[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
PUBLIC FUNDS, PRIVATE AGENDAS:
NGOs GONE WILD
=======================================================================
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
__________
JUNE 4, 2025
__________
Serial No. 119-30
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on: govinfo.gov
oversight.house.gov or
docs.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
60-681 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman
Jim Jordan, Ohio Vacant, Ranking Minority Member
Mike Turner, Ohio Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Paul Gosar, Arizona Columbia
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Stephen Lynch, Massachusetts
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Michael Cloud, Texas Ro Khanna, California
Gary Palmer, Alabama Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Clay Higgins, Louisiana Shontel Brown, Ohio
Pete Sessions, Texas Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
Andy Biggs, Arizona Robert Garcia, California
Nancy Mace, South Carolina Maxwell Frost, Florida
Pat Fallon, Texas Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Byron Donalds, Florida Greg Casar, Texas
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Jasmine Crockett, Texas
William Timmons, South Carolina Emily Randall, Washington
Tim Burchett, Tennessee Suhas Subramanyam, Virginia
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia Yassamin Ansari, Arizona
Lauren Boebert, Colorado Wesley Bell, Missouri
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida Lateefah Simon, California
Nick Langworthy, New York Dave Min, California
Eric Burlison, Missouri Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Eli Crane, Arizona Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
Brian Jack, Georgia
John McGuire, Virginia
Brandon Gill, Texas
------
Mark Marin, Staff Director
James Rust, Deputy Staff Director
Mitch Benzine, General Counsel
Peter Warren, Senior Advisor
Billy Grant, Professional Staff Member
Lisa Piraneo, Senior Professional Staff Member
Margaret Harker, Senior Advisor
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, Massachusetts
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 June 4, 2025..................................... 1
Witnesses
----------
Mr. Scott Walter, President, Capital Research Center
Oral Statement................................................... 6
Mr. Mark Krikorian, Executive Director, Center for Immigration
Studies
Oral Statement................................................... 8
Mr. Daniel Turner, Founder and Executive Director, Power the
Future
Oral Statement................................................... 9
Ms. Diane Yentel (Minority Witness), President and Chief
Executive Officer, National Council of Nonprofits
Oral Statement................................................... 11
Written opening statements and bios are available on the U.S.
House of Representatives Document Repository at:
docs.house.gov.
Index of Documents
----------
* Article, CBS News, ``Despite Trump's promised cuts, U.S.
spent more than $200 Billion more in first 100 days'';
submitted by Rep. Crockett.
* Article, People, ``Donald Trump Allegedly Asked Aides if Elon
Musk's DOGE Promises Were `Bulls---'''; submitted by Rep.
Crockett.
* Report, United Nations, ``Resolutions and Decisions of the
Economic and Social Council''; submitted by Rep. Gosar.
* Article, New York Times, ``Investigators See No Criminality
by E.P.A. Officials in Case on Biden-Era Grants''; submitted by
Rep. Lynch.
* Article, Washington Post, ``Trump's false claim that Stacey
Abrams headed a group that got $1.9 billion''; submitted by
Rep. Lynch.
* Article, ProPublica, ``Power Forward Inc - 990''; submitted
by Rep. Timmons.
* Statement for the Record, NAACP Legal Defense Fund; submitted
by Rep. Stansbury.
Documents are available at: docs.house.gov.
PUBLIC FUNDS, PRIVATE AGENDAS
NGOs GONE WILD
----------
Wednesday, June 4, 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 2:09 p.m.,
Room HVC-210, U.S. Capitol Visitor Center, Hon. Marjorie Taylor
Greene, [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Greene, Comer, Cloud, Fallon,
Timmons, Burchett, Burlison, Jack, Gill, Stansbury, Norton,
Lynch, Garcia, Casar, and Crockett.
Also present: Representatives Gosar, Pressley, and
Moskowitz.
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, and welcome to another DOGE Subcommittee
hearing where we will highlight more abuses of your tax
dollars. The left has funneled hundreds of billions of Federal
tax dollars through nongovernmental organizations, NGOs, to
push destructive policies and line the pockets of their friends
and allies. This NGO scheme demonstrates massive waste and
abuse of Federal resources.
Today's hearing will bring transparency for the American
people. We will expose the corrupt ties that bind left-wing
NGOs, Democrat elected officials, Democrat political
appointees, and the deep state bureaucrats who write grants and
contracts.
Corrupt backdoor deal-making has exploited the taxpayer
purse to achieve policy ends opposed by the very Americans
forced to fund them. Whether by pushing green energy scams or
facilitating the resettlement of millions of illegal aliens
into American towns and cities, the alliance between big
government and allied NGOs has been highly effective and has
been flying under the public's radar for far too long. But
today, we are going to draw back the curtain.
The scheme works in a cycle, as shown here. Democrat
administration officials work with leftist NGOs to implement
programs in a manner that ensures those NGOs receive massive
grants and contracts. The leaders of those recipient groups
then turn around and donate to Democrat political campaigns.
This intricate web of connections is how elected and appointed
Democrat officials and allied NGOs work together. Federal
agencies fund the NGOs, and the NGOs shape the agency's
behavior. It can be hard to tell where the government ends and
the NGO begins. The nonprofits essentially serve as an arm of
the government. To put it another way, if the permanent
bureaucracy is the de facto fourth branch of the government,
then these leftist NGOs are the fifth.
Our witnesses today will describe how the left has funneled
hundreds of billions of U.S. tax dollars through NGOs, discuss
the destructive policies this has enabled, and detail the
damage done to our country. So-called green energy NGOs are
among the worst offenders. They have used Federal dollars to
destabilize the U.S. power grid and energy dominance while
raising energy costs on Americans. The Biden EPA steered
billions in U.S. tax dollars to leftist climate NGOs via a $20
billion slush fund known as the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund,
GGRF. Like-minded nonprofits were enlisted to implement
President Biden's Green New Deal scam.
While we are grateful to the Trump Administration and EPA
Administrator Lee Zeldin for shutting it down and quickly
terminating these grants, further accountability is necessary.
The full Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is
investigating Biden's GGRF. We know that all the awardees are
connected to both the Biden Administration and Democratic
donors and that they sit on each other's boards in an
incestuous circle. Today, we will shine light on this dynamic.
Take, for example, who the Democrats choose to bring in as
their witnesses, someone so entrenched into the system that she
was a Director at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, a leader of a housing organization that lobbied
for more Federal spending and now a nationally renowned
nonprofit leader who donates to Democrat campaigns.
Other examples include many green NGOs that employ former
Biden Administration officials. These people wrote the rules
for this climate grift in which they now partake. As government
officials, they were paid by taxpayers to conduct the grift.
Now, taxpayers are funding the grant awards that pay their
salaries. This cash grab was so large that some nonprofits were
birthed solely to get in on the game. One newly created
nonprofit, Power Forward, received an astonishing $2 billion
from Biden's EPA, despite having just been formed.
Power Forward is now part of a network tied to Rewiring
America which employs Stacey Abrams, the twice-failed Democrat
candidate for Governor in Georgia and voting rights activist.
After all, however, she would have been a good hire given her
history of running her own nonprofit, which spent $3.2 million
on campaign resources instructing voters to support her
campaign, all of which are prohibited actions for nonprofits.
Consequently, her nonprofit was levied the largest penalty ever
imposed in Georgia's history for violating state campaign
finance laws. This is the circle of life.
Climate and energy is just one area where the entrenched
bureaucrats and political appointees have partnered with NGOs
to do the left's bidding. Illegal immigration is another.
federally funded NGOs have egregiously abused tax dollars to
fund the invasion at our southern border by providing housing,
transportation, legal services, and more to shepherd illegal
aliens across our border and settle them in our country. These
NGOs support the cartels in their mission to invade our
country. Under the guise of assisting migrants, these groups
have placed criminal networks, dangerous gangs, and human
traffickers into American towns and cities.
Think about this. The American people's hard-earned
taxpayer dollars have been used to literally import rapists,
murderers, and terrorists from around the world straight into
our communities. Where were these NGOs when 22-year-old Laken
Riley was violently murdered by an illegal? Where were these
NGOs when 12-year-old Jocelyn Nungaray was brutally raped and
murdered by one of these illegals? And where were these NGOs
when 20-year-old Kayla Hamilton was raped and strangled to
death by an illegal? Where were these NGOs over the weekend
when an illegal alien launched Molotov cocktails into a crowd
in Boulder, Colorado, intentionally injuring a dozen Americans
in an antisemitic attack? I will tell you. They were continuing
to receive taxpayer dollars to import more of these illegal
alien monsters to commit more heinous crimes against our
people.
Many Americans are familiar with the more egregious
offenders. These include Catholic Charities, which raked in
over $2 billion during Biden's 4 years, and the Lutheran
Immigration and Refugee Service, which received over $221
million in government grants in Fiscal Year 2023 alone. But
many American taxpayers are still unwittingly funding this sort
of illegal activity through the United Nations, which is the
conduit for much of the funding NGOs use to resettle in our
country.
Americans are likely unaware that their tax dollars are
funding U.N. efforts such as the Cash and Voucher program
involving 624,000 illegal aliens crossing the border just last
year. This $372 million program provides prepaid debit cards
and cash in envelopes to illegal aliens to facilitate their
movement to and through the U.S. border. The American taxpayer
is funding groups that start the migration, the groups that
show people how to cross the border by evading U.S. immigration
laws. These groups that have been bussed and flown, illegal
aliens, many of them dangerous, into America.
Whether exploiting taxpayers to push illegal immigration or
fake environmental justice, the left's NGO scheme seeks to
destroy our country and fundamentally alter the American way of
life. This ongoing waste and abuse of taxpayer resources must
end. The Trump Administration is turning the tide, and today's
hearing is intended to expedite the effort to drain these slush
funds dry. If we do not, Democrats can't wait to return to
power and continue funding their NGO friends through slush
funds and stop deportations, keep these illegal alien criminals
in our country, and, of course, fund the Green New Deal scam
again.
And with that, I yield to the Ranking Member Stansbury for
her opening statement.
Ms. Stansbury. All right. Well, good afternoon everyone.
Welcome, indeed, to the DOGE Subcommittee. It is always an
interesting journey here.
Madam Chairwoman, before we get started, I want to take a
moment to observe that this very Subcommittee was created in
January to act as the congressional tip of the spear for DOGE
and Elon Musk's efforts inside the Federal Government, which
our GOP colleagues were falling all over themselves to get in
on the action. And in fact, I do not know if you know this,
Madam Chairwoman, but one of your own GOP Members who could not
get on the Committee actually contacted me to see if I could
help because they were so desperate to participate in this
activity.
But here we are. I feel like we should play a breakup song
in the midst of the breakup of the GOP with Elon Musk and DOGE,
and yet still the zombie lurches on. And you know, I think it
is interesting that people are barely saying his name in these
halls and this Subcommittee barely has any credibility at this
point. And Elon Musk still has not appeared under oath in front
of this Committee or anybody here in Congress.
And in fact, Donald Trump himself apparently asked his own
aides this week if DOGE was--and I quote the President--
bullshit. Donald Trump asked if DOGE was bullshit. Meanwhile,
our friend, Mr. Musk, is going crazy on Twitter. We just
checked. He is still going at it. And he literally has been
tweet-storming the GOP for the last 24 hours. And he says,
``I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore. This massive,
outrageous, pork-filled congressional spending bill is a
disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it. You
know you did wrong. You know it.'' And you know what I find
interesting about his tweet is that he says, ``I'm sorry, I
just can't stand it anymore.''
And I think, you know, the American people have been there
for the last 3 1/2 months as they have dismantled the Federal
Government, as Musk and Trump and his friends here have helped
lay wake to the Federal Government, dismantling Federal
agencies, firing thousands of Federal workers, stealing your
private data, costing the Federal Government millions of
dollars. And in fact, it appears that they may have actually
cost more money than they apparently saved. So, it is hard to
take any of this seriously or with any credibility.
Musk lied about DOGE and its savings. The President and the
Speaker just this morning, once again, lied about the big
abomination of the bill and the deficit spending in it. There
was a misrepresentation of a witness in this hearing last time.
There were lies about the budget reconciliation and, yes, the
DOGE package, which was transmitted to Congress yesterday. And
I do not think I even need to comment on the wild journey of
baseless conspiracy theories that we just heard.
So, it is very clear that DOGE has made America less safe,
less secure, undermined our global and national security,
compromised our data privacy, impacted our ability to serve our
vulnerable communities, and left the government in total chaos.
And yet, many of these DOGE brothers have implanted themselves
inside of Federal agencies and are now answering directly to
the West Wing and to the Director of Office of Management and
Budget, Mr. Russell Vought, who, by the way, is testifying just
across this campus on his bill for the Fiscal Year 2026 budget,
which would eviscerate these programs.
So, I want to say, first they came for our Federal
agencies. Then they came for our judges and law firms and the
rule of law. Then they came for the free press and your freedom
of speech. Then they came for higher education and our
children. Then they came for congressional offices. And now,
here they are, coming for civil society and nonprofit
organizations.
What are nonprofit organizations? Food banks, legal aid
clinics, homeless shelters, organizations that are the glue of
our communities. In fact, right now, they are withholding a
half trillion dollars illegally from nonprofit organizations
that provide services for our communities: public safety,
health services, housing, the Big Brothers and Big Sisters of
America, Boys and Girls Club, and Habitat for Humanity. Is this
the dark money scare that we are hearing across the aisle? I
think all of us understand what these organizations do in our
communities.
But let us be clear. The actions that are happening here in
this Committee and which the Administration are trying to
execute through executive actions, through letters, and yes,
sending DOGE employees baselessly and illegally into nonprofit
organizations, are illegal. They lack moral authority, and they
lack legal authority.
The truth is simple. Neither the President nor any other
executive branch official has the power to unilaterally revoke
an organization's tax-exempt status or to use these
authoritarian tactics to try to intimidate our nonprofit and
civil society organizations. And we will dive deeper into that
topic and your rights during this hearing.
But if my colleagues across the aisle want to talk about
dark money networks, we can look no further than this very
hearing room. Because if we actually want to understand the
dark money-funded networks that are making the government run
right now, let us talk about Project 2025. The witnesses who
are here today as part of the organizations that helped to
craft it. Mr. Vought, who was at the helm as the architect of
that document, and the folks who are inside the Federal
Government right now dismantling our agencies and attacking
every aspect of our democracy. We will not stand for it.
And with that, Madam Chairwoman, I yield back.
Ms. Greene. Without objection, Representatives Gosar of
Arizona, Moskowitz of Florida, and Pressley of Massachusetts
are waived on to the Subcommittee for the purpose of
questioning the witnesses at today's committee hearing.
I am pleased to introduce our witnesses today. Scott Walter
is the President of Capital Research Center and an expert in
investigating how nonprofits spend money and get involved in
politics and advocacy.
Mark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center of
Immigration Studies and is an expert on the issues of
immigration and border security.
Daniel Turner is the Founder and Executive Director of
Power the Future and an expert in energy and environmental
issues.
Diane Yentel is the President and Chief Executive Officer
of the National Council of Nonprofits.
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 you are
about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth, so help you God?
[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 have read your
written statements, and they 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 has expired, and we would
ask that you please wrap it up quickly.
I now recognize Mr. Walter for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF SCOTT WALTER
PRESIDENT
CAPITAL RESEARCH CENTER
Mr. Walter. Thank you, Chairwoman Greene, Ranking Member
Stansbury, distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you
for the honor of testifying. I am president of the Capital
Research Center, where we study nonprofits every day.
Americans are proud of our nonprofit sector, which has long
led the world because they love real charities that actually
help people here and abroad. They do not think of the nonprofit
sector as the plaything of billionaires and politicians. Yet,
all too often, that is the reality of our nongovernmental
organizations, or NGOs.
Far too many NGOs are really BGOs, basically government
organizations, for two reasons. First, they get most of their
money from government, not citizens. Second, they serve the big
government political agenda that fights to centralize power in
Washington for the benefit of the left's preferred political
party.
From countless egregious examples, consider the Solidarity
Center. This nonprofit child of the country's largest union
federation, the AFL-CIO, is chaired by the AFL-CIO's president.
The Solidarity Center does not just boost unions. It also
champions DEI and climate justice. It is suing the current
administration because DOGE recommended its Federal gravy train
end. It has received over $86 million from the Federal
Government since 2008. Sixty-one of that $86 million was given
under President Biden, doubtless encouraged by the three
Solidarity employees who went into the Labor Department.
Solidarity receives 99 percent of its revenue from American
taxpayers. It serves the AFL-CIO, which gave 86 percent of its
2024 political donations to Democrats.
Today's Democratic witness, Diane Yentel, is yet another
powerful example of nonprofits serving big government. One of
her typical tweets attacked DOGE and defended the Vera
Institute of Justice, which in 2023 received 79 percent of its
revenues from government. It is a hard left, Soros-backed group
whose priorities oppose the views of America's Democratic
majority by advocating soft-on-crime policies and defending
illegal aliens. Its biggest vendor in its last IRS filing was
Blue State Digital, which began life as Barack Obama's digital
campaign team and now serves the entire left.
Ms. Yentel was hired by Obama at HUD, and President Biden
considered her for a Cabinet post. Her previous job was leading
the National Low-Income Housing Coalition, an NGO that
advocates for evermore Federal spending by HUD and uses
identity politics to justify its agenda.
In her current job, leading the National Council of
Nonprofits, Ms. Yentel quickly sued the Trump Administration
over budget cuts. What lawyers did she turn to? The Democracy
Forward Foundation, whose board includes President Biden's
notorious Chief of Staff, Ron Klain, and is chaired by Marc
Elias, the Democratic super-lawyer.
Ms. Yentel claims the Republican tax bill would have handed
``unchecked power to the Trump Administration to punish
nonprofit orgs that do not fall in line with its ideology by
labeling them as terrorist-supporting groups.'' Nonsense. As an
honest left-leaning law professor explained in The Chronicle of
Philanthropy, ``A despot seeking to silence nonprofits would be
weakened, not empowered by the legislation.''
No wonder nonprofit expert Bill Schambra warned that
Yentel's partisanship at a major nonprofit membership group may
erode public support for nonprofits by suggesting ``nonprofits
are just like any other major institution of American society,
fighting fiercely to maintain the status quo against necessary
reforms.''
It is understandable, though not admirable, that status quo
nonprofit leaders are scared by DOGE examining their government
funding. They will use an Urban Institute study designed to
scare you, Members of Congress, with statistics like
``government grants support nonprofits in every congressional
district.'' No one explains why it is wonderful that so many
nonprofits are as dependent on government cash as a meth addict
is on methamphetamine.
The same study stresses how larger nonprofits especially
hoover up tax dollars, but while big nonprofits are often less
effective at helping people compared to smaller neighborhood
groups, they certainly are more powerful at lobbying government
in the service of bigger government and the left. They are also
great at suing government.
This politicized pseudo-charity aimed at bloating
government and seizing political power goes back decades as
when the Obama Administration took money from Catholic
Charities and gave it to Planned Parenthood. This is a simple
ugly story of tax dollars, cronyism, and political scheming
camouflaged by invoking the moving stories of the real heroes
of America's charitable sector. Please do not fall for the sob
stories.
Ms. Greene. Thank you, Mr. Walter.
I now recognize Mr. Krikorian for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF MARK KRIKORIAN
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES
Mr. Krikorian. Thank you. During the 4 years of the Biden
Administration, the United States devoted significant taxpayer
funds to facilitating illegal immigration. There has been much
reporting about the role of NGOs in this process after the
illegal immigrants crossed into the United States, but what the
center has examined is what happened before the migrants got to
the Rio Grande, in other words, how NGOs and U.N. agencies were
paid by U.S. taxpayers to facilitate the illegal movement of
migrants through South and Central America and Mexico.
We have documented a large U.N. NGO support network from
field reporting and annual reports from this group called the
Regional Refugee and Migrant Response Plan. This network
consisted of waystations all along Latin American illegal
migration routes that made it possible for millions of foreign
nationals from as many as 180 countries to illegally get to the
U.S. border, in part funded by U.S. taxpayers. Some of these
funds were provided directly to NGOs by the State Department's
Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, or USAID. Other
funding was sent indirectly through our funding of U.N.
agencies, which then in turn funded NGOs.
This often was described as merely humanitarian assistance
to people who would travel anyway, but in reality this amounted
to a coordinated, well-funded assistance to designed to
undermine U.S. immigration laws. Starting in South America and
Central America, NGOs handed out millions of dollars' worth of
supplies designed to assist recipients in their plans to
illegally breach the borders, not just of the United States,
but of half a dozen countries along the way.
Just a couple of examples, in Colombia, in northwestern
Colombia, the Center found NGOs working in coordination with a
paramilitary drug smuggling group called Clan del Golfo, also
known as the Gaitanistas, which controlled the smuggling routes
in those areas. To get an idea of how this worked, there is a
town in northwest Colombia called Necocli, which is a major
staging area for migrants trying to cross the Gulf of Uraba to
get to the jumping-off point for trips through the Darien Gap.
Well, our researcher went to Necocli and found what amounted to
kind of a swap meet or farmer's market of NGO groups with
booths of U.N. and NGO organizations there to provide
assistance.
Just a couple of examples, the Florida-based NGO Cadena was
set up in a booth next to the Silver Spring-based Adventist
Development and Relief Agency, and there were many other U.S.-
based and overseas-based groups there. And they provided a
variety of services, assistance on how to make it through the
Darien Gap, food, dry socks, backpacks, et cetera.
When they crossed that Gulf of Uraba, they are still in
Colombia, and they get to the village of Acandi, which is where
you jump off to go to the Darien Gap. And there, the NGO U.N.
group, the camp, was in a camp where the security for the camp
was provided by this drug-smuggling gang. In other words--and
it is not clear to us, we do not have evidence of this, but it
seems likely to me that NGOs and the U.N. paid for the security
by paying this drug-smuggling gang for security for this
jumping-off point.
After they pass through Central America, they get to
southern Mexico, cross from Guatemala into southern Mexico. And
there, Tapachula is the town that is the first place you get
to. And what we found there was a large, kind of a one-stop
shop illegal immigration mall where the U.N. agencies and the
NGOs were supposed to be housing them. This was under
construction when we went last fall. And it was only one of
many similar camps. There are several in northern Mexico as
well.
Especially curious in Tapachula was an NGO that is funded
by the United Nations, which means funded by the U.S., which
provided repressed memory therapy for illegal immigrants who
had been rejected for asylum by Mexico, which they do in order
to be able to make it through Mexico without hassles. They had
been rejected. They went to the repressed memory therapy and
got a certificate that they had forgotten about the persecution
they had suffered, and now they remembered it, and so they went
to their appeal, and they got their asylum status.
So, throughout Latin America, these networks, funded in
part by U.S. taxpayers, have made this flow of illegal
immigrants possible, and yet oversight has remained absent, and
Congress has not cracked down and insisted that recipients of
funding not engage in promoting illegal immigration.
Ms. Greene. Thank you, Mr. Krikorian.
I now recognize Mr. Turner for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF DANIEL TURNER
FOUNDER AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
POWER THE FUTURE
Mr. Turner. Madam Chairman Greene, Ranking Member
Stansbury, good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to
appear before the Committee today.
Three words often heard in tandem with DOGE are waste,
fraud, and abuse, and I hope my testimony can shed light on the
third word, abuse.
I started my organization, Power the Future, to advocate
for energy workers in rural America, and it has come to light
that on the other side of that fight, the climate movement
received billions from taxpayers, and that is the abuse I wish
to highlight.
The 2022 Inflation Reduction Act set aside hundreds of
billions of dollars for the green agenda. The Environmental
Protection Agency received tens of billions. As reported by the
Washington Free Beacon, a staffer from an environmental group
called the Coalition for Green Capital named Jahai Weiss joined
the Biden EPA to direct $27 billion in green funding. For
context, $27 billion is larger than the budgets of the
Departments of Treasury, Interior, and Commerce, yet Mr. Jahai
went through no confirmation process, and his decision to
direct tens of billions to organizations of his choosing had no
congressional oversight. And conveniently, under his tenure in
this new EPA role, $5 billion was granted to his former
organization, the Coalition for Green Capital.
The abundance of green dollars created a new pernicious
mechanism, create a group for the sole purpose of getting
government grants. For example, Power Forward Communities was
only a few months old when it applied for and received nearly
$9 billion to distribute at its own discretion, and one lucky
recipient was an organization affiliated with two-time Georgia
gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams. With only $100 in the
bank, this group received $2 billion.
Yes, it is legal to create a nonprofit to get IRS
accreditation, apply for and receive government grants, but it
is fair to question the process and demand transparency. What
does the application for a $9 billion grant look like,
particularly when an organization has no staff, no history in
this space, no office, and is only a few months old? A
Department of Defense grant of this size would have layers of
transparency. A Department of Transportation grant that size
would require a bond to guarantee deliverables, yet it seems
that in the name of climate change, unvetted, unelected,
unconfirmed bureaucrats require no safeguards, and this is the
precedent of pernicious funding.
Any future President can announce a slush fund, appoint
loyalists to dole it out, and anyone can create a group to get
government billions if they know the right people, bypassing
that pesky thing called Congress.
In his recent Senate hearing, Secretary of State Rubio said
DOGE uncovered for every $1 spent at USAID, only 12 cents was
actually received in aid. The rest was spent on overhead, high
salaries, dinners, events, travel, raising awareness. You can
call it overhead. A better term is grift.
But this funding scandal is far worse in context, for at
the same time the Biden Administration was generously rewarding
climate groups with billions, they enacted the most radical
energy agenda in history, which punished the American people.
Making energy expensive made life expensive, and we saw under
the Biden Administration record high inflation, skyrocketing
price of energy, gas, utilities, food, and consumer goods. It
was bad enough to dole out billions, but to do it to the very
groups making America unaffordable was a new low even for
Washington, DC. And unless this Congress changes the laws, the
mechanisms are still in place to appropriate new funds using a
new crisis, forming new groups, skirting Congress, and ripping
off the taxpayers.
Last week, my organization sent letters to this Committee
and Attorney General Bondi calling for an investigation into
the Biden Administration use of autopen on green executive
orders, asking if Biden himself directed them, or if the staff
took leniencies, a very severe accusation, but made even more
plausible in the light of this hearing. Abuse. Abuse of the
purse, abuse of the pen, also that climate groups and their
political allies could benefit. This is the very worst of
Washington and why the American people have such little trust
in government.
For our Nation to survive, Congress must restore trust in
government, end the slush fund abuse, stop the grift, and it is
my sincere hope that my appearance here today can help begin
the process.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
Ms. Greene. Thank you, Mr. Turner.
I now recognize Ms. Yentel for her opening statement.
STATEMENT OF DIANE YENTEL
PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF NONPROFITS
Ms. Yentel. Chairwoman Greene, Ranking Member Stansbury,
and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity
to share how America's charitable nonprofits serve communities
across the country. From small towns to big cities, in every
congressional district and state, nonprofits feed, heal,
shelter, and nurture people of all walks of life and every
political persuasion. From hospitals to libraries, churches to
food banks, from veterans to school children, artists to
researchers, charitable nonprofits touch and benefit all
Americans, all our lives.
Nonprofits are local, accountable, transparent, and are
nonpartisan by law and in practice. The vast majority of
nonprofits are small to mid-sized. Ninety-two percent have
budgets of less than $1 million.
Nonprofits step in to fill gaps not met by government or
other entities alone. They show up in times of crisis,
providing disaster relief, hotlines, and safety from danger,
and they meet everyday needs in local communities, from
providing childcare and eldercare, job training, or essential
food and shelter. Simply put, the work of charitable nonprofits
improves lives and strengthens communities and the country.
Nonprofits represent the best of America, neighbors helping
neighbors. Despite this essential work, nonprofits are at risk
and under attack by this Administration and by some in
Congress. Across the country, nonprofits are having Federal
funding slashed or eliminated due to arbitrary cuts of
congressionally approved spending and through reckless and
unlawful Federal funding freezes by the Trump Administration.
These actions are causing real harm. Food banks across the
country, already struggling with high levels of need, are
serving fewer meals due to spending cuts. Nonprofit health
clinics have closed, leaving neighbors without access to
potentially life-saving care. Nonprofits focused on preventing
violence and crime have seen their budgets disappear, putting a
stop to critical work. Afterschool programs have been canceled,
and school lunch programs are squeezed. Nonprofits that serve
young mothers, respond to disasters, help address mental health
or substance use, or operate child enrichment programs face
funding shortfalls.
And the threats to nonprofits are broader than Federal
funding. Senior members of this Administration and some
witnesses here today give egregious mischaracterizations of the
work of nonprofits, even using dangerous rhetoric to vilify
nonprofits. There are repeated threats against nonprofits that
hold views that do not align with this Administration, from
statements calling for the illegal unilateral revoking of their
tax-exempt status to attempted takeovers, audits, and even
threats of civil or criminal investigations by the Federal
Government, not for any wrongdoing, but for doing work at odds
with the Administration's ideology.
The Administration's targeting of organizations and
institutions with which it disagrees is a fundamentally un-
American action and something that should concern us all. These
actions are not about government efficiency or about reform.
They are attempted censorship disguised as accountability. This
is weaponization of the Federal Government to chill dissent,
and it is wrong, whatever party is in control.
In a functioning and healthy democracy, nonprofits must be
free to identify and meet local needs without political
interference, fear of retribution, or facing punishment for
holding a different point of view from those in political
power. Nonprofits are the backbone of our country, providing
critical support to communities and saving lives. Defending and
supporting their essential work should not divide us along
political lines. It should unite us as Americans.
Thank you for the opportunity, and I look forward to your
questions.
Ms. Greene. I now recognize myself for 5 minutes of
questioning.
The American people definitely support nonprofits, but what
they do not support is corruption, waste, fraud, and abuse. In
2024, right as the Biden Administration was leaving office, the
Democrats finalized the awards that amounted to $20 billion
under its greenhouse gas reduction slush fund to launder
government funding to eight politically aligned nonprofits,
several of which were newly created solely to join in on the
massive grift. One of these awardees is Power Forward.
Mr. Turner, you have spent a lot of time diving into
leftist green NGOs. Was the NGO Power Forward just created a
couple of years ago, yes or no?
Mr. Turner. Yes.
Ms. Greene. In Fiscal Year 2023, did Power Forward report
only $100 in revenue on their 990 financial disclosure form?
Mr. Turner. Yes.
Ms. Greene. Was Power Forward slated to receive $2 billion
in Federal funding?
Mr. Turner. Yes, that is 20 million times revenue.
Ms. Greene. Is it commonplace for completely new nonprofits
with zero track record to receive a multi-billion dollar grant
from the Federal Government?
Mr. Turner. There is no private entity that would give an
organization 20 million times revenue after a few months of
creation. Only government is stupid enough to do that.
Ms. Greene. That is right. There is no business in America
that could get that loan from a bank.
Is Rewiring America part of the same NGO coalition as Power
Forward?
Mr. Turner. Part of the same coalition, yes.
Ms. Greene. Did Rewiring America hire Stacey Abrams?
Mr. Turner. She is affiliated with the organization. It is
unclear in what capacity, but yes.
Ms. Greene. Is she an energy expert?
Mr. Turner. No.
Ms. Greene. So, it is pretty eye-opening that a brand new
politically connected group got such a massive Federal grant.
Rewiring America hired Stacey Abrams, as far as we know, a
twice-failed candidate for Georgia Governor and well-known
Democrat activist, even though she has little to no knowledge
of energy policy, but the leader of Power Forward praised
Abrams for playing a pivotal role in securing these billions.
Notably, Abrams' PAC spent over $126 million on Democrat
campaigns over the last 5 years. This recirculation of taxpayer
funds literally is the Democrats' circle of life.
Mr. Krikorian, we witnessed the worst border immigration
catastrophe under the Biden Administration. It seems to me that
many immigration-oriented NGOs have double-dipped their hands
in taxpayer money. My first question is how influential were
the American taxpayer-funded NGOs at facilitating the movement
of illegal aliens to and through our country's borders?
Mr. Krikorian. Extremely influential. Now, some of this
would have happened anyway because of the Biden
Administration's invitation to mass illegal immigration, but
the invitation required some means of this happening, some
means of doing it. And so, what it did is the taxpayer money
essentially turned the illegal immigration crisis up to 11. It
would have existed otherwise, but it was significantly
magnified by this government funding.
Ms. Greene. By the Biden's Administration policies.
Mr. Krikorian. Right.
Ms. Greene. You have mentioned that the United Nations pay
psychologists to help illegal aliens reverse asylum denials on
appeal. Specifically, tax dollars go to the United Nations,
which directs and pays psychologists to help illegal aliens
unearth repressed memories of torture, persecution, and human
rights violation so that they can legally claim asylum. Is this
an intentional effort to subvert our immigration laws by
creating fake narratives for asylum seekers?
Mr. Krikorian. I cannot put myself into someone else's
head, but I cannot imagine any other plausible way to describe
it. And initially, just to be clear, they use this to get
Mexican asylum, which they use as a kind of trampoline to get
to the United States, and then present those repressed memory
documents as part of their evidence when they are in removal
proceedings as part of their asylum claims.
Ms. Greene. And do they provide legal help to apply for
asylum claims?
Mr. Krikorian. That is inside the United States, so that is
beyond the scope of my testimony here.
Ms. Greene. Thank you. Mr. Walter, you have been
investigating NGO funding sources for a long time. Do you know
of other examples of former elected or appointed officials in
the NGO sector securing significant Federal tax dollars through
grants or contracts?
Mr. Walter. Well, we have had mentioned here the $2 billion
slush fund, and of course, the OMB and HUD Director, Shaun
Donovan, has been mixed up in that. And then, of course, there
have been public reports as well about the millions of dollars
that the wife of Senator Sheldon Whitehouse has received from
NGOs whose legislation he has helped push.
Ms. Greene. Yes. Thank you. My time has expired, and thank
you all for being here.
I now recognize Ranking Member Stansbury for 5 minutes of
questions.
Ms. Stansbury. Thank you so much, Madam Chairwoman.
And I want to welcome back some of our guests here today.
Mr. Krikorian, I recognize you from last summer when you came
to testify. Welcome back.
Just want to clarify, you served on the board for Project
2025, is that correct?
Mr. Krikorian. I do not think I was on a board. We were one
of the advisors for it, but yes.
Ms. Stansbury. So, yes, you served in an advisory role on
Project 2025. I appreciate that. And Mr. Walter, I just want to
clarify a few things about Capital Research Center. This is the
organization that acted as a fiscal sponsor for Ginni Thomas'
nonprofit, correct?
Mr. Walter. For a project that she was one of many people
involved with, yes.
Ms. Stansbury. Yes. And this is Ginni Thomas, Justice
Clarence Thomas' wife. And my understanding is that there was a
donor-advised fund that was the primary donor to that funding
under fiscal sponsorship. In fact, it looks like about $400,000
was channeled through your organization. And if I am correct,
based on what I see here, the primary donors are the Koch
brothers, the Searles, the Mercers, oh, and Leonard Leo. And
some of you may recall Leonard Leo because, of course, he is at
the center of many of the big issues around Supreme Court
ethics. But also, you all may recognize him because last week
Donald Trump called him a sleazebag who probably hates America
for his interference in the judiciary and his efforts to try to
undermine what Donald Trump is trying to do. So, a very
interesting cast of characters indeed.
And Mr. Turner, as I understand it, you are a former
employee of the Koch Institute, correct?
Mr. Turner. Yes.
Ms. Stansbury. All right. So, I think, you know, these are
always very interesting hearings we have in the Oversight
Committee. We have some retreads of some witnesses who have
been here before, all of which are participants in
organizations that were involved in Project 2025 that are
funded through the same dark money networks and organizations
of the Koch brothers and Leonard Leo and the Searles and the
Mercers who fund all this stuff. Project 2025, the stuff that
is happening in front of the Supreme Court, rolling back our
rights, that helped to get, you know, over 70 Project 2025
authors placed in the Administration acting in high-level roles
right now that are bringing cases in front of the Supreme
Court, undermining our democracy, and which are attacking
organizations who are working on civil society programs.
So, I think I already said this, but I think it is very
clear what is going on here. And I want to point out that the
project that Ms. Ginni Thomas was fundraising for through
Capital Research Center, let us see, what was the direct quote,
literally was formed with the mission to attack the left, a
culture war, to wage a culture war against the left, so I think
we can see what is going on here.
But this is not a joke, right? Ms. Yentel, you are here in
your role of helping to advise nonprofit organizations and
provide institutional infrastructure. I know there has been a
number of untrue things said here today, both about your own
professional background, as well as the affiliated
organizations that help to support our small nonprofits across
the country. But I think it is really important--and this is a
message we want to drive home today--that the attacks on
nonprofit organizations that the Trump Administration is
undertaking, including trying to find executive authority to
take away tax-exempt status, are both illegal and immoral.
Would you agree?
Ms. Yentel. Excuse me. Thank you for the question. Yes, it
is illegal for the President or any member of the executive
office to direct the IRS to make any changes to the tax status
of an individual or an organization. And in fact, the law makes
clear that if the President threatens to revoke tax-exempt
status from an individual organization, they can be convicted
up to 5 years in prison.
Ms. Stansbury. And, so, could you please tell us, you know,
we want to make sure that for any nonprofit watching, because I
know there are probably hundreds if not thousands across the
country because they are deeply concerned of what might be
coming, what should nonprofits be doing to prepare if DOGE or
the Administration tries to either infiltrate or take away
their status?
Ms. Yentel. Well, nonprofits should know that that is
illegal, and they do. That is part of what we have been working
to educate nonprofits. But mostly what nonprofits should
continue to do is the incredibly important, vital work that
they do in communities and to try not to be distracted by
threats and unlawful actions by the President.
Nonprofit organizations are local, they are transparent,
accountable, they are non-partisan, and they do vital work in
communities with communities, identifying and prioritizing
local needs, and then working with the communities to meet
those needs in ways that the government and other private
entities do not.
Ms. Greene. The gentlelady's time has expired.
I now recognize the Chairman of Oversight, Mr. Comer from
Kentucky.
Chairman Comer. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Turner, I have launched an investigation, or the
Committee has, we all have, into the role of former senior
White House officials in possibly abusing the authority of
former President Joe Biden while the former President was
rapidly deteriorating mentally and physically. We will be
conducting transcribed interviews of a number of former White
House officials to understand who was really making the
decisions for President Biden.
Your group, Power the Future, has expressed concerns that
over half a dozen of the Biden Administration executive
actions, which were signed by the autopen, related to climate
policy should be deemed null and void, again, due to the fact
that they were signed by the autopen without any public comment
from President Biden confirming his knowledge of them. Now, why
is it important that the American people know the truth about
whether President Biden knowingly signed these orders making
significant and drastic shifts in our energy policy?
Mr. Turner. Thank you for the question, sir. We are looking
at this from the sense of deceit of the American people. This
is impersonation of the President. Staffers, of course, have a
lot of leniency in what they do working on behalf of the
President, but these executive orders that we identified, there
is no evidence of Joe Biden in first person in his voice as
President talking about them.
And I see some Pennsylvanians on the panel. When you ban
the export of liquid natural gas and you never get asked about
it in person, one has to wonder if Joe Biden did it or if a
staffer did it on his behalf.
Chairman Comer. You specifically expressed concern that
President Biden was not aware of that specific action to
implement the executive order pausing liquefied natural gas
permits. Now, why are you specifically concerned the President
was unaware of that specific order?
Mr. Turner. Well, there is an anecdote from earlier this
year where Speaker of the House Johnson mentioned he was in
conversation with President Biden and brought it up, and the
President said, I do not know what you are talking about. At
the time, that was understood as, wow, maybe the President's a
little worse off than we realized, but maybe two things can be
true. Maybe he really did not know what Speaker Johnson was
talking about. Maybe he had no idea he passed this executive
order. And if the President has never asked about it and he
hides from the press and there is no opportunity for him to get
asked in public about it, how do we know he actually did it?
And these are serious executive orders. This is not----
Chairman Comer. It is bizarre. You know, when President
Trump signed his executive orders, we saw him sign the
executive orders. He had a big event. You know, they were
talking about the executive orders. They said, this is what
this specific executive order is.
Mr. Turner. Correct.
Chairman Comer. We never saw any of that.
Mr. Turner. No, and lives were destroyed, sir. And when you
ban the export of liquid natural gas, there are hundreds of
thousands of men and women who work in the natural gas
industry.
Chairman Comer. Right.
Mr. Turner. Lives are destroyed. People went bankrupt----
Chairman Comer. Yes.
Mr. Turner [continuing]. Because of that, and we have no
evidence that Joe Biden himself actually ordered it.
Chairman Comer. We have not found any evidence either
that--and ironically, unlike some of the investigations we have
done in the past with respect to the former President, not many
of the colleagues on the other side of the aisle are disputing
many of the things that have come out in the Tapper book, the
things that have come out with statements like former
Transportation Secretary Buttigieg and others have said that
they were shielded from the President.
So, we look forward to having these staffers come in. Our
Committee will be conducting transcribed interviews, possibly
depositions, depending on how quickly they come in, and
hopefully, we will get the truth to the American people.
I want to switch gears and talk about the NGOs. The full
Committee has another investigation into, you know, the green
energy scam--I do not know how else to put it--known as the
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, and the NGOs that receive
significant amounts of money through it. Can you tell us a
little bit about this?
And the NGOs and the left, obviously, they advocate for
initiatives as an excuse to spend billions in local communities
but enrich themselves too. Who else benefits from these
handouts? You know, every Democrat, I know Ms. Stansbury loves
government programs, they love to spend money and create
bureaucracies, but who really benefits from programs like this
specific scam that I talked about?
Mr. Turner. The operatives aligned to these organizations,
consultancy groups, PR firms, lawyers, and it is all just an
enormous cabal. They hire each other.
Chairman Comer. That sounds like a base for one of the two
political parties.
Mr. Turner. A hundred percent.
Chairman Comer. Well, thank you very much. We look forward
to this Committee working to get the truth to the American
people and try to get spending under control. And, you know, we
are going to see if these executive orders were really
authorized by the President or if this was being done
unilaterally by some unnamed bureaucrats.
Madam Chair, thank you for this Subcommittee hearing. I
yield back.
Ms. Greene. Thank you. The gentleman yields.
And I now recognize Ms. Norton from Washington, DC.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Today's hearing is yet another attempt to rationalize the
repeated attempts by the Trump Administration to destroy the
ability of the Federal Government to address the needs of the
American people. Spending months denigrating Federal employees
and gutting the civil service is not enough for the
Administration. The President is also attacking universities,
law firms, nonprofit groups, and charities in a desperate
attempt to control civil society, silence dissent, and seize
absolute power.
Ms. Yentel, we have heard Committee Republicans and their
witnesses attempt to villainize DGOs [sic] today because they
do not want to say what they are really attacking, charitable
nonprofits. What are nonprofit organizations, and what kinds of
work do they do in local communities?
Ms. Yentel. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman.
Nonprofit organizations are local, transparent, accountable.
They are predominantly small or mid-sized. About 92 percent of
nonprofit organizations have budgets of less than $1 million,
so they are experts at stretching every dollar for the biggest
impact in communities. And they are predominantly in local
communities, working with communities to identify and
prioritize needs, and then working to meet those needs with the
communities.
Nonprofits step in to fill gaps that the Federal Government
and private entities on their own cannot meet, so often, they
partner with government to do the work that they are doing. And
they show up in times of crisis. They provide vital disaster
relief assistance. They staff mental health hotlines. They
provide safety from danger. They also show up in communities to
meet our everyday needs, from childcare to eldercare, from
libraries to food banks to providing essential shelter. So,
nonprofits really meet the needs of all Americans throughout
our lives, and virtually all of us are touched by and benefit
from nonprofit in our local community.
Ms. Norton. Ms. Yentel, are nonprofits partisan
organizations, as the Majority has tried to claim today?
Ms. Yentel. No. Nonprofit organizations are nonpartisan,
both by law and in practice.
Ms. Norton. These attempts by the Administration to make it
clear that they do not want nonprofits to provide expert
services that protect the local needs and goals of our
communities, just as they do not want a government with a
qualified nonpartisan merit-based Federal workforce. Instead,
the Administration wants a patronized system with services
provided only by and for those who share their political views.
Trump's attacks on nonprofits come while his allies in Congress
cut government services that support the most vulnerable in our
society.
Ms. Yentel, you have referred to nonprofits as America's
backbone.
Ms. Yentel. Yes.
Ms. Norton. How do nonprofit organizations fill gaps in
government services to meet local needs?
Ms. Yentel. Well, nonprofit organizations show up to meet
local needs in many ways. And the Federal Government, of course
Congress, appropriates funding, and some, not all, but some
nonprofit organizations apply for, through very rigorous
processes, to receive Federal funding, and if they are found to
be eligible, and if they are found to be able to meet the
rigorous oversight and accountability requirements to receive
those funds, they do. And then they put those dollars to good
work in local communities, meeting a whole spectrum of needs
that are identified by the community.
But it is important to know, too, that nonprofits earn
these funds from the Federal Government through the work that
they do and also have a diversified revenue source. So, about
27 percent of nonprofits receive Federal funding, earn Federal
funding for the work that they do. Those nonprofits and the
nonprofits that do not, receive their funding from a variety of
sources, all of them dedicated to meeting local needs and
working with the community to do so.
Ms. Greene. The gentlelady's time has expired.
I now recognize Mr. Cloud from Texas.
Mr. Cloud. Thank you, Chairwoman.
And I think it is important at the outset to kind of level
set on the language being used because there seems to be an
intentional attempt at creating a smokescreen about what we are
talking about today in order to confuse people. Indeed, the
Ranking Member tried to equate private donations going to
conservative organizations with taxpayer dollars going to
leftist organizations, as if that was the same thing. And even
as you talk about charitable NGOs, we are all for charitable
NGOs, and a lot of what you are saying is true about the vast
majority of NGOs. But there are 120,000 of them, as you
mentioned, and not all of them are that wonderful.
And to the point, Republicans historically, decades over
decades, have far outpaced Democrats in their charitable
giving. As a matter of fact, scripture gives a definition of
what charity is. Each of you should give exactly what you have
decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under
compulsion. God loves a cheerful giver. We are all about
charity, but charity is not given at the strong-arm mandate of
the Federal Government requiring taxpayers. That is not
charity. That is taxes. That is a completely different thing.
And, so, what we are going after today is taxpayer dollars
going to NGOs that are doing bad work. Indeed, so many of these
organizations do have a high percentage--I appreciate what you
said, Mr. Walter. You call them basically government
organizations. I have thought of them, in a sense, as quasi-
government organizations. Many of these have been stood up in a
sense because it adds one more layer away from accountability
on the taxpayer dollars.
For example, we had Secretary Mayorkas coming here claiming
plausible deniability on much of the stuff that was happening
at our border. Why? Because the dollars go to an NGO who is
doing the work, and so if they are giving out Sodexo cards to
illegal immigrants to incentivize them coming into the United
States, you know, ``I do not know anything about that. It is an
NGO doing that.'' And then when we send that through the U.N.
as another kind of filter away from accountability, it muddies
the waters even more. And so, as the Department of Government
Efficiency and the DOGE Subcommittee here, we are working to
bring transparency to this process.
One of the things I wanted to mention was Endeavors.
Endeavors was stood up as part of this illegal immigration
scheme and this entire industry that was created. Endeavors, I
think, approximately had maybe a $40 million operating budget.
And you had a gentleman by the name of Lorenzen-Strait, who was
on the Biden transition committee, who suddenly found himself
on the Endeavors board. And normally, when a government puts
out--you know, so they put out a request for proposal, and then
you are supposed to get multiple sources. Here, the government
did not even put out a request for proposal. He came and
presented a proposal and got a $530 million contract from the
Federal Government, followed by an $87 million contract, so 90
percent or more of the income was coming from the Federal
Government. To me, this ceases to be an NGO. Mr. Walter, you
spoke to that. Could you narrow down what we are talking about
here when we talk about these NGOs? How many are there that are
like this, you know, where much of their income is from
taxpayer dollars?
Mr. Walter. Shockingly, there are at least 35,000 NGOs that
receive most of their money from government. And thank you, by
the way, for mentioning that, yes, the Ranking Member attacked
a charity that supports my organization. So, I do not
understand why Ms. Yentel did not upbraid her for that.
Mr. Cloud. Well, one of the things that DOGE is uncovering,
it is shocking that this is--you would think that this would be
an issue across the line, that you have a lack of transparency
on taxpayer dollars, but it would seem that many on the left
are content with the fact that this is a feature of the system,
not a bug of the system. We are working to get that out.
Mr. Krikorian, I wanted to see if you could bring light as
to how this NGO apparatus helped enable cartels to profit and
also helped to incentivize illegal immigration into our
country.
Mr. Krikorian. What the nonprofits did, and the United
Nations, again, funded in part by the U.S. Government, was make
it possible for people to move through because these are people
without--do not have a lot of money anyway. And so, by
providing them cash, literally envelopes of cash sometimes, as
well as cash cards, food, supplies, et cetera, they made it
possible for people to move. And who were the smugglers making
money off of this? Many of them were actually drug smuggling
organizations who either just collected a toll or, in some
cases, as we saw in Colombia, were integrally part of the
smuggling operation.
So, this was--they were clearly working with these cartel
and smuggling organizations, which were enriched by this flow
of illegal immigration.
Ms. Greene. The gentleman's time has expired.
I now recognize Mr. Lynch from Massachusetts for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Madam Chair and the Ranking Member. I
would also like to thank the witnesses for their willingness to
come before the Committee and help us with our work.
Madam Chair, I just want to describe a couple of documents
that I am going to ask to have submitted into the record by
unanimous consent. One is entitled--it is a New York Times
article dated March 16. The title is, ``Investigators See No
Criminality by EPA Officials in the Case of Biden-Era Grants.''
Ms. Greene. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Lynch. I am still going to describe it. Thank you. And
the subhead says, ``A contentious investigation that questioned
the legality of EPA grants has found very little to even
suggest that government employees violated the law.''
The second is a Washington Post article entitled, ``Trump's
False Claims That Stacey Adams Headed a Group That Got $1.9
Billion.''
Ms. Greene. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you so much, Madam Chair.
And I will sum up by saying that that allegation got four
Pinocchios. All right.
So, Ms. Yentel, President Trump, Elon Musk, and DOGE have
decimated essential services, lifeline programs, and services
that millions of Americans rely on for food, for affordable
housing, and for healthcare. Just yesterday, Ranking Member
Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut of the House Appropriations
Committee reported detailed information indicating that the
Trump Administration is freezing at least $425 billion in
Federal funding, that Congress had already approved, for
communities in Democratic and Republican districts nationwide
for critical services and programs that serve all Americans.
Some of the funding that has been frozen or terminated by
the Trump Administration includes $3.8 billion frozen for
justice programs, including grants that support community
policing, cops programs; victim services, including the
Violence Against Women programs that operate nationally; also,
$770 million terminated for NIH grants that support
Alzheimer's, cancer, diabetes, and women's health research. He
also terminated $1 billion for states to support substance
abuse treatment and mental health services.
And last--this is not last but the last on my list--$6.1
billion frozen or terminated to support cutting-edge scientific
and biomedical research at higher education institutions. One
of those programs is run by Professor Joan Brugge. She has a
research team at Harvard University. She is working on early
detection protocols for ovarian cancer. One of the tough things
about ovarian cancer and why it is so deadly is that there are
no early detection methods. So, Joan Brugge actually is working
on identifying precursors that allow early detection of ovarian
cancer, which affects about 20,000 women every single year.
So, when we think about this reconciliation bill and the
rescissions that are going on here for funding for a lot of
these not-for-profits and charitable institutions, what is the
impact of that on those individual organizations and the work
that they do?
Ms. Yentel. Thank you, Congressman. All of these cuts,
these arbitrary and often unlawful, illegal cuts to
congressionally appropriated funding are doing real harm to
your constituents, to the constituents of everybody on this
Committee, and throughout Congress.
And, if I could, just for a moment to say in response to
what the previous Congressman raised, he is absolutely right
that nonprofit organizations enjoy strong bipartisan support.
And there are many Republican champions for nonprofits. I know
there are Republicans on this Committee and throughout Congress
that serve on boards of nonprofits, that volunteer their hours
for nonprofits. That is exactly right. And this is not a smoke
screen. This is who nonprofits are. And the work that they do
is essential. And when this Federal funding is cut that
nonprofits use to meet local community needs, it harms
Americans.
You mentioned the cuts to justice spending. That means
organizations that are working to prevent crime are having
their budgets slashed. We are seeing nonprofit health clinics
have to shut their doors. We are seeing food banks who are
already----
Ms. Greene. The gentleman's time has expired.
I now recognize Mr. Fallon from Texas for 5 minutes.
Mr. Fallon. Thank you, Madam Chair. I also want to
recognize that we have the Chairman of DOGE Texas, Giovanni
Capriglione, is with us today.
Ms. Yentel, you are currently the--I want to get this
right--the CEO of the National Council of Nonprofits. Am I
right?
Ms. Yentel. Yes, that is right.
Mr. Fallon. OK. And you were former president of the
National Low Income Housing Coalition?
Ms. Yentel. Correct.
Mr. Fallon. And your current job is the CEO of the National
Council of Nonprofits. Are you familiar with the nonprofit that
has been mentioned here up on the dais, the Power Forward
Communities?
Ms. Yentel. I am.
Mr. Fallon. You have, OK.
Ms. Yentel. Yes.
Mr. Fallon. And that five organizations led the Power
Forward. And one of them was--were you familiar with Rewiring
America?
Ms. Yentel. Yes.
Mr. Fallon. And do you know that Stacey Abrams was their
counsel, lead counsel?
Ms. Yentel. I believe she was an advisor, yes.
Mr. Fallon. Well, I just have it right here. It says that
she was, this is from their press release, she was their senior
counsel, OK?
Ms. Yentel. OK.
Mr. Fallon. Stacey Abrams ran for Governor of Georgia, what
party? Do you know? Are you aware?
Ms. Yentel. Yes, she is a Democrat.
Mr. Fallon. Democrat, OK. And in 2022, she was also the
Democratic candidate for Governor of Georgia?
Ms. Yentel. I think that
Mr. Fallon. OK.
Ms. Yentel. I am sure it is true if you are saying it.
Mr. Fallon. And she worked with, as we just mentioned,
Rewiring America in 2023. Power Forward had a balance of--do
you know what the balance was in 2023? It was mentioned up here
earlier.
Ms. Yentel. No.
Mr. Fallon. It was $100. And then, of course we know in
2020, are you also aware of Stacey Abrams' campaigned for Joe
Biden for President?
Ms. Yentel. If you say so.
Mr. Fallon. Yes, and she is a Democrat. So, Ms. Yentel, you
are----
Mr. Lynch. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Fallon. No, I do not have enough time. I would if you
want----
Mr. Lynch. All right.
Mr. Fallon [continuing]. To give me an extra minute.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, my friend.
Mr. Fallon. I would love to.
Mr. Lynch. OK. OK.
Mr. Fallon. Ms. Yentel, CEO of the National Council of
Nonprofits.
Ms. Yentel. Yes.
Mr. Fallon. How much did Joe Biden, his Administration,
give--Stacey Abrams campaigned for Joe Biden. How much did they
give to Power Forward?
Ms. Yentel. So, I am so glad to have a chance to address
the egregious----
Mr. Fallon. Do you know how much it was?
Ms. Yentel [continuing]. Egregious mischaracterizations.
Mr. Fallon. OK. Was it $2 billion?
Ms. Yentel. I do not know the number offhand.
Mr. Fallon. OK. It was $2 billion. OK. That is quite a bump
from a C note to $2 billion. How did the Biden Administration
justify this gift? Do you know?
Ms. Yentel. So, what happened----
Mr. Fallon. Why did they give them the money?
Ms. Yentel. Thank you. So, many of these organizations----
Mr. Fallon. Well, ma'am, do you know how--I do not have the
time.
Ms. Yentel [continuing]. That received funding----
Mr. Fallon. OK. You do not know?
Ms. Yentel. No, I would love to answer the question.
Mr. Fallon. Was it for----
Ms. Yentel. May I?
Mr. Fallon. No. Well, I am trying to help you because I do
not have enough time. Green Energy Grants?
Ms. Yentel. May I answer the question, sir?
Mr. Fallon. You got 10 seconds. Could you answer the
question? Do you know what it was for?
Ms. Yentel. These were coalitions of longstanding
organizations.
Mr. Fallon. OK. So, you are not going to answer the
question. It was for Green Energy Grants. Once Stacey Abrams
got that money, it just so happens that two other nonprofits
that she founded, Fair Count, have you ever heard of that one?
Ms. Yentel. So, I am here to support----
Mr. Fallon. Yes, yes.
Ms. Yentel [continuing]. The work of----
Mr. Fallon. Do you know what Fair Count is or not?
Ms. Yentel [continuing]. Nonprofit organizations----
Mr. Fallon. OK. You do not know.
Ms. Yentel [continuing]. And to oppose efforts----
Mr. Fallon. So, no. Madam Chair, I----
Ms. Yentel [continuing]. To target organizations----
Mr. Fallon. Madam Chair, I reclaim my time.
Ms. Yentel [continuing]. With views separate----
Mr. Fallon. Madam Chair?
Ms. Yentel [continuing]. From the Administration.
Mr. Fallon. Please freeze the time. You are here to testify
and answer questions, and you will not answer the questions.
You do not know what Fair Count is. I asked the question, do
you know or not?
Ms. Yentel. No.
Mr. Fallon. Have you ever heard of it? You have never heard
of it. OK. It is a voter mobilization group for Black voters.
That has nothing whatsoever to do with Green energy. And do you
know, it just so happens, it is a mystery of the universe, it
is a coincidence, that the president of that organization is a
gal named--let us see where her name is. Her name is Jeanine
McLean. Her middle name is Abrams because that is her maiden
name. She is Stacey Abrams' sister. It is a miracle. You want
to talk about incestuous. I mean, the Tides Center also was
running an organization called Southern Economic Advancement
Project. They got money as well, and they fund a lot of Hamas
protest groups across the country.
So, this is incestuous, Madam Chair. It is back-dealing
money laundering from nonprofits. Everyone up on this dais
supports true charitable nonprofits, not political nonprofits,
or basically government organizations, because it is funneling
money into the pockets of democratic activists, nothing more.
Case in point, Ms. Yentel, what is your total annual
compensation?
Ms. Yentel. I do not see how that is relevant. But if you
are interested, it is public information, which is----
Mr. Fallon. Well----
Ms. Yentel [continuing]. Evidence of the accountability and
transparency that nonprofits adhere to.
Mr. Fallon. Yes, your predecessor made $583,000. I suspect
you get something similar.
Ms. Yentel. I do not.
Mr. Fallon. You do not. Do you want to share?
Ms. Yentel. That is not my salary.
Mr. Fallon. OK. But that was what----
Ms. Yentel. You can Google it.
Mr. Fallon [continuing]. Your predecessor was because, as
you said----
Ms. Yentel. It is public information.
Mr. Fallon. it is publicly----
Ms. Yentel. Yes.
Mr. Fallon [continuing]. Available information.
Ms. Yentel. Yes.
Mr. Fallon. When you were the president of the, ironically,
National Low Income Housing Coalition, what was your annual
compensation?
Ms. Yentel. That is not quite right, but would you like
to----
Mr. Fallon. It was $399,000.
Ms. Yentel. Would you like me to speak to executive
salaries at nonprofits?
Mr. Fallon. It was $399,000, was it not?
Ms. Yentel. Not quite, no.
Mr. Fallon. It was not? That is what it says. You are under
oath.
Ms. Yentel. I see that it says that. That was not my
salary. Thank you.
Mr. Fallon. OK, so, all right. Well, we will check that
out.
Ms. Yentel. Please. Do.
Mr. Fallon. Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Greene. I now recognize Mr. Garcia from California.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Madam Chair.
We are obviously here for another hearing which has
literally nothing to do with government efficiency. This
Committee, of course, has talked about fencing, we have gone
after foreign aid, and now we are going after community
nonprofits, which actually help and support people. And our
Committee is doing all of this without ever once getting
testimony from Elon Musk, the head of DOGE, of which, of
course, this Committee is now named from and, of course, who is
now apparently leaving the White House as well.
Now, every Democrat on this Subcommittee voted to subpoena
Elon Musk to come here and testify and be accountable to
Congress, but that was blocked by our Republican colleagues,
which, of course, in and of itself is irresponsible and
outrageous. And you would think the Republicans on this
Committee would want Elon Musk to testify just as much as we
do.
Now, all our Republican colleagues might also want to ask
Elon Musk about this message, which he actually just posted
yesterday. Now, I am going to read this message Elon Musk
posted. It says, ``I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it
anymore. This massive, outrageous, pork-filled congressional
spending bill is a disgusting abomination.'' And I will
emphasize, ``Shame on those who voted for it. You know you did
wrong. You know it.''
Now, this was actually just yesterday he actually posted
this, which is pretty rough if you ask me. And on top of that,
I would have printed it out, but just 20 minutes ago, he posted
another message that says, ``Call your Senator, call your
Congressman. Bankrupting America is not OK. Kill the bill.''
And, of course, we know the only people who voted for this
bill are actually House Republicans, including every Republican
in this room. All these Republicans here on this Committee,
they all voted for this bill that now Elon Musk is saying
should be killed and is saying is awful. I actually agree with
Elon Musk on this. It takes healthcare away from 13 million
Americans. It cuts food for veterans and seniors, all to
finance, of course, huge tax breaks for the wealthy.
Now, it is also interesting because Chairwoman Greene, I
understand, now regrets voting for this bill, as she mentioned
yesterday. Is that correct, Chairwoman Greene?
Ms. Greene. Are you yielding me time?
Mr. Garcia. No, I am just asking if you are--I think you
say now you regret voting for the bill. Is that correct?
Ms. Greene. The bill actually destroys what you guys voted
for, for the past 4 years, and I am proud to have voted for
that bill to fund border security----
Mr. Garcia. Actually, actually, Chairwoman Greene.
Ms. Greene [continuing]. To deport all these illegals----
Mr. Garcia. Yesterday----
Ms. Greene [continuing]. You guys let in the country.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Chairwoman. Actually, Chairwoman,
yesterday, you actually said that you regret actually voting
for the bill. You posted after Elon's tweet that you did not
know certain provisions were in it, and that you would have
voted no if you had known. So, obviously, you did not do a
thorough review of the bill.
And I am not surprised, of course, that Republicans in this
Congress are now going back and forth on the bill. They voted
for the bill. Now they want to oppose it. We do not know what
to actually believe. And for instance, this is the same thing
that is happening with other big programs like Social Security,
which we know Elon Musk and DOGE have actually talked and
attacked constantly over and over again. We know how badly
already customer service has been hurt. People are waiting in
long lines at Social Security offices, all because of these
DOGE efforts.
Now, again, Chairwoman Greene invited to testify today one
of our witnesses, and I think it is important to note this. Mr.
Turner, you are one of our witnesses today, an expert on
economics and a bunch of other things.
Mr. Turner. I am not an economist.
Mr. Garcia. Mr. Turner, you were invited to testify as an
expert on government spending. This is your post. Is this
correct? Did you post this, sir?
Mr. Turner. Yes, sir.
Mr. Garcia. OK. You called Social Security a Ponzi scheme--
--
Mr. Turner. A hundred percent.
Mr. Garcia [continuing]. Which we know Elon Musk has also
done. I am glad you admitted it. ``Social Security is a
government-sponsored Ponzi scheme,'' as you said. Now, I----
Mr. Turner. What about the second part, though, sir? ``I
should be able to keep 100 percent of my----
Mr. Garcia. Sure, you can read the whole thing.
Mr. Turner [continuing]. Money and not watch----
Mr. Garcia. It is right up here.
Mr. Turner [continuing]. Government waste it----
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, sir. This is my time, sir.
Mr. Turner [continuing]. Giving $9 billion----
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, sir. My time.
Mr. Turner [continuing]. Giving $9 billion----
Mr. Garcia. Sir, reclaiming my time.
Mr. Turner [continuing]. To climate groups.''
Mr. Garcia. Madam Chairwoman. Thank you. Thank you, sir. A
Ponzi scheme. And so, I think it is interesting, of course,
that as one of our Republican witnesses is calling Social
Security a Ponzi scheme, and that is the person that we should
be taking advice from here today. Without Social Security, 22
million people would be pushed into poverty. That includes over
16 million seniors and nearly 1 million children. And in fact,
Elon Musk has also said and agreed with you, sir, that this is
a Ponzi scheme. I think it is ironic that you are one of our
witnesses talking about efficiency when you want to attack the
single best program that we have to support people, not just
out of poverty, but across this country to uplift them, to
ensure they can afford a decent life.
We, on this Committee, need to work every single day, not
just to protect Social Security, but to hold Republicans
accountable for attacking Medicare, Medicaid, for attacking
Social Security and the programs that we all depend on.
With that, I yield back. Thank you.
Ms. Greene. The gentleman yields.
I now recognize Mr. Timmons from South Carolina.
Mr. Timmons. Thank you, Madam Chair. It is hard to remember
why we are here, given all the conversations we are having. But
we are here because we have $37 trillion in debt, and we run a
$1.8 trillion annual deficit. And we are here to seek out
waste, fraud, and abuse, deliver on government efficiency, and
try to right the fiscal ship of this country so we can have a
country for another generation or two.
So, we are doing great work. We had a hearing a couple
weeks ago with NPR and PBS, and we made clear to the American
people that those two entities were not deserving of taxpayer
dollars because they were not doing their job. They were wildly
biased. They were wildly biased. And because of that, they do
not deserve taxpayer funds. So, we are going to vote next week
to stop giving them money.
And we are going along the same lines with this hearing
because the EPA handed out $27 billion in the last year of the
Biden Administration. And it was done really because they
thought they were going to lose the election, and they wanted
to get it out as quickly as possible. Biden appointees in the
EPA specifically said that the people that were getting the
money were not deserving of that money, and there were a lot of
concerns there.
Obviously, we have this conversation about one of the most
egregious, which is Power Forward Communities. We keep talking
about it. And Madam Chair, I would like to enter their 990 in
for the record.
Ms. Greene. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Timmons. So, this is from 2023. This is a less than a
year-old entity. And as we have talked again and again, they
had $100 in their account. And then the EPA, under the
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, gave them $2 billion. Well, the
funny thing is, is they did not give it all to them. They
wanted to give it all, but the EPA said no. And so, now we are
in this lawsuit where Citibank has the vast majority of it, and
we are going to get it back. And that is why we are here. We
are going to pass legislation. This is the hearing to show why
this is ridiculous. This is, I would just say, waste. Maybe you
would call it fraud. I do not know. It is definitely an abuse.
So, this money is coming back. And this is the hearing to then
warrant the rescission. And we are going to have a vote in a
couple of weeks, and that is what we are doing and that is why
we are here because we cannot spend money on ridiculous
policies.
Mr. Turner, do you agree with me? Are we moving in the
right direction here?
Mr. Turner. Yes. And it is critical that we move in this
direction. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Timmons. And this is just for the EPA. We have not even
gotten into the border security nonsense. I mean, the invasion
that was funded by taxpayer dollars over the last 4 years. The
Biden Administration intentionally and systematically
incentivized people to come into this country without knowing
any idea who they were. And the best part is they are making
Americans get these ridiculous vaccines, which we are going to
talk about in a couple of weeks. But they do not have any tests
for whether the people, the 20 million people they brought in
this country, are vaccinated. The irony is just incredible.
So, back to the issue at hand. Power Forward Communities
should not have $2 billion. Mr. Walter, do you agree that it is
an egregious waste of taxpayer dollars to give $2 billion to a
bunch of former Obama and Biden high-level employees?
Mr. Walter. Absolutely.
Mr. Timmons. I will give you a better one. Do you think
that they would have gotten this money if they were not the
former HUD Secretary, the former OMB Director, the Special
Assistant to Obama, the former Fannie Mae head for Obama? Do
you think that if we just got a random group of Americans and
said, hey, you want to go, you know, give clean energy
appliances to reduce the carbon footprint of our country to a
bunch of poor people? Do you want to go do that? Do you want to
apply, and we will give you $2 billion? Mr. Walter, is there
any world in which the EPA would have given a random group of
people $2 billion?
Mr. Walter. Not at all, and that is a critical part of the
NGO sector in addition to the heroes who actually do charitable
work.
Mr. Timmons. I will give you one better. Mr. Turner, should
we be giving billions of dollars to 501(c)(3)s that have zero
other income, 35,000 501(c)(3)s have zero other income. They
are all government income. Should we do that?
Mr. Turner. No, sir. And if I may, the egregious thing here
is that they are bypassing the Congress. If you want to give
Stacey Abrams----
Mr. Timmons. There is no transparency.
Mr. Turner [continuing]. Two billion dollars, appropriate
it. But they are using this process to bypass Congress because
no one would put their name on a bill to give Stacey Abrams $2
billion.
Mr. Timmons. I could not agree with you more. And I am
going to end with this. Dozens, dozens of 501(c)(3)s, tax-
exempt organizations, organizations that we feel are pursuing
some benevolent goal to improve the lives of Americans, dozens
of these 501(c)(3)s, their CEOs make more than $10 million a
year in salary. We have got to change this. I would put that in
the waste, the fraud, and the abuse category, and we need to
pass a law to make that better.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Ms. Greene. Thank you.
I now recognize Ms. Crockett from Texas.
Ms. Crockett. Thank you so much, Madam Chair.
It is interesting that we are talking about bypassing
Congress. It seems like that is all that has happened,
actually, this Congress. In fact, it is why we have had to
spend so much time in courts. And thank God that we at least
have one branch of government that has decided not to abdicate
their duties and has decided that there are things such as, you
know, impoundment. And so, when Congress does make a decision
or does sign something into law or has been signed into law by
a President, that you cannot just bring in your good little
friend who helped you get elected to the tune of $300 million
and say, hey, guy, you get to do whatever you want to, despite
what these duly elected people have done.
But I digress. But I am going to get back to Elon because
Elon is looming over every single DOGE hearing. You know why?
Because that is supposedly what Elon was heading up. But now
they do not want to talk about Elon because Elon now is a
little upset. There is a family spat that is obviously going
on, and it is going to play out, it seems like, all over
Twitter.
But nevertheless, let us talk about some of the things that
we should be talking about. And you know what? Every time I
come in here, I really do wonder, what is the point? Like why
are we here? Because it does not seem like we are doing
efficiency, right? Like have we seen Elon? No. Have we seen
anybody that works for DOGE? No. But we are in the DOGE
Subcommittee, and we are talking to everybody but the DOGE
people.
So, to hear the comments about Stacey Abrams, it really got
me going. And a lot of times, when we come into this hearing
room, it is all about politics. And it made me think that there
was an issue most likely with Stacey because someone actually
brought up the fact that Stacey has run for Governor a couple
of times, and it seems like there is a gubernatorial race that
is coming up in Georgia, and nobody knows whether or not Stacey
is going to run. So, why not muddy the water if we can to
hopefully keep a strong Black woman down? But again, I digress.
So, let us talk about the things that we could be talking
about while we sit here in the DOGE Committee. It seems like we
could be talking about, you know, things like efficiency or
oversight. When announcing this hearing, the chairwoman stated
the DOGE Subcommittee would ``continue bringing long overdue
transparency and accountability to those who abuse tax
dollars.'' But so far this Congress, Republicans have focused
their oversight responsibilities on things like defunding Big
Bird, as well as attacking, of course, trans kids because they
are really the big threat that we have.
We could be talking about how the Trump Administration is
ignoring these court orders, supporting American citizens, or
targeting Members of Congress for prosecution, or how Trump
signed an order deregulating the cryptocurrency industry just
as his family launched a digital currency. We could be having a
hearing on how Trump fired members of the National Labor
Relations Board for bringing a suit against Elon Musk or how
the Trump Administration dismantled the Office of the Federal
Contract Compliance while the office was investigating Tesla
for alleged racial harassment. Or how Trump dropped lawsuits
against numerous large companies after they donated to his
inaugural fund. We could have a hearing on whether Trump
violated the emoluments clause when he not only--it seemed like
he asked for a $400 million jet from a foreign government.
Trump has put a for-sale sign on the lawn of the White
House and has allowed wealthy donors to dictate how the
government operates. That is what we should be having a hearing
about. But nope, they are here attacking nonprofits that
deliver food to seniors and disabled folk, provide childcare
and eldercare for working families, job training for teens, and
shelter for the unhoused. The Republicans and their witnesses
have accused nonprofits of being ``radical'' ``addicted to
government money.''
And listen, I try to find agreement where I can, so I am
going to say that I absolutely do agree with that statement to
a certain extent because there is a nonprofit by the name of
The Heritage Foundation. And last time I checked The Heritage
Foundation, they are the authors of Project 2025, and we are
living through the hell of Project 2025 right now. And
something tells me that that is a bit of a partisan thing
because they said it was the conservative playbook. So, as far
as I am concerned, I do not know why we would ever look at The
Heritage Foundation and think that it is anything but
``radical'' and ``addicted to government money'' potentially.
So, Ms. Yentel, before I do that, I am going to come to you
because I want to make sure that I get these things on record.
I have a unanimous consent, Madam Chair. It says ``Donald Trump
allegedly asked aides whether Elon Musk's DOGE promises were
all bull-'' and then you know what the rest of it is. Unanimous
consent?
Ms. Greene. Without objection.
Ms. Crockett. Thank you so much. I have another one from
CBS News. ``Despite Trump's promised cuts, U.S. spent more than
$200 billion more in the first 100 days than last year.''
Ms. Greene. Without objection.
Ms. Crockett. If some reason we focused on some efficiency,
we may have more money to work toward this deficit that some of
my colleagues say that they are concerned about. And I guess,
Ms. Yentel, I am going to run out of time because if we were
going to focus on this deficit, then maybe you would not have
your own friends coming out and talking about how we are going
to have to lift the debt ceiling $5 trillion because how else
can we pay for the billionaires to keep more money in their
pockets?
Thank you, and I will yield.
Ms. Greene. The gentlelady yields.
And for the record, The Heritage Foundation receives no
Federal funding.
I now recognize Mr. Burchett from Tennessee.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Chairlady.
I think the irony of all ironies here is that our friends
across the aisle keep bringing up Elon Musk and what a great
person he is, and I guess about a week ago they were out to
kill him, so this is a backward day, as always.
Mr. Krikorian, Alejandro Mayorkas served as the United
States' border czar for 4 years. What did he do before his
appointment?
Mr. Krikorian. He is an attorney, and he was on the board
of, among other things, HIAS, which is the Hebrew Immigrant Aid
Society, which is one of the nonprofit groups that resettles
refugees and was also involved in this movement of illegal
immigrants up through Latin America.
Mr. Burchett. OK. Do you think it is a good thing that
Mayorkas served at an NGO whose goal was mass migrant
resettlement in the U.S.?
Mr. Krikorian. Well, I disagree with the goal, obviously,
but no, I think it was a problem because there was a kind of,
you know, conflict of interest there. I mean, he was
essentially implementing a government policy and having these
nonprofit groups--like HIAS, but many others--sort of as
proxies to promote the policies that the administration was
trying to implement.
Mr. Burchett. Well, in 2021 alone, this organization
received over $40.9 million in grants from the Department of
Health and Human Services, State, and Homeland Security. Don't
you think that is a direct conflict of interest?
Mr. Krikorian. Yes, in the sense that some of that was
spent on migration causes, yes, I think so. And that probably
was at least part of the reason that the House impeached
Secretary Mayorkas.
Mr. Burchett. I guess it is a little bit like a Congressman
becoming a lobbyist.
Mr. Krikorian. Kind of, I guess.
Mr. Burchett. A whole lot of----
Mr. Krikorian. Nothing personal against anybody here.
Mr. Burchett. That is all right. Well, none of us better be
lobbyists or we need to go to jail.
At what point do you believe humanitarian aid and
assistance becomes material support for illegal activity?
Mr. Krikorian. I am not sure I would be able to draw, kind
of, a specific line and say here is where it is. But at this
scale, there is simply no way that these organizations did not
see themselves as part of a network to subvert U.S. immigration
law. You know, the occasional provision of, you know, water to
somebody who is in real distress is one thing. Setting up a
network, essentially a kind of aid station network----
Mr. Burchett. A pipeline so to speak?
Mr. Krikorian [continuing]. To South--a pipeline from South
America to the border is not something that you--it is not
comparable in any way. It is not just different in scale. It is
different in kind.
Mr. Burchett. Yes. Myself and the Chairlady, she is my
cosponsor on a bill to literally defund the Taliban. As it
turns out, we are sending them close to $40 million a week. I
have a State Department document that was a classified
document. It has become unclassified that we have given them
close to $5 billion with a B. Although that is not big numbers
here, I can assure you in east Tennessee, that is a whole heck
of a lot of money.
Would you have any idea how many--any of you all have any
idea how many NGOs that we believe could be working out of
Afghanistan right now? Anybody have a shot in the dark?
Mr. Krikorian. No, I have no idea, I am afraid, sorry.
Mr. Burchett. Would you believe close to 1,000? 1,000.
Mr. Krikorian. Yes.
Mr. Burchett. And yet, Congress in its infinite wisdom has
taken almost, and we are working on 2 years now, to get this
bill out and get it to the Senate and get them to pass it. To
me, it is criminal. It is criminal what these organizations are
doing. $40 million a week to the Taliban. They throw gay folks
off of buildings. They rape women and children, and then they
stone the women after, somehow, it is their fault. I mean,
these are godless creatures and we are funding them with our
tax dollars. And Americans, I believe, are getting rich off of
it. I believe that some of the money is flowing back here
through some of these NGOs, and I would sure like to see that
paper trail solidified in my mind so I could point to it. And
if the Member of Congress, again, they need to be led out of
here in handcuffs.
Would any of you like to comment on any of that, kind of
a----
Ms. Yentel. I would like to say, sir, that nonprofit
organizations, if they are working in Afghanistan, it is to
meet the tremendous humanitarian needs that exist----
Mr. Burchett. I can assure you that, ma'am, yes, but----
Ms. Yentel. I think conflating nonprofits with the Taliban
is deeply dangerous and reckless.
Mr. Burchett. Well, actually, ma'am, they actually take a
cutoff of everything that goes through there just like the mob
would. There are three major banks, and they get their money
off, and it has been documented by government officials.
And I have run out of time. Chairlady, I yield nothing back
to you.
Ms. Greene. Thank you, Mr. Burchett. Honored to be a co-
sponsor of your Defund the Taliban bill.
I now recognize Mr. Moskowitz from Florida for 5 minutes.
Mr. Moskowitz. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for allowing me
to waive on to today's Committee under the rules of the
Oversight Committee. I appreciate it as I tried to waive on to
a previous meeting and was barred, so I do appreciate you
allowing me to attend today.
You know, I was the first Democrat member to join the DOGE
Caucus in Congress. Took a lot of crap for it, by the way. And
I did it for the right reason because I thought government can
get smaller, government can save money, and government can be
more efficient. That poll is in the 1980's. Most Americans know
that.
And I thought we were really interested in the E part of
DOGE, efficiency, OK? But ask yourself, what have we made more
efficient in the 6 months that DOGE has been around? Yes, there
are things we have found that should not exist, but name a
department, name a system, name a service that this Committee
or the caucus or Elon has made more efficient. They said they
were going to find $1 trillion. They fell 85 percent short.
Look, government is inefficient, but the DOGE Caucus and
process was like, hold my beer, let me show you what
inefficiency really looks like, OK? The DOGE Caucus has not met
in months. It had two meetings. Congress was not involved at
all in the process in the executive branch. Elon's gone, the
effort is dead, buried. Rigor mortis is setting in. I feel
sorry, ill, talking of the dead. I should not do that.
But I mean, seriously, the Newark Airport, that is the key
example for the American people. You want to talk about how did
we make government more efficient? We did not. We made
government the Newark Airport. And by the way, now that the
national divorce is happening with Elon Musk--and I am a child
of divorce, OK? I mean, who is going to get Big Balls? I am
worried about him in the divorce. The children always get
caught in the middle, right? You know, if he is out there, I
just want him to know we are rooting for him.
Certainly, we have not made FEMA more efficient. The
Administrator apparently does not know there is a hurricane
season. Wait till he finds out there are five categories. We
are going to blow his mind. Nothing has been made more
efficient by DOGE. No new technology in any of these
departments, no lower costs, has not happened, right? We
promised to tackle the national deficit and debt. They have not
done that. They have made it worse by the big, bloated
abomination bill, OK? I mean, Elon has turned on them, but he
is telling the truth. The bill will add to the deficit, and it
will add to the debt.
And so, listen, I ask my colleagues, point to me one thing
we have made more efficient. If you want to drop the E from
DOGE because we have not done efficiency, that is fine. We can
rename it. We can always rebrand. They are great at that. But
nothing has been made more efficient.
Here are the wins for congressional Republicans. You ready?
They are going to do a $9 billion rescission bill, OK, which
they are going to get rid of Elmo, which the American people
were clamoring for, OK? But they are going to add $2.4 trillion
to the debt, $9 billion versus $2.4 trillion. And then they
want us to cheer for them and give them a trophy like they are
a 5-year-old at a soccer game. Everyone gets a trophy for their
participation, OK?
By the way, these things I am bringing up, Republicans
themselves, including the Chairwoman, have expressed their
frustration that Congress has not codified anything at all. And
so, look, it is interesting. Elon just retweeted this. ``When
are we going to flatten the curve?'' It is fascinating.
[Poster]
We are using COVID graphics and COVID slogans. This is the
debt. This is not COVID cases, OK?
And yet my Republican colleagues have always talked about
the debt and deficit. I went out, I bought the debt clock that
Thomas Massie wears, $99, by the way. I do not know if that is
a great deal, but, you know, like 2-hour battery life. He told
me you got to, like, if you dim the screen, it will last a
little longer. Wow, it is still going up. It does not seem like
these DOGE cuts, right, or this rescission bill have handled
anything with the debt or deficit.
And so, yes, look, yes, Elon is--we love dark Elon now. Oh,
yes, this is interesting times, right? And Republicans will
say, oh, wait, he was a patriot. He left his companies. He was
doing the right thing. That is what they said for 6 months.
Now, they are saying, well, he is just mad because he is losing
his EV credits. He did not get his Starlink thing. They got rid
of his NASA Administrator, OK?
Look, we have got to do this together, guys, on a
bipartisan basis to tackle the debt. I asked the Speaker to put
a budget commission together to get Democrats and Republicans
on a bipartisan basis to tackle the debt, but that bill should
die.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Ms. Greene. The gentleman's time has expired.
I now recognize Mr. Burlison from Missouri.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you, Chairwoman, and thank you to our
witnesses for being here.
I just want to remind people there is a huge difference
between money that an individual voluntarily gives to a
nonprofit or charity and the money that is forcibly taken from
taxpayers and funneled through this town into a nonprofit or
charity. There is a huge difference, correct, Mr. Walter?
Mr. Walter. Absolutely.
Mr. Burlison. Mr. Krikorian?
Mr. Krikorian. Yes, of course.
Mr. Burlison. Mr. Turner?
Mr. Turner. Yes.
Mr. Burlison. And Ms. Yentel, wouldn't you agree there is a
huge difference?
Ms. Yentel. There is a difference, sure.
Mr. Burlison. OK. Thank you.
Ms. Yentel. And there is a difference in accounting----
Mr. Burlison. Thank you.
Ms. Yentel [continuing]. And auditing and----
Mr. Burlison. There is. Thank you.
Ms. Yentel [continuing]. Transparency as well.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you. I am going to get my time back
here.
Ms. Yentel. Sure.
Mr. Burlison. It is a simple question.
So, with that being said, the problem that it does not seem
like anyone is recognizing is that we forcibly took money from
taxpayers, and then these groups--then it was appropriated
through the Biden Administration, billions, billions of
taxpayer dollars to organizations that were stood up overnight,
organizations that did not have a longstanding history. These
were not nonprofits. For example, The Free Press investigation
revealed that of the $27 billion that was granted through the
EPA, $20 billion went out the door to eight nonprofit groups
right after Biden lost the election. $20 billion shoved out the
door immediately. Several of them were formed that year, since
August of that year.
So, Mr. Walter, did your organization--do you guys get
billions of dollars when Republicans are in charge?
Mr. Walter. We have never taken a penny from any level of
government across 4 decades of existence.
Mr. Burlison. Mr. Turner?
Mr. Turner. Sir, if I got $2 billion from the taxpayers, I
would be in jail right now.
Mr. Burlison. Mr. Krikorian?
Mr. Krikorian. We have had contracts in the past with the
Census Bureau and the Justice Department, but nobody has given
us $2 billion. If you know anybody who is in the market for
that, I am--give them my phone number.
Mr. Burlison. Yes, so, I think that--here is the point to
the American people. When the Republicans are in charge, we are
not doling out your money to our friends and our family. We are
not raiding the coffers. We are not putting America into more
debt and more debt and more debt to fund these nonprofits.
Look, Mr. Walter, if somebody wants to give to Stacey
Abrams' new venture or nonprofit, they can do that, right? She
can stand up a nonprofit.
Mr. Walter. Absolutely.
Mr. Burlison. But the question is, Mr. Krikorian, nobody
wants to open up their checkbook, right?
Mr. Krikorian. I wish. Yeas, I have been working on that.
Mr. Burlison. And that is the very reason why they come to
this town is to convince lawmakers, their friends, their family
member, their ally, to write a check that no one in the private
sector would want to write, for an effort that no one really
would want to believe in.
Mr. Turner, is it true that the Biden senior Climate Policy
Advisor, Jahai Weiss, directed $5 billion to Coalition for
Green Capital?
Mr. Turner. Yes.
Mr. Burlison. And let us point out, she worked for the
Coalition for Green Capital, right? She previously worked for
them?
Mr. Turner. Yes.
Mr. Burlison. So, she sent money to the organization that
she--$5 billion. Is that not blatant corruption, Mr. Turner?
Mr. Turner. And not only that, sir, $5 billion is very
difficult to spend. Five billion dollars is an absurd amount of
money. We heard a Congresswoman talk about the jet that
President Trump got. That was $400 million. This is $5 billion.
Mr. Burlison. It is----
Mr. Turner. It is impossible to spend $5 billion ethically.
Mr. Burlison. Yes, to put that in context, I remember being
in the state of Missouri, and Missourians, at one point, we
spent, whenever I was a lawmaker, we spent $5 billion for all
the school districts in the state of Missouri, OK? So, they
funded every school district, the state funds. That was $5
billion.
How much money did the Biden Administration give
specifically to Rewiring America initiative, where Mrs. Abrams
was brought on as a senior counsel?
Mr. Turner. Approximately $2 billion.
Mr. Burlison. Two billion dollars. So, let me get this
straight. Progressive loyalists like Abrams and other senior
admin officials left the admin and feathered their nest on
their way out with our taxpayer dollars, correct?
Mr. Turner. Correct.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Ms. Greene. The gentleman yields.
I now recognize Ms. Pressley from Massachusetts.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you to our witnesses for being here
today.
What we are witnessing from occupant Trump, his
Administration, and Republicans writ large is not governance.
It is a targeted, dangerous assault on the independence of our
nonprofit organizations. We have seen these attacks take many
forms, perhaps most visibly in my own district, the
Massachusetts 7th, as the Administration continues its unlawful
campaign against Harvard University. Trump has threatened to
revoke Harvard's tax-exempt status, freeze billions in Federal
funding for scientific research to save lives, might I add, and
publicly vilify students and faculty, all part and parcel of
his attacks on education.
But let me make it plain. This is not just about Harvard,
and it is definitely not about government efficiency, the name
of this Subcommittee. This is about Trump and Republicans
punishing people who disagree with them. It is about attacking
nonprofits of all sizes that serve the vulnerable and
marginalized and stand in the gap for our communities. It is
about trying to intimidate every charity and nonprofit in this
country and spark a fear that if you speak up, if you do
something the Republicans do not like, you could be next--a
hospital that provides abortion care, a local food pantry that
feeds immigrants, or an advocacy group that fights for civil
rights.
Donald Trump is weaponizing our tax laws to attack
nonprofits. At the same time, he is pushing for tax cuts for
Elon Musk and billionaires.
Ms. Yentel, can the President or executive branch legally
revoke a nonprofit's tax-exempt status simply because it
disagrees with that organization's lawful speech or mission?
Ms. Yentel. They cannot. The statute is very clear that
that is illegal.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you. Republicans think the answer is
yes, but that would mean every nonprofit in America is just one
tweet away from being targeted by the Federal Government.
I am proud that in the Massachusetts 7th, community-based
organizations are speaking up and fighting back against
Republican attacks, and I know they are doing it at risk of
serious threat. Ms. Yentel, can you make plain what are the
consequences to charities and nonprofits losing tax-exempt
status?
Ms. Yentel. Well, tax-exempt status is given to nonprofit
organizations that do essential work to meet needs in their
local communities in exchange for significant transparency and
accountability. And if nonprofit organizations lose their tax-
exempt status, it could create significant challenges for them
to be able to do their work related to how and where they get
their funding, and it could cause them to have to shut down
their work altogether.
Ms. Pressley. Their work, which is to the betterment of us
all.
Ms. Yentel. Which is to meet----
Ms. Pressley. To the collective.
Ms. Yentel [continuing]. Global needs.
Ms. Pressley. Our shared constituents.
Ms. Yentel. Yes.
Ms. Pressley. Very good. Let us put this in perspective.
Trump is firing government workers that administer programs
like Head Start and Social Security, while also attacking
nonprofits that provide resources and supports to vulnerable
populations. Trump and his Republican cult do not care about
helping people who are struggling. Instead, they want to make
them suffer more.
Now, before I yield back, let me ask the Republican
witnesses if you all think Trump is right for revoking tax-
exempt status for nonprofits for their political views, raise
your hand then if you think The Heritage Foundation, who wrote
Project 2025, should also lose their tax-exempt status. Show of
hands by the logic that is being applied.
Mr. Walter. I am not aware of any nonprofit that has had
its status revoked.
Ms. Pressley. Again, the question that I am posing is,
would you please raise your hand if you think The Heritage
Foundation, who wrote Project 2025, should also lose their tax-
exempt status? Show of hands.
Mr. Walter. It is perfectly reasonable speech by a
nonprofit.
Ms. Pressley. So, none of you. So, none of you. None of
you. The shame and the sham of it all.
Before I yield back, Ms. Yentel, I know that you have been
harangued intensely throughout today's proceedings. Is there
anything that you would like to set the record straight on or
respond to in my remaining time?
Ms. Yentel. Thank you, Congresswoman. I would like to use
the remaining time to remind us all, and every Member of this
Committee, of the vital, essential work that nonprofit
organizations do in each of your communities for your
constituents and the work that we do to support them in that
work. nonprofit organizations are local. They are transparent
and accountable. They are nonpartisan by law and in practice,
and they do essential work to meet the needs of all of your
communities and all Americans. Thank you.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Greene. The gentlelady yields.
I now recognize Mr. Gill from Texas.
Mr. Gill. Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding this hearing.
I would like to begin with Ms. Yentel. You have written a
lot about anti-racism and White fragility and things like that.
Do you believe that President Trump is a racist?
Ms. Yentel. I do not believe that is relevant to this
hearing.
Mr. Gill. Do you believe that he is?
Ms. Yentel. I am not here to discuss my personal beliefs. I
am here to speak about the important work that nonprofits do--
--
Mr. Gill. You have tweeted that he is a vile----
Ms. Yentel [continuing]. Across the country.
Mr. Gill [continuing]. Despicable racist. Do you believe
that much of his housing policy was racist during his first
term?
Ms. Yentel. I am here to talk about the vital work that
nonprofit organizations----
Mr. Gill. So, you are not going to answer me?
Ms. Yentel [continuing]. Do throughout our country----
Mr. Gill. You have tweeted that----
Ms. Yentel [continuing]. And in your district.
Mr. Gill [continuing]. ``It's explicitly racist and deeply
harmful.'' Is that right?
Ms. Yentel. I do not have the tweet in front of me. I
cannot answer.
Mr. Gill. I have got it right here. You did tweet that. You
tweeted that on September 25, 2020. You said, ``It's explicitly
racist and deeply harmful.'' Do you know who President Trump's
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development was during his first
term?
Ms. Yentel. Yes.
Mr. Gill. Who is it? Who was it?
Ms. Yentel. It was Secretary Carson.
Mr. Gill. It was Ben Carson. Do you believe that Ben Carson
is racist or a White supremacist?
Ms. Yentel. With all due respect, sir, I am not here to
talk about former HUD secretaries. I am here to talk about the
essential work----
Mr. Gill. You tweeted extensively about it.
Ms. Yentel [continuing]. That nonprofits do in your
district and throughout the country.
Mr. Gill. OK. We can move on then if you will not answer
the question. Are you a racist?
Ms. Yentel. With all due respect, sir, I am here to talk
about the essential work that nonprofits do----
Mr. Gill. Excuse me. That is a very----
Ms. Yentel [continuing]. Throughout the country.
Mr. Gill [continuing]. Simple question, yes or no question.
Are you a racist?
Ms. Yentel. I am not a racist.
Mr. Gill. You are not a racist. Particularly interesting
because, according to one of your affiliate charities under
your nonprofit umbrella, denial of racism constitutes covert
White supremacy. Are you a covert White supremacist?
Ms. Yentel. Sir, I am here to talk about the essential work
that nonprofits do.
Mr. Gill. Are you a covert White supremacist?
Ms. Yentel. Can I talk about the work that nonprofits do in
your district?
Mr. Gill. No, I am asking you if you are----
Ms. Yentel. Because I think that is----
Mr. Gill [continuing]. A covert White supremacist, which
according to one of your own organizations, again, denial of
racism constitutes covert White supremacy. Would you----
Ms. Yentel. I am sorry, what is----
Mr. Gill [continuing]. Like to answer the question?
Ms. Yentel. I do not know what the question is.
Mr. Gill. So, you refuse to answer whether you are a covert
White supremacist.
Ms. Yentel. I am here to talk about the essential work that
nonprofits do. If you would like to ask me a question about----
Mr. Gill. I am utterly dumbfounded.
Ms. Yentel [continuing]. Nonprofits----
Mr. Gill. You are on record right now----
Ms. Yentel [continuing]. In your district----
Mr. Gill [continuing]. And you will not say----
Ms. Yentel [continuing]. Or throughout the country.
Mr. Gill [continuing]. That you are not a covert White
supremacist?
Ms. Yentel. I do not have a definition in front of me. I
haven't looked at the definition. I am not going to answer a
question about my personal views.
Mr. Gill. That is----
Ms. Yentel. I am here to talk about the work of----
Mr. Gill. You are not----
Ms. Yentel [continuing]. Nonprofit organizations.
Mr. Gill. No, I want to give you one more chance to do
this. Are you a covert White supremacist?
Ms. Yentel. Why are we so off track from the----
Mr. Gill. No, I am asking you----
Ms. Yentel [continuing]. Topic of this hearing?
Mr. Gill. I am asking you a very straightforward question.
Ms. Yentel. I have heard your question. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Gill. And you are not going to answer whether you are a
covert White supremacist?
Ms. Yentel. I would like to answer questions about the
work----
Mr. Gill. This is wildly painful.
Ms. Yentel [continuing]. Of nonprofit organizations. Thank
you.
Mr. Gill. That is really, really astounding. I can answer
very directly that I am not a covert White supremacist, and I
imagine all of my colleagues can as well. I think you ought to
reevaluate what you are doing in the nonprofit sector. If you
cannot answer that in a straightforward way, that is
astounding.
Let me ask you another question. Do you believe that it is
appropriate to host and promote LGBTQ+ meetups for 9-year-olds?
Ms. Yentel. I am here to support the vital work of
nonprofits, and I will say to oppose the Federal Government----
Mr. Gill. Do you----
Ms. Yentel [continuing]. Targeting groups----
Mr. Gill. My question is----
Ms. Yentel [continuing]. With views that are different----
Mr. Gill [continuing]. Do you believe it is appropriate to
host and promote----
Ms. Yentel [continuing]. From its own.
Mr. Gill [continuing]. LGBTQ+ meetups for 9-year-olds?
Ms. Yentel. I believe that the Federal Government----
Mr. Gill. Because one of your affiliate nonprofits does do
that.
Ms. Yentel [continuing]. Should not target organizations
that have views different from its own. That is wrong. Whatever
party is in control, whatever administration is in control.
Mr. Gill. I think it--I think a lot of this is wrong.
Ms. Yentel. To use Federal power----
Mr. Gill. Do you think that it is appropriate for young
children to use gender transition paraphernalia?
Ms. Yentel. I----
Mr. Gill. Because one of your affiliated----
Ms. Yentel. I have no idea how that is----
Mr. Gill [continuing]. Nonprofit organizations gives bras,
binders, breast forms, nipples--I am not even going to repeat
this because it is so disgusting--for children of all ages.
Ms. Stansbury. Point of order, Madam Chair. The gentleman
is breaching decorum and attacking the witness. Can we please
move on to something----
Mr. Gill. I am not attacking the witness.
Ms. Stansbury [continuing]. Relevant to the actual----
Mr. Gill. I am simply asking a straightforward----
MS. Stansbury. [continuing] Issue at hand, sir.
Mr. Gill [continuing]. Question.
Ms. Greene. Mr. Gill, I will be extending your time. You
have been interrupted.
Mr. Gill. Thank you. Thank you. Do you believe that art
exploration camps for transgender and gender diverse youth of
the age of 11 is normal?
Ms. Yentel. We support the vital work of nonprofit
organizations and oppose the Federal Government opposing----
Mr. Gill. So----
Ms. Yentel [continuing]. And targeting organizations.
Mr. Gill. So, you refuse to answer any of these questions.
You refuse to even answer the question of whether you are a
covert White supremacist.
Ms. Yentel. I am not here to answer questions about my
personal views or my personal stance.
Mr. Gill. Is that because you do not want to disclose
whether you are a covert White supremacist?
Ms. Yentel. I am here to talk about the essential work
that----
Mr. Gill. I am giving you a chance----
Ms. Yentel [continuing]. Nonprofits do.
Mr. Gill [continuing]. To tell the world that you are not a
covert White supremacist.
Ms. Yentel. Thank you for the chance.
Mr. Gill. Will you do that?
Ms. Yentel. I will pass on your chance.
Mr. Gill. You will pass on that?
Ms. Yentel. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Gill. That is astounding. That is really astounding.
You are a radical far left activist, and you are masquerading
as somebody promoting nonprofit, nonpartisan institutions and
you will not even tell this Committee that you are not a covert
White supremacist. That is astounding.
I yield my time back.
Ms. Greene. The gentleman yields.
Witnesses are reminded you are under oath, and you are here
to answer questions to the Committee.
I now recognize Mr. Casar from Texas for 5 minutes.
Mr. Casar. Chairwoman Greene, you and my Republican
colleagues have called this hearing that is all about cutting
off money to nonprofits for things that are ``contrary to the
national interest.'' What we have heard here is my Republican
colleagues going after nuns and priests that feed immigrants,
going after nonprofits that do scary things like support our
queer youth. It is astounding to me.
But we do have one nonprofit leader here, Mr. Krikorian.
Mr. Krikorian, you are the Director of the Center for
Immigration Studies, correct?
Mr. Krikorian. Yes.
Mr. Casar. And according to your organization's website,
you do receive taxpayer funding or have from the Department of
Justice and the Census Bureau?
Mr. Krikorian. Yes, we did research contracts for them many
years ago.
Mr. Casar. Got it. And so, you do have a taxpayer-funded
nonprofit, and your nonprofit, as we have discussed in
Committee before, has shared articles from Kevin MacDonald,
whose work argues that Jewish people, alleged by him, are
``genetically driven to destroy Western societies.'' Is that
correct?
Mr. Krikorian. We distributed no such article.
Mr. Casar. But you did distribute work from this
antisemite, correct?
Mr. Krikorian. We distributed work all across the
spectrum----
Mr. Casar. Right, from this----
Mr. Krikorian [continuing]. New York Times to anyone else.
Mr. Casar [continuing]. Antisemite. Got it.
OK. Your organization has also circulated an article by
Holocaust denier John Friend. Is that correct? You said last
time we were in a hearing that, yes, you have----
Mr. Krikorian. We have distributed----
Mr. Casar [continuing]. Distributed that?
Mr. Krikorian [continuing]. No articles about Holocaust
denial, obviously. That has nothing to do with this.
Mr. Casar. But you have from Holocaust denier John Friend?
Mr. Krikorian. I do not know, but I assume so, yes. I
mean----
Mr. Casar. Your website right here does----
Mr. Krikorian. OK.
Mr. Casar [continuing]. Talk about that.
Mr. Krikorian. Yes.
Mr. Casar. So, I have a yes or no question. Is promoting
the work of Holocaust deniers and antisemites contrary to the
national interest?
Mr. Krikorian. Promoting Holocaust denial, and what have
you, is contrary to the national interest. That is why we have
not done it.
Mr. Casar. But you have promoted the work of Holocaust
deniers----
Mr. Krikorian. There was----
Mr. Casar [continuing]. Like John Friend.
Mr. Krikorian. There were several examples. We have also
promoted the work of open-borders people in that broad--that
effort to present a broad range of views, absolutely. And we do
not endorse one way or the other.
Mr. Casar. And so, you have promoted the work of Holocaust
deniers, but have you received anything from DOGE asking
whether they want to cut your funding? Have Republicans called
you in to ask about your nonprofit and said, hey, we do not
like that you have promoted the work of Holocaust deniers? Have
you had any funding cut by DOGE----
Mr. Krikorian. We do not----
Mr. Casar [continuing]. Or by this Committee?
Mr. Krikorian. We do not get any funding to be cut.
Mr. Casar. But you have received Department of Justice
funding----
Mr. Krikorian. Decades ago, yes, yes.
Mr. Casar. And so, look, let me just be real clear here.
This hearing is not about taking on nonprofits that are going
``against the national interest'' or who are ``extreme.'' This
is all about trying to shut down nonprofits who might share
political views that are different from that of the President
of the United States.
This hearing, they are going after organizations they call
radical because they are kind to kids that are having trouble
in school, kind to kids that are trying to figure out who they
are in the world. They are going after nonprofits, and you,
sir, and your nonprofit are saying that the radical people are
the priests and nuns that feed the hungry, the nonprofit
organizations that, yes, give shelter to immigrants. And I
understand your Center of Immigration Studies does not like
immigration very much. But let me tell you, the radical folks
are not the folks out there doing good. The radical folks that
you might disagree with, their version of the good, but the
radical folks are the people that in your face come to this
Committee hearing and are sharing through their websites,
through their listservs, articles by Holocaust deniers. And you
are saying, yes, we did not share the Holocaust-denying
articles, but we shared some of his other stuff.
I will make my last point here clear. I represent Texas. I
have longstanding ties to the city of El Paso where in 2019, 23
people were murdered at a Walmart. The murderer said, ``It was
based on the Hispanic invasion of Texas.'' And after the
shooting, Mr. Krikorian, you said that the manifesto was
``remarkably well-written.'' Can you tell us which part of his
manifesto was remarkably well-written?
Mr. Krikorian. What I meant by that was for--that it seemed
improbable for a nutcase like that to have written something
that was relatively at least grammatically correct. That was my
point.
Mr. Casar. Look, folks here on this Committee are trying to
shut down nonprofits because they disagree with them. You are a
nonprofit and you, sir, are saying that the El Paso shooter had
a manifesto that is remarkably well-written.
Ms. Greene. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Casar. That is extreme, and what----
Ms. Greene. The gentleman's----
Mr. Casar [continuing]. Goes around comes around.
Ms. Greene. The gentleman's time----
Mr. Casar. And it is just important----
Ms. Greene [continuing]. Has expired.
Mr. Casar. Chairwoman. OK.
Ms. Greene. I now recognize Mr. Jack from Georgia for 5
minutes.
Mr. Casar. Chairwoman, I just want to make clear----
Mr. Jack. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Casar [continuing]. That what goes around can come
around.
Mr. Jack. And thank you, Madam Chair.
As one of two Georgians on this Committee, yourself
included, Madam Chair, I would like to first rebut the charge
from one of our Democrat colleagues that we are today trying to
politically tear down Stacey Abrams. To remind our Democrat
colleagues, Madam Chair, a majority of Georgia voters have
twice rejected Stacey Abrams in 2018, by 2 percent; in 2022, by
8 percent. So, there is no need for this committee to
politically tear down Stacey Abrams when the people of Georgia
already have.
But this Committee is focused on eliminating waste, fraud,
and abuse across our government. And again, the purpose of our
hearing today is to talk about waste, fraud, and abuse among
non-governmental organizations or nonprofits. And if I could
start, Ms. Yentel, as the president and CEO of the National
Council of Nonprofits, is it fair to characterize your
organization as an informed source of data for nonprofits and
NGOs?
Ms. Yentel. Sorry, yes, sir.
Mr. Jack. And how many, just an estimate, how many NGOs
receive a majority of their money from the government as
opposed to citizens, to the best of your knowledge?
Ms. Yentel. The latest number I saw is that about 27
percent of nonprofit organizations receive Federal funding.
Mr. Jack. Does it concern you at all that a non-
governmental organization is receiving a majority of its
funding from the government?
Ms. Yentel. Well, I did not say it was the majority. Let me
correct myself. Thank you. Twenty-seven percent of nonprofit
organizations receive some of their funding from the Federal
Government.
It does not concern me, no. The Federal Government
appropriates funds to be used for specific purposes, and they
often partner with nonprofit organizations who are best
equipped and able to meet local needs with that funding.
Mr. Jack. OK. Mr. Walter, in your opening statement and
your written testimony as well, I think you addressed this.
Could you inform and expound upon the issue that I see, and I
always think you see, that a non-governmental organization is
receiving a majority of its funding from the government? To me,
that is totally contrary to the title of the organization
itself.
Mr. Walter. Sure. And the statistic from Candid, which is a
nonprofit group, is about 35,000 receive the majority of their
funding from government. And that is obviously a dangerous
thing. Now, some of them may do good work, but of course, as
everybody in Washington, DC. knows, if you are getting Federal
dollars, you deserve a lot of scrutiny. The idea that they
should just be passed over without scrutiny is quite
unreasonable.
Mr. Jack. Without----
Ms. Yentel. Can I add?
Mr. Jack. I am sorry. I am going to continue on----
Ms. Yentel. OK.
Mr. Jack [continuing]. My line of questioning. And thank
you.
Mr. Krikorian, I want to also give you an opportunity just
to affirm for the record. I know one of our Democrat colleagues
tried to suggest that you were immune from DOGE cuts. I heard
you loud and clear, though. The funding and the contracts with
Department of Justice and the Census Bureau were, to your
point, decades ago. You are not receiving government funding
right now.
Mr. Krikorian. No.
Mr. Jack. Thank you.
So, earlier today, Mr. Krikorian, we had the Administrator
of the Small Business Administration testify before the Small
Business Committee. And the reason I mention that is, one of
the issues we talked about was trying to turn off and eliminate
the incentive structure that rewarded illegal immigration over
the last 4 years under Joe Biden's Administration.
Specifically, we talked about relocating small business offices
from sanctuary cities or sanctuary jurisdictions to
jurisdictions that honor Federal law enforcement law and
immigration law.
And I bring that up because I would love for you in these
last 90 seconds to walk us through what happened these last 4
years. If you want to look at the incentive structure that
rewarded illegal immigration, I suspect you could look no
further than a lot of nonprofits that operated on our southern
border. So, I would welcome thoughts for you in closing in this
hearing.
Mr. Krikorian. Yes, absolutely. I mean, the whole point of
enforcing immigration law is to make it impractical to live
here as an illegal immigrant. In other words, it is not even
just not rewarding, obviously it is that, but it is also to
make it difficult. It is why you should not get driver's
licenses for illegal immigrants, that sort of thing.
And so, what nonprofit groups during the previous
administration did, and frankly, even before that, was to make
it practical, to make it easier for illegal immigrants to live
here illegally, thereby kind of undoing any deterrent effect or
any incentive to self-deport, to go home. And so, that is one
of the things that we need to reverse is to not just take away
the incentives but to make it impractical to remain here so
that people will take the Administration up on its offer of a
free plane ticket home and $1,000 when you get home. There has
to be some reason you want to do that. What a lot of nonprofit
groups have done is take away the incentive to go home, and
that needs to change.
Mr. Jack. And by the way, 70 to 75 percent of Americans
agree and support President Trump's immigration policies, House
Republicans' border priorities.
Just closing number from you and statistic, can you
estimate over the last 4 years how much taxpayer money was
funding, to your point, the incentive structure we are trying
to eliminate today?
Mr. Krikorian. I wish I had a number, but it is all over.
It is billions, but I have no idea how much exactly.
Mr. Jack. Billions of dollars.
With that, Madam Chair, I yield.
Ms. Greene. The gentleman yields.
I now recognize Mr. Gosar from Arizona.
Mr. Turner. Ma'am, excuse me. May I ask a question first
before the Congressman speaks? I apologize for the rare point
of order.
I was not able to ask Mr. Casar before he ran out the room,
but he was looking at the witnesses talking about a murderer
and said, ``What goes around comes around.'' And I do not know
what that comment meant. I do not have the luxury of Capitol
Hill police to protect me. In the climate space, we get a lot
of death threats. We got a lot of hate. The climate
environmental groups----
Ms. Greene. Mr.----
Mr. Turner. [continuing] Are the original violence. I just
do not know ``What goes around comes around'' meant.
Ms. Greene. Mr. Turner, we will address you feeling
threatened as soon as the hearing has ended. Thank you very
much.
Mr. Turner. Thank you, ma'am.
Ms. Greene. Yes. Mr. Gosar is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gosar. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you for
allowing me to sit down.
President Trump has worked tirelessly to weed out the
waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer dollars by nongovernmental
organizations or NGOs. And my home state of Arizona is at the
forefront of these issues where NGOs are shipping illegal
aliens into the United States. Question for each one of you.
Have you heard of the United Nations Resolution 1996/31 titled
``Consultative Relationship between the United Nations and non-
government organizations''?
Mr. Walter?
Mr. Walter. I am sorry, no.
Mr. Gosar. How about you, Mr.----
Mr. Krikorian. No, I have not.
Mr. Gosar. Mr. Turner?
Mr. Turner. I am not familiar, sir.
Mr. Gosar. How about you, Ms. Yentel?
Ms. Yentel. No.
Mr. Gosar. Well, I am going to give you some cliff notes on
this one, OK? It states that if the U.N. gives money to an NGO
that also receives voluntary contributions, the NGO must, must,
must disclose the sources of these donations and explain why it
is accepted for such a donation. If the U.N. can do it, why
can't we?
And I am going somewhere here. In fact, I will read one of
the sentences in this U.N. resolution. ``Any financial
contribution or other support direct or indirect from a
government to the organization shall be openly declared to the
committee through the secretary general and fully recorded in
the financial and other records of the organization and shall
be devoted to purposes in accordance with the aims of the
United Nations.''
Oh, wow. That sounds like the only time I agree with the
United Nations. May I submit this for the record, please?
Ms. Greene. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Gosar. My legislation, H.R. 2841, the Putting Trust in
Transparency Act--and I think the President has something along
the same lines--requires, requires NGOs that receive even $1 of
Federal funding to disclose their extravagant donors, just like
the U.N. does. Wow, what a concept. It applies to all NGOs. You
do not have to take Federal money, but when you do, you have to
pay the piper.
Now, if you are an NGO that advocates for limited
government but accepts Federal dollars, you are a sock puppet
for your donors. There should be zero taxpayer-funded advocacy.
Mr. Turner, you talked about the government slush funds and
transparency in your testimony. We know many leaders of these
NGOs use both public and private funding for their own
political grift. Question: What do leaders have to personally
gain by fleecing American tax dollars?
Mr. Turner. Oh, the salaries, sir. And that is why this
whole conversation of how these are puppy-raising organizations
and they give food to the homeless, this is all a bunch of
crap. These are organizations that fund political Democrats
with enormous salaries, pay their consultants that then give
donations to political Democrats. And that is why it is
billions of dollars hidden under justice, climate, whatever you
want to call it.
Mr. Gosar. Mr. Krikorian, is it illegal to aid and abet an
illegal alien?
Mr. Krikorian. It is indeed. And the question is, the real
question is, what does aiding and abetting mean? And it has not
been defined broadly enough.
Mr. Gosar. I want to interrupt you. I want to interrupt
you. Aiding and abetting, I guess, could be defined that, but
when you are going into other countries and showing people the
way here and then finding out that you can give them the luxury
of things off of American persons, that would be aiding and
abetting, wouldn't you say?
Mr. Krikorian. It sure seems to me. Yes, it does.
Mr. Gosar. Well, there is a reason why I want this, because
if you thought the USAID was riddled with fraud, wait till you
see these NGOs. I love what Ms. Yentel was saying. You know,
the store, my Habitat for Humanity, I love that store. I love
that store because they are building something. They are trying
to put stuff to use and recycle it. But I got this perception
over here from this lady that everything is hunky-dory. It is
not. You cannot violate the United States laws. You cannot. Oh,
I forgot. Yes, you can. You can violate any law you want to
because we are void of a sheriff. Well, we were void of a
sheriff for the last 4 years. But see, we want to see this
transparency because we want to have those numbers for the
American public.
Mr. Walter, are you scared of the American public for
sunlight?
Mr. Walter. Not remotely.
Mr. Gosar. See, that is why I have another bill, and it is
called the LASSO Act. Imagine this. I heard all our friends
from the other side of the aisle say that we are attacking
Social Security. Wouldn't it be interesting if I took 10
percent of all the public lands, all the revenues coming off
public lands and off our oceans and I put it in a Social
Security trust fund? Would that surprise you, Mr. Walter?
Mr. Walter. Possibly.
Mr. Gosar. How about you, Mr. Krikorian?
Mr. Krikorian. It is not my area. I do not know. I am not
familiar with it.
Mr. Gosar. I am putting it in there. Does it look like I am
cutting Social Security?
Mr. Krikorian. Right. No, it does not.
Mr. Gosar. How about you, Mr. Turner?
Mr. Turner. No.
Mr. Gosar. Well, Madam Chair, I got to tell you, this is
too much fun. I got to let you, I yield back.
Ms. Greene. The gentleman yields.
In closing, I want to thank our witnesses once again for
their testimony today.
I now yield to Ranking Member Stansbury for closing
remarks.
Ms. Stansbury. All right. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
I want to start by saying this is not normal. I say this a
lot, but today is certainly no exception because while we were
sitting here, while we were sitting here, Mr. Elon Musk began
tweeting again. He says, ``Call your senator. Call your
Congressman. Bankrupting America is not OK. Kill the bill,'' in
all caps. Nothing is normal right now.
Attacking Federal agencies and dismantling vital services,
firing thousands of Federal workers and shattering their lives,
stealing your private data illegally and downloading it and
using it on AI systems, letting children starve on the other
side of the world while gutting vital public health programs,
zeroing out funding for public media, none of these things are
normal. And certainly, attacking community organizations and
vital nonprofits that serve the public good is not normal.
But in addition to that, it is also not legal. And that is
why there are over 200 Federal court cases currently in front
of the Federal court right now, including dozens of injunctions
and restraining orders against the Trump Administration for
their lawless and illegal activities because not only is it not
normal, it is not legal.
For months, the Trump Administration has been threatening
that they will undermine the nonprofit status of nonprofits
that they do not like. It is very clear that they have been
searching for some sort of legal argument that will give them a
path forward and they have yet to find it because it is not
legal. The law is very clear. It is not legal. They cannot go
after your IRS status. They cannot go after your nonprofit
status. It is not legal.
So, if you are a nonprofit in America and you are listening
to this hearing and you are feeling frightened, scared, you
have received a letter, you have received a threat, or you have
been contacted by DOGE or any Federal official to audit or
enter your nonprofit organization, know your rights. Contact a
lawyer. Make sure you understand what your rights are and what
you can do to protect your organization.
Now, I understand that my friends across the aisle want to
talk about corruption, waste, fraud and abuse. I mean, this is
the DOGE Subcommittee, but it is so bizarre to see the high
level of gaslighting that happens every moment in this
Congress. They want to talk about corruption and nonprofit
organizations that do voter registration and help fight the
climate crisis and help starving children, but they will not
even acknowledge that Elon Musk, who just left the
Administration, gave himself billions of dollars in private
contracts while serving in the Federal Government. That he,
himself, changed out the communications infrastructure for
multiple agencies, set himself on a path to get billions of
dollars in private DOD contracts. And yes, he did download your
data. And we will hold him accountable because no one is above
the law, including the President.
So, if we want to talk about corruption, why don't we talk
about a President who launches a meme coin and takes hundreds
of millions of dollars in payments from foreign governments
laundered through his family business? How about we talk about
a President who solicited a foreign government for a $400
million plane that he wants to keep privately through his
Presidential library afterwards? How about we talk about a
President that wants to sell pardons for meme coins? You guys
want to talk about corruption? Or we can talk about dark money
and its influence on politics.
Now, I understand that some of the witnesses felt a little
exposed here today by having facts presented about what their
organizations are, who funds them, and what they do. But the
facts remain. The facts remain. Project 2025, which is a 900-
page document drafted by The Heritage Foundation and over 100
organizations, including those represented here today, is the
blueprint for Donald Trump's America. It is being executed by
more than 70 administration officials, including the Director
of the Office of Management and Budget, who is now executing
DOGE and is being utilized to attack anyone that they disagree
with politically or culturally. That is what this is all about.
That is what this hearing is about. And we want all of you out
there who are listening to know this is not normal, it is not
legal, and we will fight it every step of the way.
I yield back.
Ms. Greene. I now recognize myself for closing remarks.
There are a lot of things that are not normal, and that is
using the power of the government to fund your friends and your
family members and to employ former bureaucrats to enact
policies that invade our country and hurt our energy, our
American energy. Yes, those things are not normal, and that is
why we are talking about them here today.
As we have heard here today, the American taxpayer dollars
are being laundered through the revolving door of NGOs and
Democrat officials. These pay-to-play schemes are so deep-
rooted in the system and are such well-oiled machines, and they
must be dismantled immediately. To be clear, we support
charitable NGOs that help Americans in times of need, such as
during the aftermath of wildfires in California and the
hurricane in western North Carolina, Georgia, and eastern
Tennessee.
We do not support politically connected NGOs who rake in
billions of Federal tax dollars to serve the Democrat Party and
their friends and their priorities. We do not support Democrat
officials creating slush funds, writing grants and contracts,
and deciding who those funds go to, and then going to work at
the same NGO that it just awarded those funds to. Yes, that is
not normal. That is the reality of what we are facing and what
we faced for the past 4 years.
As our witnesses stated, these corrupt NGOs do not serve
the American people. They serve big government and the Democrat
Party. If the American people support their climate and other
woke causes, they can choose to personally donate to these
entities. They can pay for it themselves. The American people
are the most generous people in the entire world. In 2023
alone, Americans privately donated over $557 billion of their
own money. They should be the ones who decide where their money
goes. They can choose if they want to donate to a nonprofit and
which nonprofit.
The American people are not just generous with their money,
but they are generous with their time as well. In 2023, nearly
76 million Americans, almost 30 percent of Americans, formally
volunteered through an organization. The government did not
make them do this. They did it on their own. The government did
not hold a gun to their head and make them volunteer. The
government did not hold a gun to their head and make them
donate their own money. They did it on their own. However, the
government is forcing them to pay for things that they do not
support and they do not want happening.
The United States is $36 trillion in debt. In 2024, the
government spent over $1.8 trillion more than it took in. And
in 2025, the interest in our debt is expected to exceed $1
trillion dollars. Our government is broke. Our government is
going bankrupt. Our government is not a charity for the left to
use to launder money through to their friends and to former
government employees.
Notice this, this is extremely important, there is a
difference of what you heard on this Committee today. Our
Democrat colleagues believe taking money from the American
people and forcing them to support the causes that they support
is the right thing to do. They do not believe in the mission of
this Subcommittee, which is DOGE, which is Delivering on
Government Efficiency. And that is a mission that has been
created in this Administration, thankfully, to President Trump,
and it is a mission that we are continuing here on this
Subcommittee, on Oversight, and we are proud of it.
As a matter of fact, we are delivering government
efficiency, and we are proud to let everyone know that we will
be voting next week for actual DOGE rescission cuts that this
Committee held hearings on. And that is producing results for
the American people because most of the time in Congress, all
Congress does is create more laws, create more regulations, and
spend more of the American people's dollars. But right here on
the DOGE Subcommittee, thankfully to the hard work of its
Members and staff, we are actually making a difference, and we
are going to be cutting government funding, government
spending, government waste, fraud, and abuse.
In closing, we are incredibly grateful to the Trump
Administration for directing all Federal agencies to review all
agency funding to NGOs. These actions taken by the Trump
Administration will finally provide long overdue oversight over
the revolving door of NGO corruption. And we will continue our
work here on the DOGE Subcommittee no matter how much pitching
of tantrums that we hear from our Democrat colleagues. We are
proud of what we are doing, and we know the American people
support it. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 4:32 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]