, a congressional notification and
review process so committees can pause or halt projects; two,
implementing partners should undergo audits and submit detailed
plans and quarterly expenditure reports; three, in highly
insecure contexts, there should be a vetting of key program
staff against classified counterterror data bases 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.
Ms. Greene. Thank you, witnesses, for your testimony.
Again, Mr. Unger, I apologize. We can also confirm the World
Programme posted that the recent pause concerning in-kind food
assistance to WFP has been rescinded. This allows for
resumption of food purchases and deliveries using USAID
Mr. Lynch. Madam Chair, are we going Member-to-Member, or
do you get to make a speech in between each witness? If you are
going to offer evidence or a testimony, it should be on the
clock.
Ms. Greene. You are not recognized. It is my time. I now
recognize myself for 5 minutes of questions. And this
Committee, based on this hearing and witness testimoneys, 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 was not fired. Mr. Primorac, is USAID supposed to be
used as leverage by a President to protect his son?
Mr. Primorac. No, we call that corruption.
Ms. Greene. Mr. Primorac, in your estimation, roughly what
percentage of USAID funding is doled out to bad actors or to
efforts that do not have the best interests of Americans in
mind?
Mr. Primorac. 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 percent to overhead charges. The Office of
Inspector General of USAID criticized the Agency for not
knowing the overhead charges being handed out to all of these
actors for $142 billion of disbursements. That is extremely
troubling.
Ms. Greene. Yes. Mr. Primorac, Samantha Power, Biden's
USAID Administrator, openly spoke about her Agency's efforts to
promote democracy around the world. In your estimation, Mr.
Primorac, is that what she was doing? If not, what was USAID
doing during the Biden Administration?
Mr. Primorac. Let me cite the Holy Father, Pope Francis,
who accused USAID and other donors of promoting ideological
colonization, pushing a radical ideology onto the developing
world that is anti-family and anti-life.
Ms. Greene. 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.
Primorac, 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?
Mr. Primorac. 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 did not happen in Brazil.
It also happened, for instance, in very pro-America Poland and
Hungary as well.
Ms. Greene. 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 masked as 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?
Mr. Roman. When the Agency is doing it according to the way
in which it represents American national security interests, it
is correct. But when it is 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.
Ms. Greene. 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 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 9 out of 10 of
Ukraine's major media outlets receive funding from USAID. Mr.
Roman, should Americans' tax dollars be funding propaganda?
Mr. Roman. When it is pro-American propaganda, yes, but if
it is supporting another regime, which is inherently anti-
American, no, it should have no involvement with that, which is
the pattern we have seen under the Biden and Obama
Administrations.
Ms. Greene. Thank you. I now recognize the Ranking Member
for 5 minutes.
Ms. Stansbury. All right. Well, thank you, everyone, and
good morning. I appreciate that this Committee is going to shed
some light on what is 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 are 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 will be happy to host you.
Let us dive into some of our questions with the witnesses
here. Mr. Primorac, 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 have 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 in Project 2025. Is that correct?
Mr. Primorac. Yes, that is correct.
Ms. Stansbury. And I was intrigued to read it last night
because there were 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. Primorac, you did not
really touch on this in your oral testimony here today, I was
surprised that in Project 2025 and some of your other
statements that one of the primary areas that you really have
disagreed with the foreign aid that has happened under other
administrations is in the areas specifically of climate change,
LGBTQ rights issues, and promoting diversity and DEI. Is that
correct?
Mr. Primorac. Yes.
Ms. Stansbury. 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?
Mr. Primorac. Climate change, sure.
Ms. Stansbury. Yes.
Mr. Primorac. Climate change is all the time. I am a big
reader of history. You can see throughout the millennia.
Ms. Stansbury. 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?
Mr. Primorac. According to USAID documents----
Ms. Stansbury. Just a ``yes'' or ``no,'' sir. You
understand that about our Pacific allies, right?
Mr. Primorac. There has been a drop of 99 percent of people
killed by climate change, a 99 percent drop.
Ms. Stansbury. Sir, the question is----
Mr. Primorac. It is not radicalism. It is pretty----
Ms. Stansbury [continuing]. 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?
Mr. Primorac. Yes. Under Trump we were helping.
Ms. Stansbury. Yes, OK. So, that is why we are involved in
providing financial assistance and foreign aid around climate
change, in addition to the fact that it is a global threat.
Now, I understand that you also, and I am not even going to use
the language here because I very much disagree with it. But I
just want to ask, you agree that LGBTQ people exist and have
human rights, right?
Mr. Primorac. Absolutely. We were doing that under Trump
One.
Ms. Stansbury. Yes. OK. And you also agree that our
governments and our institutions should look like and reflect
the people that they represent, especially overseas? It is part
of being able to actually engage with foreign governments,
correct?
Mr. Primorac. If we were to do counter-China, there is
nothing more that is alienating billions of people than pushing
an ideology that they resent.
Ms. Stansbury. Sir, I am asking you a very straightforward
question. OK, well, I see that you are not interested in
engaging in the conversation, and while we can agree to
disagree, I will 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 in
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 cannot
just call something waste, fraud, and abuse because you
disagree with it.
Now, Mr. O'Neil, it is nice to see you here, again. I am
out of time and I will circle back. Thank you.
Ms. Greene. I now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Cloud, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cloud. Thank you, Chairwoman, and I appreciate you
holding this hearing. I appreciate the witnesses for being
here. It has 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 have 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 have seen this a number of
times, especially in how foreign aid is treated. And much of
this funding, we are realizing now, as Mr. O'Neil has pointed
out, we are uncovering is the world's largest money laundering
scheme in history. And so, I would like to think that if these
kinds of things were put to a vote, that our friends on the
left would not 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 is stuff that is not
necessary, the taxpayer dollars should not be funding. But you
have got to wonder about the vitriol you see, when these things
come uncovered, 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 got to wonder how this is happening because this is not
in the legislation. There is no line item in the legislation
that has these sorts of things in it. So, Mr. Primorac, I would
like to ask you, where are these decisions being made? Who is
making the decisions about where these dollars go?
Mr. Primorac. 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----
Mr. Cloud. But it is someone in an agency somewhere, is
that right? Making the decision? How is that decision made? Who
is making that decision? Like, before the check goes out, who
is pushing the button that says send this check?
Mr. Primorac. 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.
Mr. Cloud. Contract officers. Now, are these people
elected? We hear a lot about elected officials making these
certain decisions.
Mr. Primorac. There is no one at USAID that is elected.
Mr. Cloud. Yes. So, the people sending money are not
elected officials. OK. I just wanted to clarify that. One of
the issues we have had is trying to track these dollars once it
goes out to bring accountability to it. And there is no
connection that we have 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 are working on
legislation to fix that. But one of the things that is really
disturbing is the fact that some of the money that is going out
does not even have a name of where it is going out. You talked
about that, Mr. Roman. Could you speak to that for a second? It
is to the tune of billions of dollars.
Mr. Roman. Correct, miscellaneous foreign awardees. The
issue with it is that while the individual grantees have to
apply for a vetting process that USAID conducts in terms of the
government review, including with counterterrorism data bases.
There is a self-certification process by their subgrantees. It
is as if you hire a contractor in your house to redo your
living room and he hires a bunch of robbers to take everything
out and you are left with the spades on the wall rather than
having a fully renovated room itself.
Mr. Cloud. And so, some of these dollars have been going to
support terrorist organizations.
Mr. Roman. Right.
Mr. Cloud. Taxpayer dollars going to support. Now, what
would happen if we found a business that was funneling money to
the Taliban?
Mr. Roman. 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.
Mr. Cloud. So, this is one of those cases where it is only
legal if the government is doing it?
Mr. Roman. Right. In the opening Chairman's [sic] remarks,
she was saying that this is about fraud, waste, and abuse. And
if it was anyone else, it is as if though a private citizen
cannot do this, but if a U.S. Government agency or bureaucrat
wants to give money to a terror organization, it is OK.
Mr. Cloud. Yes, I find that atrocious. I think the American
people do, too. Mr. Primorac, I want to touch on one thing
because I have talked to Ambassadors across the world, and you
hear this, we would like to align ourselves with the United
States, we do not want to align ourselves with China, but when
we are talking to China, they are talking roads, bridges,
infrastructure, those kind of things, things we traditionally
known as soft power. But right now, when they are talking to
the United States, what they have 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 do not. 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?
Ms. Greene. You can quickly answer, and we have to move on.
Mr. Primorac. I have spoken to many African officials, for
example, when they are meeting with Mr. Blinken, they were
ready to talk counter-genocide. Instead, they got to social
reengineering.
Ms. Greene. OK. I now recognize the gentleman from
Massachusetts, Mr. Lynch, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I want to
thank the witnesses for helping the Committee with its work. I
have 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 were 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 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 has been $174
billion in aid from the U.S. to Ukraine. It is important to
note that that $174 billion, most of it was spent here in the
United States and paying defense workers and defense
contractors and putting Americans to work, 90 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.''
Ms. Greene. Without objection.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Madam Chair. And what also troubles
me is that now we have a President saying that Ukraine started
the war. And Mr. Roman, you are a really smart guy. You are up
on this stuff. You pay attention. Do you seriously believe that
Zelensky invaded Russia?
Mr. Roman. No, sir.
Mr. Lynch. OK. I am just happy to hear you say that. I
expected that. But look, Members on this Committee, some are
new, so some were not there, but we all sat in classified
briefings for months where our defense and intelligence
personnel would brief us and say, OK, this week Vladimir Putin
is moving his armored divisions from Vladivostok in 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. He said, I ordered the special operation
against Ukraine, and yet, you know, we have a President saying
the opposite. He is saying that Ukraine invaded Russia. They
started the war.
You know, to restate Mr. Primorac'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
did not 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 Ukraine, and it is right for the U.S. to
stand with Ukraine and their people. I did not hear any of
that. That is 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 with, but, you know, that is Congress' role
here. That is our job, to call out the truth to power. And so,
this idea that all foreign aid should be suspended is an attack
on common sense. It is an attack on national security for this
country, and we should be more careful.
I agree. Let us look at the areas where we are spending
foreign aid in an area and in a way that is good for U.S.
national security, and let us get rid of the stuff, some of it
you have already pointed out, that is not in our central
interest. That is a good process that I would like to engage
in. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Ms. Greene. I now recognize the gentleman from South
Carolina, Mr. Timmons, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Timmons. Thank you, Madam Chair. My colleagues across
the aisle are quick to judge the actions of this President in
the early days of his Administration. But I did not hear any
loud voices from across the aisle when President Biden, who was
clearly experiencing severe cognitive decline, ran this
country. I do not even know who was running the country. I do
not know who was making the decisions. I do not know how those
decisions were being formed and who was signing the executive
orders he was engaging in. So, it is just very rich that I am
hearing all of these concerns about President Trump's efforts
to negotiate peace in Ukraine and the manner in which he is
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 us do this. It might not be the
NATO membership that they want, but it is a close second.
And so, your concern is related to those conversations,
because Zelensky originally said, yes, let us do it. That
sounds like a good deal. And then within 24 hours, he
backtracked, he did a 180, and he actually started disparaging
President Trump and he was disparaging the Administration. So,
yes, President Trump said some things and tried to create
pressure to then bring Zelensky back to the table. Whoa. Guess
what? Guess who is on the way to Washington to sign the
minerals deal?
So, I get it that my colleagues 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 did not even have time to throw stones at his attempt
to bring them to the table, secure their side of the border,
because it only took them 4 or 5 hours to come to the table.
The articles had not even gone to print yet. So, look,
President Trump is going to negotiate peace in Ukraine. He is
going to bring all of our hostages home in Gaza, and he has
deserved the leeway.
Now to the issue at hand, USAID. Seventy-seven 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 is with DEI or trans policies, whatever it is. We
are turning the page and we are not going to abdicate our
leadership in the global community. We are 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 are not going to spend $2
million on sex changes in Guatemala or $32,000 for a
transgender comic book in Peru. 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 do not give
money to terrorists?
Mr. Roman. That is a great question. So, there are four
recommendations that I would offer. 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 make a
strict screening.
Mr. Timmons. Can we get back to that? Why did we not have
transparency before?
Mr. Roman. I have, the last 18 months, been trying to get
information about a grant made to what we believe is a Hamas
affiliate and the Freedom of Information Act Department, or the
Freedom of Information Officer at USAID has stonewalled me for
the last year-and-a-half, and this goes back all the way to
2015.
Mr. Timmons. Bureaucrats think they know better.
Mr. Roman. Bureaucrats think they know better.
Mr. Timmons. Guess what? We are 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 is 2025. We have the ability to do that.
Mr. Roman, continue. What else can we do to make sure
Mr. Roman. Sure, I will go quick. I know we are limited.
Stronger accountability mechanisms, clawback provisions, stiff
penalties for misuse, criminal investigations if you go toward
the terrorism financing. The State Department under Secretary
Rubio's review must have a roadmap for better oversight. And
last, 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 3
years to get reports from contractors when they have already
committed the violation passed the statute of limitations.
Mr. Timmons. We all know sunlight is the best disinfectant
and that is the path forward, and with that, Madam Chair, I
yield back.
Ms. Greene. 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 will take a pause for a brief moment.
[Pause.]
Ms. Crockett. Point of order or a point of clarification,
Madam Chair? OK. Well, never mind.
Ms. Greene. Do you have a parliamentary inquiry?
Ms. Crockett. No. I am OK.
Ms. Greene. OK. I now recognize the gentleman from
California, Mr. Garcia, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Garcia. OK. Well, thank you to our Ranking 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 raiding the Federal agencies that we care so
much about. We know that FAA staff have been fired, making our
airspace less safe. Veterans Affairs staff have been fired,
risking services for our vets. Food Safety and Health staff
have been fired as we face a bird flu pandemic. And all of our
agencies have been thrown into chaos by Elon Musk's emails
demanding, of course, that Federal workers respond to what they
are doing in the last week, which he has now had to, of course,
retract.
[Photo]
Mr. Garcia. Now, we are here today to discuss Elon's attack
on foreign aid, which has been severe. 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 is incompetent, he is chaotic, and
he is killing programs that we rely on. We know that he is
helping to push through massive cuts to Medicaid that could rip
healthcare away from millions. He is 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 toward USAID, which we are 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 are hurting real people and damaging our national
security.
[Chart]
Mr. Garcia. 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 is less than 1
percent 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 percent 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 are attacking
the one agency that actually is able to pass an audit while we
leave untouched the agency, of course, that cannot even pass an
audit.
Last year, the Department of Defense failed to account for
63 percent of its assets. Trillions of dollars' worth of
equipment have not been properly documented, and it is 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.
[Poster]
Mr. Garcia. This, of course, we know here as the F-35
fighter jet, will cost us $2 trillion over the course of its
lifecycle. 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?
Mr. Unger. The former that you mentioned, sir.
Mr. Garcia. 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 is also way more than the entire
USAID budget. Is that right?
Mr. Unger. Yes, way more.
Mr. Garcia. 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 percent during its
program cycle. It costs $141 billion with cost overruns and
soaring program cost. Mr. Unger, you know what I am going to
ask you, but is $141 billion more than the entire USAID budget?
Mr. Unger. Absolutely.
Mr. Garcia. 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?
Mr. Unger. That is correct, for USAID's budget and the
programs that it manages.
Mr. Garcia. The Majority is not talking about Elon Musk's
programs or asking him here to testify. They are attacking
USAID and are supporting a billionaire who gets richer every
single day. We have got to push back every single time, and
with that, I yield back.
Ms. Greene. I now recognize the gentleman from Tennessee,
Mr. Burchett, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Chairlady. Mr. Roman, are you
aware that we are sending $40 million a week to the Taliban?
Mr. Roman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Burchett. Can you name other instances of foreign aid
going to terrorist organizations?
Mr. Roman. We have assisted Al-Shabaab in Somalia. There
have been instances of the Hamzi network in Sudan, Hamas,
Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, Taiba, Hezbollah, Hay'at Tahrir al-
Shams in Syria, dozens of terror organizations have received
indirect assistance from U.S. foreign aid.
Mr. Burchett. Could you elaborate a little bit on the
mechanisms in place that are to stop foreign aid from going to
terrorist groups and why are they not working, if we have any
in place?
Mr. Roman. Sure.
[Poster]
Mr. Burchett. And I would note that you notice these are
terrorist weaponry. You see some AKs, SKSs, some snipers, some
clips, some clip carriers probably made in China, and I believe
these are small land mines beside right there.
Mr. Roman. Let us use Gaza as our case study: $2.1 billion
in American taxpayers money to Gaza since October 7 when Hamas
invaded Southern Israel. USAID money was going in terms of an
emergency-use authorization to try to go to parties that USAID
formerly had a relationship with in the Gaza Strip. They had to
have been vetted by OFAC. They should have been vetted against
the special designated terrorists from the State Department and
from other Treasury organizations. Waivers were granted because
they said that there was an emergency-use to have that money
come in to Gaza, thereby jettisoning the usual, typical
screening procedures. As a result, 90 percent 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 cease-
fire was just passed a few weeks ago. There was no strategic
thought for it, and there was no screening.
Mr. Burchett. Seems like the emergency might have been
armed terrorists to kill civilians. Would that be accurate?
Mr. Roman. That is accurate, and even more than that,
Samantha Powers, the Administrator for USAID, was intent on
having Israel not be able to defend itself.
Mr. Burchett. To not be able to defend.
Mr. Roman. Correct.
Mr. Burchett. Mr. Primorac, is that correct? How do you say
that? Primorac. I got ``Burchett,'' man. Nobody gets mine
right, so do not worry about it. What is it, Primorac?
Mr. Primorac. Perfect.
Mr. Burchett. All right. Thanks, brother. How did
terrorists exploit our foreign aid loopholes?
Mr. Primorac. Well, we have a lot of our international----
Mr. Burchett. Can you pull your mic up? I am sorry.
Mr. Primorac. Can you hear me?
Mr. Burchett. Yes, sir.
Mr. Primorac. You have international NGOs and U.N. agencies
actively lobby here in Washington, DC, against vetting policies
that would prevent it. I was the senior vetting officer at
USAID, and what we did----
Mr. Burchett. Hold on a second. Did you say United Nations
is doing this? The U.N.?
Mr. Primorac. Sure. Everybody that is getting money,
lobbies here.
Mr. Burchett. That they are lobbying against us. I am
sorry, Mr. Roman, you are----
Mr. Roman. There is 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.
Mr. Burchett. So, the taxpayers fund this lobbyist who is
working against American interests?
Mr. Roman. Correct.
Mr. Burchett. Possibly killing our allies and possibly
Americans?
Mr. Roman. They bring together groups in Washington that
oversees work with groups that kill Americans.
Mr. Burchett. Yes, I do not need a flow chart to show that.
I appreciate it. Do you think USAID programs have been aligned
with the national security interest of the U.S.?
Mr. Primorac. No, they have not. They have actually helped
China.
Mr. Burchett. Mr. Roman?
Mr. Roman. No.
Mr. Burchett. OK. How do these programs compromise our
national security, Mr. Primorac?
Mr. Primorac. They actually push much of the world toward
China on the green energy agenda. They push ordinary people,
billions of people, toward China because of the resentment
caused by our social re-engineering.
Mr. Burchett. Are we being lobbied by these pro-communist
China groups currently?
Mr. Primorac. Well, a lot of these countries do not even
have to lobby because they get the money anyway, like South
Africa.
Mr. Roman. Yes, and, in fact, these lobbyists have come to
the House and have tried to kill legislation, like H.R. 160,
which was meant to increase transparency in USAID's funding of
overseas organizations.
Mr. Burchett. Is that a current piece of legislation?
Mr. Roman. That is from the last session.
Mr. Burchett. Last. And give me that number again?
Mr. Roman. H.R. 160.
Mr. Burchett. And what does it do?
Mr. Roman. It was meant to give U.S. lawmakers the ability
to have higher transparency and terror financing investigations
aimed at scrutinizing extremist groups.
Mr. Burchett. Mr. Primorac?
Mr. Primorac. We had a regulation before we left, in the
last Administration, that anybody who touches money in
countries where there are terrorists, those names have to go
through terrorist data bases, that was overturned by Biden.
Mr. Burchett. Overturned by Biden. Chairlady, currently I
have 5 seconds, but I wanted to mention something. There is a
lot of rhetoric used on this Committee, and I would urge my
friends on both sides of the aisle, let us stick to the actual
information. I have received death threats and I know the
Chairlady has, and it needs to stop. We need to tone it down.
Thank you, Chairlady, and thank you.
Ms. Greene. Thank you, Mr. Burchett.
Ms. Stansbury. Madam Chairwoman, I would 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 is in the room, if he would 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 numerous
reports here that these waivers may exist, but they are not
being enforced. And there are thousands of Federal aid workers
across the world right now that are stranded, as well as
international aid that is sitting in ports and docks.
Ms. Greene. If you have the documentation, without
objection.
Mr. Burchett. I am not sure if my name was besmirched. Am I
allowed to respond or not? It is fine either way.
Ms. Stansbury. No, no. It is just a report. I am not
besmirching.
Mr. Burchett. OK. But anybody that works for the President
that goes against what he says, he has a right to fire them.
So, thank you.
Ms. Greene. Absolutely. I now recognize the gentleman from
Texas, Mr. Casar, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Casar. I am going to do something that I have never
done in a congressional hearing before and that is plead for
help from the American people, plead for help from my
Republican colleagues on something that we actually all agree
on because lives are at stake right now. I am 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 is 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 lifesaving waiver.
DOGE Chairwoman Marjorie Taylor Greene started this hearing
by saying that lifesaving 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 is what that means. It means that kids are dying
and more will die tomorrow of severe acute malnutrition. If you
want nightmares, just Google ``severe acute malnutrition'' and
look at the photos. The way that healthcare workers determine
if a kid is dying of this, is they measure their bicep, and if
their bicep is less than 4.5 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 have heard today about
the waiver for lifesaving humanitarian assistance and all I am
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 am 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 have 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 did not mean to do this, that this food
needs to go out tomorrow. If you are 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. You 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.
Ms. Greene. The gentleman yields. Without objection, and I
am entering for the record posts from the World Food Programme
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 hot spots that span Sudan, South Sudan, Gaza, Haiti,
and other crisis areas.''
I now recognize the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Burlison,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Burlison. 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 us call this USAID program for what it
actually is: it is a disgraceful betrayal of the American
taxpayer. It is 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 are supposedly aiding. This is not aid. It is
a shakedown of our taxpayers' courtesy of the left-wing
bureaucracy working with dark money networks that Mr. O'Neil
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 is also
detrimental to the very countries that the aid is supposed to
be helping, subsidized by anticompetitive energy policy. Can
you touch on the impact that this policy has?
Mr. Roman. Without being a meteorologist or climatologist
or a geologist, I cannot necessarily speak about energy, but I
can speak more largely about the sponsorship of agendas, which
are anathema to American interests abroad. Specifically, in the
report that we published about 3 weeks ago, we were finding
that there were special interests who would come to USAID
contract officers, they would make recommendations, and it was
basically the granting like a political commissar and the
Soviet Union would do to his favorite unit rather than looking
at what was actually good for the United States.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you. Mr. Primorac, 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 the electric vehicles to be adopted in Nepal. My question
to you is, is USAID a climate agency?
Mr. Primorac. They wasted a lot of money on it. I cannot
think of any other agenda that has caused as much poverty and
hunger as the climate agenda. For example, the higher energy
cost hits the poor the hardest. For poor farmers in Africa that
have to rely on natural gas-based fertilizers, it became too
expensive, so crop yields just plummeted. And these countries
at the same time were prevented from developing their own
fossil fuel industries in which they could generate the income
to finance their own social services.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you. My last question has to do with
the promotion of values outside of, really, the values of the
United States and Western culture. As a Member of Congress, I
have had diplomats from other countries come meet with me in my
office and beg us to stop using the aid that we are sending to
their country as a leverage point to force them into doing
things that 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'Neil, that jeopardized the same funding
that was supposed to be helping people with AIDS.
Mr. O'Neil. Yes. We have 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.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Greene. I now recognize the gentlelady from Texas, Ms.
Crockett, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Crockett. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to see if
we can level set because I do not 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?
Mr. Unger. Yes.
Mr. O'Neil. Yes.
Mr. Roman. Yes.
Mr. Primorac. Absolutely.
Ms. Crockett. OK. So, for the American people, because I do
not know that there has been a conversation about soft power,
but soft power is basically a 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 have taken a
butcher knife where we need a scalpel or others would just say
that we are throwing out the baby with the bath water. But
either way, we are not accomplishing our goal because, as it
has 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 chance, I am 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 are here attacking global,
democracy programs. For 6 decades, USAID has been vital in
reducing global poverty and hunger, helping to resolve health
threats, like the Ebola outbreak, which reached Dallas, where I
represent, in 2014, encountering regional threats from Russia
and China. Not only is pro-Putin President Trump threatening
economic warfare against our closest allies and partners, he is
blaming Ukraine for Russia's invasion, threatening military
force against Greenland, and starting tariff wars with Canada
and Mexico. He is 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
are 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 their backs on
American farmers, who provide nearly half of USAID's global
food assistance.
I am going to stop here really quickly because I think what
happens is that when the American people hear that we are
sending out money, they believe that we are just dropping bags
of money places, and that is not what we do, but me tell you,
China does. China does because I have sat down and I have
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 are going
to say, no, no, no. We are going to take care of our farmers.
We are going to make sure that our farmers are the ones that
are giving you the food. We are going to make sure that if you
want arms, those arms are going to come from us.
So, I want people to understand, we do not just go with
black bags and drop off bags of money like that. It is not that
simple, but I want to get to a couple of questions because I
know I am 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.
Mr. Unger. No.
Ms. Crockett. OK. I got to go.
Mr. Unger. In fact, PEPFAR was created by Republicans.
Ms. Crockett. 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?
Mr. Unger. No.
Ms. Crockett. OK. So, here is the other thing, and I do not
know if anybody knows the answer to this question. We have been
talking about USAID and trying to pretend like it is the devil,
but when we look at the numbers, is it 50 percent of our budget
that goes to USAID, Mr. Unger? Yes or no.
Mr. Unger. The money that goes to AID is less than 1 cent
if all of the Federal budget is $1.
Ms. Crockett. Thank you. It is less than 1 percent of our
budget. So, we are focusing on less than 1 percent instead of
the other 99 percent. I need the American people to wake up and
recognize and start asking questions about these other areas
such as----
Ms. Greene. The gentlelady's time has expired. I now
recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Jack, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Casar. Chairwoman, 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 Programme is owed more than
$820 million in Funds, from just this morning.
Ms. Greene. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Greene. Mr. Jack?
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 taxpayer dollars wasted over the last 20
years--$2.7 trillion. And one of the things I want to talk
about today are some of the general waste, fraud, and abuse we
have seen within the USAID program. So, if I could start with
Mr. Primorac, what was USAID's original mission and mandate,
and how has the Agency strayed from those initial priorities,
from your perspective?
Mr. Primorac. It was started in 1960's 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 engineering agenda.
Mr. Jack. 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?
Mr. Primorac. It is an aid industrial complex that refuses
to have accountability and oversight.
Mr. Jack. And, Mr. Roman, if I could ask you just to expand
upon that.
Mr. Roman. Sure. I will give you an example, the Together
Project in civic space. Islamist organizations, which work with
designated terror organizations and 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 is exposing public data
about money going to radical organizations, they are so-called
``Islamophobic.'' So, by using politically charged language,
they try to cover up their associations with terror
organizations. Then they went back to USAID, and said, look,
Congress is going to fund us now because we lobbied for
successful bills, and they got more money.
Mr. Jack. 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?
Mr. Roman. I think there is 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 is coming out of U.S.
Government coffers is traceable exactly to which organization
and subgrantee it goes to. And then if you have $1 touch one
individual, that individual or that organization has to report
back to be compared against U.S. vetting data bases before a
check is cut to them.
Mr. Jack. And if I could ask the same question to you, Mr.
Primorac, what are some steps we could take to ensure that
grant recipients do not evade some of the requirements needed?
Mr. Primorac. I think we need to have a consolidated
website where every single award and subaward is on there, but
not only Members of Congress can look at it, but the American
people who fund this can go through it. And that is the kind of
transparency and accountability that is going to force folks to
be careful what they do.
Mr. Jack. And if I can just ask, we will go back to Mr.
Roman. I really appreciate 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 have all seen the egregious spending
across the board that has been illuminated by many Members of
this Committee over the last 2 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.
Mr. Roman. There is 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 it, sometimes because they are not looking and being blind
to the issue, other times because they are intentionally
pursuing an ideological agenda that Congress did not
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.
Mr. Jack. 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 has 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 are 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 is atrocious. I think that is egregious, and I would just
like to note----
Ms. Stansbury. Madam Chairwoman, the gentleman is over his
time and also spreading false lies.
Mr. Jack. I will reclaim my time. But I would just like to
note, Madam Chairwoman----
Ms. Greene. You are not recognized, Ms. Stansbury. You are
not recognized.
Ms. Stansbury. You are out of time, and you are spreading
lies.
Ms. Greene. You are not recognized, Ms. Stansbury. Thank
you.
Mr. Jack. 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.
Ms. Greene. Thank you, and I do want to agree with that.
There was a Member of this Committee that went on CNN and said
it was time for actual weapons to be used. That is documented.
It is 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 5
minutes.
Mr. Gill. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you so
much for holding this hearing today. We have heard throughout
this hearing a bit more of the same shrill calumny against
President Trump and Elon Musk that we have been hearing for
months now, but I am happy that a few of our colleagues did
concede that we need more oversight and auditing of our foreign
aid. I would like to remind them that every time Republicans
try to do that, an 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 that some, you know, leftist, secular bureaucrat that
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 have also seen USAID money going to oppose many of our
allies abroad. Madam Chair gave a few examples, and I will give
a few more here. We have seen USAID money funding efforts to
influence elections in India against Prime Minister Modi. We
have seen our ally, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban,
accusing USAID of funding left-wing media outlets that are
opposing him. We have 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 have got a couple of questions for you. You
have mentioned USAID as representing American ideas and action.
Is that right?
Mr. Unger. Yes.
Mr. Gill. Do you believe that spending over $3 million for
being LGBTQ in the Caribbean is a reflection of American ideas
and action?
Mr. Unger. I believe that the programs that are focused on
global health----
Mr. Gill. ``Yes'' or ``no'' is fine. Yes or no?
Mr. Unger. In global health and food security and economic
growth, no, absolutely not.
Mr. Gill. I am talking about being LGBTQ in the Caribbean.
Is that a reflection of American values? Yes or no.
Mr. Unger. I believe the programs that you are referring to
are a reflection of----
Mr. Gill. I will take that as a yes. What about spending
$70,000 for the production of a DEI musical in Ireland? Is that
a reflection of American ideas and action? Yes or no?
Mr. Unger. Yes.
Mr. Gill. Yes. OK. Great. Do you think that spending $2
million for sex changes and LGBTQ activism in Guatemala is a
reflection of American values?
Mr. Unger. The information that you are using is so faulty
that it does not----
Mr. Gill. It is a ``yes'' or ``no'' question.
Mr. Unger [continuing]. Comprise USAID projects.
Mr. Gill. No, that that is a direct description of what we
are spending our tax dollars. Do you think that sex changes and
LGBTQ activism in Guatemala is an accurate reflection of
American values abroad? It is a yes or no question?
Mr. Unger. Is that coming from DOGE?
Mr. Gill. Is that a yes or a no?
Mr. Unger. What I want to understand is----
Mr. Gill. This is a yes or no question.
Mr. Unger. [continuing] Is that coming from DOGE? Because
they are counted in the same USAID program----
Mr. Gill. You are not going to filibuster. Reclaiming my
time here. We will 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?
Mr. Unger. Providing job opportunities for allies around
the world is absolutely in the interest of the American people.
Mr. Gill. Well, I would like to maybe challenge you if you
really believe in promoting DEI--I have 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.
Mr. Unger. Well, if that were what DEI is about, maybe I
would, but it is not what it is about.
Mr. Gill. My time is over. I am yielding.
Ms. Greene. I now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Fallon, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Fallon. Thank you, Madam Chair, and my colleague from
Texas did a very good job. You know, listen, the sky is
falling. We hear it now not just in the DGOE 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 then when they say Elon Musk's name, it is never Elon
Musk. It is Elon Musk. Reckless gutting of the Federal
workforce and this hyperbolic fear mongering is brought to you
by the American left. Why, I ask and so many others, the DOGE
Committee Dems are using this, quite frankly, sloppy, lazy,
wildly inaccurate, and really boring rhetoric because this
Administration and this President is finally acting boldly
because so many administrations in the past have not. They are
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 us set the record straight as well. Secretary
Rubio has made it sure. He issued a blanket waiver for any
lifesaving aid. I think it is $72 billion that we are spending.
Is USAID the perfect vehicle for this aid? Of course not. We
found that it is not, and we also recognize that China has that
Belt and Road Initiative, and they are licking their chops, and
if we took that $72 billion out, they are going to fill that
vacuum. So, that is just hyperbolic nonsense that we do not
recognize that there is a role to play for the United States in
the Federal aid space. But what we want to expose is $164
million going to radical organizations, $122 million of it to
organizations that have aligned or at least tied to terrorists.
So, Mr. Primorac, 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 us say, of the Chinese Communist Party?
Mr. Primorac. Our aid has created an international aid
dependency. It has 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 do not 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 are
going to create the kind of allies in the developing world that
will make us stronger in combating the China challenge.
Mr. Fallon. So, you are talking about self-sufficiency, it
sounds like. You are talking about taking a developing nation
and helping them develop?
Mr. Primorac. And that is what they want.
Mr. Fallon. One of the countries that comes to mind, for
instance, that had a successful journey over the last 6 years
is like a Singapore. They do not need any foreign financial aid
from the United States. They are a wealthy city-state now, are
they not?
Mr. Primorac. Yes. Countries like South Korea, Taiwan, and
other places benefited. Look at them now.
Mr. Fallon. Wild successes. OK. So also, Mr. Primorac,
while I got you, do you know if USAID sent any funding toward
lab research in Wuhan, China?
Mr. Primorac. Just what I have seen in the newspapers.
Mr. Fallon. Yes. Clearly, we should not be sending our
foreign aid to China when they are our greatest adversary. Mr.
Unger, thank you for being here. Just to follow up on some of
the things that Mr. Gill was asking you, $2 million--and this
is a source, this is from the Federal award identification
numbers, so this clearly happened on the USAspending.gov
website--$2 million to ``activity to strengthen trans-led
organizations to deliver transgender surgeries.'' Do you think
that is a good use of taxpayer money?
Mr. Unger. I defer to Congress, sir. If Congress
appropriated the money and was notified about the program, then
I believe it is in the interest of the Americans
Mr. Fallon. Mr. Unger, do you think it is a good use of
taxpayer money?
Mr. Unger. I believe it is a good use of taxpayer money for
Congress to appropriate funds.
Mr. Fallon. That is very telling. Thank you. I yield back
to the Chair. Thank you.
Ms. Greene. 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
Ranking Member Stansbury for closing remarks.
Ms. Stansbury. All right. Well, thank you, Madam
Chairwoman. It is always a wild adventure here in the Oversight
Committee, and as the language was just used, wild and sloppy
is not what is 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 have been laid off and the people who are
suffering around the world, go home and talk to your own
constituents because we know they are 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 do not support
what they are doing. So, I do not appreciate you all sitting
here pretending like this is not what you support, OK?
So, let us talk a little bit about the gutting of foreign
aid and global realignment that is happening under Trump. They
are dismantling this Agency. They are withholding funds. They
are firing tens of thousands of USAID staff. They are hacking
Federal data systems. They are 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
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 have overstepped their
constitutional authority. They know they are violating
statutory law. They know they are violating appropriations law.
They know that they are violating Federal employment laws, and
they know that they are reversing American foreign policy in a
way that we have never seen before. And Donald Trump and his
allies are trying to redefine the Constitution by tweet. They
are threatening Federal judges, intimidating Federal employees,
and, yes, even Members of Congress using the Department of
Justice, and why? We do not know because not a single person
from the Administration has come here to testify in this
Committee or in any committee about what DOGE and Elon Musk are
actually doing.
And if you look at the so-called transparency that Elon
Musk put online, the math does not add up. Talk about wild and
sloppy. Our friends across the aisle like to talk about how he
is some sort of genius, and this dude could not even post a
simple spreadsheet that adds up. It is literally off by tens of
billions of dollars. You guys, that is wild. I mean, like,
literally, that is wild. But in spite of this, our friends
across the aisle are acting like everything is 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 in 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 is 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 is a king because his social media, of course, he keeps
repeating this, but let me say this to you, Mr. Trump. Two
hundred and fifty years ago, the people of this great Nation
rejected a reckless, abusive king, and we will not 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.
Ms. Greene. 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 are plenty of spreadsheets that show that. As a matter of
fact, there is 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 is everybody. I do not care how you vote. The
American people do not want to continue to fund these
propaganda campaigns; regime changes; terrorists; LGBTQ
initiatives; diversity, equity, and inclusion; and other
Democrat globalist initiatives. And even if the people did want
to continue supporting such causes, guess what? They can
support them with their own money through private donations
because the reality is, everyone, we are flat out broke.
If the 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 U.S. 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 percent of all political contributions from USAID
employees go to Democrat Party candidates or PACs. Perhaps that
is why we are 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. Last, if
this is the funding that has come from the USAID, the United
States Agency for International Development needs to be
abolished.
With that, and without objection, all Members have 5
legislative days within which to submit materials and
additional written questions for the witnesses, which will be
forwarded to the witnesses.
If there is no further business, without objection, the
Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:58 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]