Business meeting to consider an original resolution authorizing expenditures by the committee during the 119th Congress; to be immediately followed by a hearing to examine eliminating waste by the foreign aid bureaucracy.

1[Senate Hearing 119-41]2[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]34                                                         S. Hrg. 119-4156                  ELIMINATING WASTE BY THE FOREIGN AID7                               BUREAUCRACY89=======================================================================1011                                HEARING1213                               BEFORE THE1415                              COMMITTEE ON16                          HOMELAND SECURITY AND17                           GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS18                           UNITED STATES SENATE1920                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS2122                             FIRST SESSION2324                               __________2526                           FEBRUARY 13, 20252728                               __________2930        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov3132                       Printed for the use of the33        Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs3435[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]3637                                __________3839                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE4059-998 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 20254142-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------4344        COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS4546                     RAND PAUL, Kentucky, Chairman47RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin               GARY C. PETERS, Michigan48JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma             MARGARET WOOD HASSAN, New49RICK SCOTT, Florida                      Hampshire50JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri                RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut51BERNIE MORENO, Ohio                  JOHN FETTERMAN, Pennsylvania52JONI ERNST, Iowa                     ANDY KIM, New Jersey53TIM SCOTT, Florida                   RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona54                                     ELISSA SLOTKIN, Michigan5556                William E. Henderson III, Staff Director57                  Christina N. Salazar, Chief Counsel58                       Andrew J. Hopkins, Counsel59               Megan M. Krynen, Professional Staff Member60                 Ryan Arient, Professional Staff Member61               David M. Weinberg, Minority Staff Director62     Christopher J. Mulkins, Minority Director of Homeland Security63                     Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk64                   Ashley A. Gonzalez, Hearing Clerk6566                            C O N T E N T S6768                                 ------69Opening statements:70                                                                   Page71    Senator Paul.................................................     172    Senator Peters...............................................     373    Senator Johnson..............................................    1074    Senator Lankford.............................................    1475    Senator Blumenthal...........................................    1676    Senator Hassan...............................................    1977    Senator Scott................................................    2078    Senator Kim..................................................    2379    Senator Ernst................................................    2980Prepared statements:81    Senator Paul.................................................    3582    Senator Peters...............................................    448384                               WITNESSES85                      THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 20258687Michael Shellenberger, Founder, Public News......................     688William Ruger, President, American Institute for Economic89  Research.......................................................     89091                     Alphabetical List of Witnesses9293Ruger, William:94    Testimony....................................................     895    Prepared statement...........................................    6796Shellenberger, Michael:97    Testimony....................................................     698    Prepared statement...........................................    4799100                                APPENDIX101102Senator Ernst pictures...........................................    80103Letter to USAID Nov. 2023........................................    82104Letter to USAID Dec. 2023........................................    85105USAID Letter Mar 2024............................................    86106Letter to USAID OIG May 2024.....................................    90107USAID Letter May 2024............................................    93108Letter to Rubio Feb 2025.........................................   100109Statements submitted for the Record:110    Church World Services........................................   105111    National State and Local Organizations.......................   106112    RCUSA........................................................   112113    World Relief.................................................   113114    USAID OIG Report.............................................   120115    Q2IMPACT.....................................................   126116117            ELIMINATING WASTE BY THE FOREIGN AID BUREAUCRACY118119                              ----------120121                      THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2025122123                                     U.S. Senate,124                           Committee on Homeland Security125                                  and Governmental Affairs,126                                                    Washington, DC.127    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in128room SD-342, Russell Dirksen, Senate Office Building, Hon. Rand129Paul, Chair of the Committee, presiding.130    Present: Senators Paul [presiding], Johnson, Lankford, Rick131Scott, Hawley, Ernst, Peters, Hassan, Blumenthal, and Kim.132133              OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PAUL\1\134135    Chairman Paul. The Committee will come to order.136---------------------------------------------------------------------------137    \1\ The prepared statement of Senator Paul appears in the Appendix138on page 35.139---------------------------------------------------------------------------140    Today, we are going to dive into reckless and wasteful141spending of our Federal Government, particularly when it comes142to foreign aid. The United States should not be the sugar daddy143for the entire world, especially not for countries and144organizations who act contrary to our nations' beliefs.145    Our country is $36 trillion in debt, yet we continue to146send billions of dollars overseas, often funding projects that147are not just useless but, in many cases, actively harmful.148    Taking the path to fiscal responsibility is often a lonely149journey, but thanks to Elon Musk and Department of Government150Efficiency (DOGE), they have brought to light the waste that I151have been highlighting for over the last decade. Every year, I152release my Festivus Report to expose the ridiculous spending of153the Federal Government, and this past year was no exception. I154uncovered over $1 trillion in government waste, with the State155Department and United States Agency for International156Development (USAID) being some of the worst offenders.157    Let me give you just a few examples of what these unelected158bureaucrats are spending your hard-earned money on:159160    $4.8 million went to Ukraine's public affairs office in161Kyiv, to fund social media influencers.162    Instead of protecting our own border, $2.1 million was sent163to Paraguay to ``enhance'' their border security.164    USAID also funded a group of Ukrainian women-led designers165to travel to the Paris Fashion Show. I do not know about you,166but I would imagine Ukrainian women have more important things167to worry about than appearing in the Paris Fashion Show.168    USAID spent $2 million on transgender surgeries, hormone169therapy, and gender-affirming care in Guatemala.170    $3 million was spent to promote ``girl-centric climate171action'' in Brazil. I would love to picture what a conversation172about girl-centered climate action looks like. It is like,173``Hey, Barbie. Do you know what girl-centered climate change174is?'' Since when do we believe arguments need to be tailored175for girls to understand? How insulting to women, at-large, that176they think there are special arguments for girls to understand177that are different than boys.178    $25,000 to fund a transgender opera in Colombia. Was nobody179in Colombia willing to buy a ticket?180    USAID spent $32,000 in Peru to create a comic featuring a181trans hero to address social and mental health issues. What182does that have to do with diplomacy?183    $20,000 to fund a diversity, equity, inclusion (DEI)184program for a drag theater in Ecuador.185    $20 million was spent to produce a new Sesame Street show186in Iraq.187    USAID spent $6 million to promote a project boosting188sustainable tourism in Egypt. I guess the United States is now189the travel agent for the entire world, since they spent $50190million on Tunisia's tourism, even though it is already one of191the most visited countries in Africa.192    USAID gave $87.9 million to help Afghans farm, and193incidentally, farm poppy, the plant from which opium is194extracted. As of 2021, Afghanistan supplied 90 percent of the195world's heroin. I thought the saying in the United States was196just say no to drugs. How about we just say no to wasteful197foreign aid?198    $70,000 for a live musical event to promote diversity,199equity, inclusion, and accessibility in Ireland.200    State Department paid $330,000 to compile a disinformation201index to ``blacklist'' conservative media outlets.202    USAID funneled over $54 million to EcoHealth Alliance,203funding the very organization linked to the Wuhan Institute of204Virology (WIV), the likely origin of the Coronavirus Disease2052019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Disgraceful.206    $15 million was awarded to Taliban-controlled Afghanistan207to distribute oral contraceptives and condoms.208    There is still a $3 billion fund for Afghan reconstruction209that I have tried to take that money to pay for other things210that the government is spending money on, and yet there has211been resistance by the other side, to deplete that fund and212say, ``We are done funding things in Afghanistan.''213    This is just the tip of the iceberg. These are taxpayer214dollars being used to fund ideologically misguided,215ineffective, and unnecessary projects thanks to the blundering216bureaucracy, while our own citizens struggle to put food on the217table.218    This is not what our government was designed to do. The219U.S. Government is not a charity, and it should not be doling220out cash to foreign organizations, some of which actively221oppose the United States, with no oversight.222    We do not have the money to give. We are borrowing the223money we send. We need to ask a simple question: Why are we224borrowing money to send money overseas?225    Even if USAID eliminated the crazy left-wing grants for226trans operations, it still makes no sense to borrow money, to227then turn around and send it overseas. Borrowing money to send228as charity is like the worker who has no money left after229paying for their food, rent, and gas, saying, ``Oh, well I see230this homeless person, I have such great sympathy. I will go to231the bank, and I will borrow $1,000 to give to this person.''232That is what we are doing. We cannot pay for our own, and we233are borrowing the money we send overseas.234    That money could be used to pay down our $36 trillion debt235and take care of the American people, the very people who236actually pay these taxes in the first place.237    It is time for a real change. America should not continue238to be the world's piggy bank. It is time to end the waste of239foreign aid and end the bureaucracy, and for once do what is240right by the American taxpayer.241    With that I recognize the Ranking Member for opening242remarks.243244             OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETERS\1\245246    Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I am very247discouraged by this hearing and by the witnesses, in248particular, that you have chosen to give a platform today.249Instead of having a serious discussion, I am sure we are going250to hear conspiracy theories, as this Committee holds what251amounts to basically a pep rally in support of President252Trump's illegal power grab.253---------------------------------------------------------------------------254    \1\ The prepared statement of Senator Peters appears in the255Appendix on page 44.256---------------------------------------------------------------------------257    I certainly agree with this Committee that this Committee258should conduct rigorous oversight of Federal spending,259including wasteful foreign aid. That is certainly what we260should be talking about. We should always be working to sort261out and eliminate waste and fraud in all Federal programs, and,262in fact, this Committee has done that for years, on a263bipartisan basis. It is a big part of what we do every week as264we come together to consider legislation and deal with the265tough issues that we face as a country.266    But today's hearing, I am sure we are going to hear many of267our colleagues on the other side of the dais, my Republican268colleagues here, cheer on President Trump and his cronies, like269Elon Musk, in their illegal and unconstitutional efforts to270cutoff foreign aid. It is not only a sham, I think it really271misses the point on what this Administration is really doing,272and how far President Trump will go to hurt American families273so that they can pay for tax cuts for billionaires.274    We cannot have a real debate about wasteful spending when275President Trump has empowered an unvetted billionaire--and276let's say it, an unvetted billionaire with massive conflicts of277interest, massive conflicts of interest, hundreds of millions278of dollars of government contracts he receives. I would hope we279will look at those hundreds of millions of dollars of280government contracts from Elon Musk, as he is cutting of281funding to programs that clearly the Administration does not282understand or they may not agree with politically.283    Let's be clear. The Constitution does not empower a social284media billionaire with massive conflicts of interest, that has285never been vetted, to decide on how taxpayer dollars are spent.286In fact, the Constitution does not even empower President Trump287to make these decisions. The Constitution gives Congress, and288only Congress, the sole power to decide how taxpayer money is289spent. For the most part, we pass bipartisan laws to determine290how that money should be spent.291    But President Trump has directed Elon Musk, and many other292cronies, to ignore Congress, to ignore the Constitution, and293recklessly and illegally cutoff funding that Congress has294passed according to the law. Not only is it illegal, not only295is it unconstitutional, but President Trump's direction to296shutter USAID will have damaging consequences across the globe297and here in the United States.298    I would like to enter into the record,\2\ Mr. Chair,299numerous statements from organizations and experts that detail300those consequences.301---------------------------------------------------------------------------302    \2\ Statements submitted by Senator Peters appears in the Appendix303on page 105.304---------------------------------------------------------------------------305    Chairman Paul. Without objection.306    Senator Peters. That is why my Democratic colleagues and I307are most concerned about what agency, what Federal programs is308going to be next, where are the dominoes going to fall after309USAID, what is going to be next on the chopping block. We know310President Trump has already directed his cronies to shut down311the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Will they halt312Social Security payments that seniors count on next? Will they313stop Medicare reimbursements and prevent seniors from accessing314health care? Will they block disaster aid to States that have315suffered from hurricanes and wildfires?316    I will tell you, President Trump and his cronies have317already hinted, on all of those resources that Americans count318on, and more, could be shut down going forward. It is not just319that it is illegal. It is not just that it violates the320separation of powers. The bottom line is that these actions321hurt American families, and it is our job to fight back. That322is why Democrats on our Committee will be focused on that323today.324    If this Committee is seriously about defending American325families and Congress' oversight role, a role, Mr. Chair, that326I know you have said, over and over again, is part of what we327were going to be doing here at the Committee, then the hearing328we have today should be about examining blatantly illegal329activities that President Trump has led to undermine the laws330passed by Congress and to wreak havoc on the programs and331services that support Americans.332    Mr. Chair, I know you have often talked about how it is333Congress versus the Executive, whoever is in the Executive334Office. That is what is happening right now. Let's hope we335focus on that, because we are seeing it clearly happening.336    At President Trump's direction, Elon Musk and his minions337have illegally cutoff funding that Congress passed to support338farmers. They have cutoff funding to support childcare centers.339They have cutoff funding for lifesaving cancer research. They340have cutoff funding for community health centers, cutting off341funding for religious charities and services that Americans342rely on every day. It has all been under the guise of343addressing waste.344    But if the Administration is serious about combating waste345and fraud, then the President would not have fired 18346inspectors general (IGs), the independent watchdogs who347actually identify waste, fraud, and abuse. Why is Donald Trump348firing the watchdogs to waste and abuse? If the President is349truly serious about addressing waste and fraud in foreign aid,350he certainly would not have fired the inspector general for the351USAID.352    Let's remember, this is not the first time a President has353tested the limits of law when it comes to Presidential powers.354We have seen this movie before. But it is the first time that355Republicans in Congress have simply rolled over and let a356President seize power that the Constitution assigns to the357Legislative Branch. We have the power of the purse, and I have358heard the Chairman talk about that many times in our meetings.359    But let's look at an example from history. In the 1970s,360when President Richard Nixon refused to spend money361appropriated for childcare, job programs, environmental cleanup362programs, virtually every Member of Congress, from both363parties, rejected that, passed the Impoundment Control Act of3641974 (ICA), which asserted Congress' constitutional power. When365it passed, it passed unanimously. Every Republican Senator366stood up to Richard Nixon and said, ``This is unacceptable.''367    Now clearly that was a time when we did not have feckless368Republican Senators, but it was a great time to look at how we369came together to stand up to Presidential power.370    It was not just Congress. President Nixon lost in the371courts over and over again. No judge ever endorsed President372Nixon's argument that he had the right to ignore the laws of373Congress. If President Trump thinks his actions are lawful,374then his Administration should come forward and be able to375answer straightforward questions from Congress. They should376operate in the light of day instead of trying to hide what they377are doing from Congress, the courts, and independent watchdogs.378    Mr. Chair, I was disappointed that over the last few weeks379I have had a number of oversight letters that you refused to380sign. I would hope that you would reconsider, and I look381forward to meeting with you to talk through those letters in382the near future.383    I think also, Mr. Chair, many of the questions that we have384today about the actions of President Trump that have directed385by Elon Musk, I think that is something that we should also386call in Elon Musk to ask questions, particularly about his387numerous and substantial conflicts of interest while he is388making these kinds of decisions.389    I hope that going forward this Committee will work to390defend Congress' role and responsibilities under the law, and391conduct real, meaningful oversight of these lawless actions by392the Trump administration.393    Chairman Paul. It is the practice of the Homeland Security394and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC) to swear in395witnesses. Will each of you please rise and raise your right396hand.397    Do you swear that the testimony you will give before this398Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but399the truth, so help you, God?400    Mr. Shellenberger. I do.401    Mr. Ruger. I do.402    Chairman Paul. Michael Shellenberger is a best-selling403author and journalist who writes on a wide range of topics404including free speech, censorship, and the environment. He is405the Community-Based Research Chair of Politics, Censorship, and406Free Speech at the University of Texas Austin. He also founded407the online newsletter, Public, and the research organization,408Civilization Works.409    Mr. Shellenberger, welcome to the Committee. Mr.410Shellenberger, you are recognized for your opening statement.411412  TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL SHELLENBERGER,\1\ FOUNDER, PUBLIC NEWS413414    Mr. Shellenberger. Thank you, Chairman Paul, Ranking Member415Peters, and members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting my416testimony.417---------------------------------------------------------------------------418    \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Shellenberger appears in the419Appendix on page 47.420---------------------------------------------------------------------------421    Since its creation by President John F. Kennedy in 1961,422the USAID has had as its mission the promotion of America's423values of free speech, democracy, and free markets by helping424others abroad. The name suggests that the organization is425focused on aiding poor nations in ways that result in their426economic growth.427    Why, then, has USAID been spending so much money on428information control and information operations, both in the429form of demanding censorship by social media platforms, and by430financing supposedly ``independent'' journalism? Why is the431United States government, in general, and USAID, in particular,432the largest donor to supposedly ``independent media? worldwide?433    For example, USAID in 2021 published a ``Disinformation434Primer: that urged greater censorship by social media platforms435as well as ``prebunking,'' a psychological technique to program436people to reject information disfavored by the government437without thinking.438    USAID may have been doing and funding worthwhile projects,439and it may be that Congress will need to pass legislation to440continue those projects through the State Department. But it is441inaccurate to suggest that the USAID closure and freeze on aid442will kill African children, as some have done, or cause other443harms. The Trump administration has already created a waiver444for human immunodeficiency viruses (HIV) treatment and resumed445aid for tuberculosis, malaria, and newborn health. And USAID's446health programs should be subject to scrutiny, given the447agency's history of using such programs as cover for other448activities, including regime change and biodefense research.449    For example, under President Barack Obama's administration,450USAID was caught using an HIV program to foment rebellion in451Cuba. USAID used EcoHealth Alliance as a passthrough452organization to funnel $1.1 million to the Wuhan Institute of453Virology, which was conducting risky gain-of-function (GOF)454experiments that may have caused the COVID pandemic. USAID gave455EcoHealth Alliance $54 million during that period, which was456more even than the $42 million the group received from the457Pentagon.458    As such, anyone who believes in public health for poor459people and poor nations must agree that USAID needs to be460reined in and cleaned up. That starts first with precisely the461kind of audits some Members of Congress are trying to stop.462USAID and all other government agencies must justify what they463are spending their money on. The public's interest is ensuring464that every dollar of taxpayer money is accounted for and465justified.466    As recently as 2021, the media acknowledged the obvious.467That year, The New York Times published an article headlined,468``U.S. aid to Central America hasn't slowed migration. Can469Kamala Harris?'' In that, The Times acknowledged that experts470say the reasons that years of aid have not curbed migration is,471in part, because, ``much of the money is handed over to472American companies which swallow a lot of it for salaries,473expenses, and profits, often before any services are474delivered.'' That is precisely the reason President Trump shut475down USAID and demanded an audit.476    While the subject of today's hearing is on USAID's477wastefulness, in general, I would like to focus the Committee's478attention on USAID's efforts to take control over independent479investigative journalism and to advocate censorship, in480particular. Together, USAID's censorship and disinformation481activities comprise a complete vision of information control in482service of regime change that USAID and other U.S. Government483agencies have sought in dozens of foreign nations over the last48475 years.485    USAID, in recent years, has been funding censorship486advocacy worldwide through a ``Countering Disinformation''487program, which is part of its Consortium for Elections and488Political Process Strengthening. This work has included funding489for so-called ``fact-checking'' organizations, including in490Brazil, a country where I am under criminal investigation for491sharing the Twitter Files Brazil, all entirely accurate and492legal.493    At the World Economic Forum last year, a major USAID494contractor, Internews, which received $472.6 million from USAID495over the last 17 years, urged advertiser boycotts to demand496censorship.497    That ``advertiser outreach'' was precisely the advertiser498boycott strategy used by groups with ties to U.S. intelligence499community (IC) to pressure Twitter and Facebook to censor500disfavored information.501    USAID has also heavily promoted digital identification502systems, which could be tied to social media accounts to allow503governments to punish individuals for what they say and read504online.505    Mr. Chair, I have much more to say, but I will end by506saying that Congress should defund all and any Federal programs507and contractors that promote or engage in censorship and508propaganda. Recommitment to an America First foreign policy509should require an unwavering commitment to free speech.510Congress should cutoff funding to groups, including the Aspen511Institute, which interfered in the 2020 election. Trump should512order the State Department, the National Science Foundation513(NSF), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and other514agencies to end all contracts with censorship advocates and515misinformation researchers.516    Thank you very much.517    Chairman Paul. Thank you.518    Dr. William Ruger is a foreign policy expert with decades519of experience as a scholar, practitioner, executive, and520military officer. He currently serves as the President of the521American Institute for Economic Research, while also serving as522a commander in the U.S. Navy Reserve.523    Dr. Ruger was nominated by President Trump to serve as the524U.S. Ambassador to the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, and was525appointed to the Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board at the526U.S. Department of State in 2020, serving from 2020 to 2023.527    Dr. Ruger, welcome to the Committee, and you are recognized528for your opening statement.529530 TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM RUGER,\1\ PRESIDENT, AMERICAN INSTITUTE531                     FOR ECONOMIC RESEARCH532533    Mr. Ruger. Thank you. Chairman Paul, Ranking Member Peters,534and Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to535testify about foreign aid. It is an honor.536---------------------------------------------------------------------------537    \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Ruger appears in the Appendix on538page 67.539---------------------------------------------------------------------------540    Foreign aid has been pushed to the forefront of the541national debate by President Trump's Inauguration Day Executive542Order (EO), and then what we have seen since with DOGE. In543response, critics have charged that these moves jeopardize544humanitarian efforts across the globe, and even threaten U.S.545national security. In particular, they have emphasized on the546claim that reform efforts would weaken U.S. soft power, create547vacuums that will be filled by our adversaries, and hurt our548overall ability to compete with China in this area of great549power competition.550    These national security arguments, though, are not551compelling and do not provide a sound basis to slow down552efforts to reform and even cut back on foreign assistance553itself. I am going to address some of these issues on the554national security front.555    Cutting aid is simply not going to ruin American foreign556policy. The most important determinants of American security do557not include, ``soft power'' resulting from foreign aid, even558assuming that foreign aid programs are effective at producing559soft power as opposed to our market economy and our great560companies in this country, as well as our great culture.561Instead, our relative material power, both our military562capabilities and our economic and technological strength, and563our geostrategic advantages are the most important things for564our safety and prosperity. Thus, the geopolitical implications565of the fight over foreign aid are fairly limited.566    In terms of our material power, maintaining a large567national defense capability second to none is what allows us to568defend our interest and deter attacks on our territory. Our569security is also supported by our fortunate geostrategic570position, and as we deal with the rise of potential peer571competitors, maintaining our military edge is far more572important to our security than even the best aid programs.573    This combination of military power and our geostrategic574position allow us to enjoy some detachment from problems in the575developing world, and thus further reduce the security576relevance, though not necessarily the humanitarian relevance of577many foreign aid programs in those areas. We should avoid578thinking that it is a matter of strategic necessity to be579deeply engaged everywhere. Sound geostrategic, and even580geoeconomic, thinking requires prioritization and tradeoffs. We581cannot be equally concerned about Chinese aid programs in Nepal582and what this means for U.S. security and prosperity, and583Chinese political penetration of Latin America, which could584have a lot of ramifications to the United States.585    Our economic strength is also a key cause of our security,586and our economy is the golden goose, as long as we do not587undermine it through wasteful and excessive spending and the588debt and deficits that result, poor tax and monetary policy,589constraining overregulation, or cultural decay. While foreign590aid is a small percentage of the national budget, it should591still be scrutinized for waste and effectiveness.592    There is also some evidence that foreign aid can have a593negative impact on target societies and even harm American soft594power, exacerbating anti-Americanism by creating winners and595losers in these places, with the losers blaming the United596States for local problems. In Egypt, a decade ago, protesters597said Obama can take his foreign aid and go to hell. That is an598example of how foreign aid actually stimulated anti-Americanism599in these countries.600    Moreover, there are numerous studies that show the601ineffectiveness of foreign assistance to even economic602development.603    Aid spend also does not necessarily work to keep States on604our side in today's great power competition. For example, USAID605did not stop poor African countries from expelling our forces,606though it is not clear it made much sense for those troops to607be there in the first place.608    Now critics of aid also claim that such a policy will609create a vacuum of power that the Chinese will happily fill,610thus eating our lunch in great power competition. The problem611with this argument is that (1) it is not clear that even where612adversaries like China were to fill these vacuums created by613cutting aid, that this would necessarily hurt us. And (2) it is614not clear that the Chinese experience with aid will be any615better than ours at creating soft power that they can616meaningfully exploit to their advantage. Indeed, there is617evidence that Chinese aid efforts have been backfiring, and I618would be happy to say a lot more about that in the question and619answers (Q&A).620    The other thing is that critics are claiming too much about621what the Administration is doing. The fact is that the Trump622administration is not proposing cutting all assistance.623Secretary Rubio recently stated, on February 10th, in an624interview on SiriusXM, he said, ``We are not walking away from625foreign aid. We will be involved in foreign aid.'' Instead,626what the Administration is doing is trying to make a627distinction between aid that can be reasonably argued to628advance America's national interests and aid that cannot pass a629basic smell test, like the ones that Senator Paul discussed630earlier.631    If we are going to change our foreign policy to one that632prioritizes American national interests and respects the633hardworking American taxpayers, then fixing our foreign policy634assistance programs is imperative. Too much spending is635disconnected from making us stronger, more secure, and more636prosperous, to use Secretary Rubio's three-part test from his637confirmation hearings here in the Senate. Too often it is in638the service of questionable social and political goals that639many Americans find dubious. Foreign aid is not going to be the640margin in which we win or lose today's great power competition.641    I think it would be wise for us to get our own house in642order economically, by looking carefully at programs that643cannot deliver for our security or prosperity, or so indirectly644connected to legitimate goals as to be based more on an article645of kind of faith than sound analysis that I think conservatives646should be known for. I commend any efforts to scrutinize aid647and provide accountability so programs can deliver for the648American people.649    Thank you, Senator.650    Chairman Paul. Senator Johnson.651652              OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHNSON653654    Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Unlike our Ranking655Member, I really appreciate you holding this hearing.656    In 2019, before the pandemic, total Federal Government657spending was $4.4 trillion. The Wall Street Journal just658reported the first four months of this year we spent $2.43659trillion, multiply that times three, and we are on a course of660spending $7.3 trillion this year, six years later. That is a 61661percent increase while the population has grown 2.6 percent. So662we need to scrutinize all this spending.663    Now, I thought it was interesting. I do not know how many664boards you had up there, but the example after example after665example of just outrageous waste and abuse of the taxpayer666dollar.667    The Ranking Member apparently accused you two gentlemen,668you were going to be peddling conspiracy theories. That all was669the truth. Do you have any idea what the Ranking Member is670talking about, Mr. Shellenberger?671    Mr. Shellenberger. Yes, of course I find it somewhat ironic672that one of the greatest conspiracy theories of recent times673was the Russiagate collusion hoax, which was this idea that674President Trump was being controlled by Putin through a sex675blackmail operation. It was one of the most wild conspiracy676theories ever devised, and of course it was created by deep677state operatives working on taxpayer funding.678    Another wild conspiracy theory, of course, Senator, was the679Hunter Biden laptop was a Russian disinformation effort.680    Senator Johnson. Which, by the way, the Ranking Member681accused me, when I was investing that, of soliciting and682disseminating Russian disinformation on that, wrote an actual683Senate report falsely accusing me of that. But go on.684    Mr. Shellenberger. Right. Of course, now we know the685Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had the laptop in686November or December 2019. They then got the Aspen Institute to687engage in what is called ``prebunking'' or a kind of688brainwashing, convincing journalists and social media platforms689that there would be a Russian hack and leak that fall involving690Hunter Biden and Burisma. That is an illegal weaponization of691the FBI, of a U.S. Government contractor and grantee, the Aspen692Institute. These things have not been fully investigated, but693we know, thanks to the Twitter Files, that this was the illegal694weaponization of our government agencies, in order to spread a695conspiracy theory in service of demanding censorship, which is696what they then did when the New York Post article came out in697October.698    Senator Johnson. I also have to point out that I was a699target of that prebunking campaign when both Senator Grassley700and I received an unsolicited briefing by the FBI, that we were701targets of Russian disinformation. To this day, we have not702found out who directed that briefing.703    Mr. Ruger, do you want to defend yourself from being704accused of conspiracy theorist?705    Mr. Ruger. Yes. I am a theorist. I am an international706relations theorist. I think what I said is definitely within707the broad tradition of political realism that has served this708country well, really focusing in, I think, on the importance of709our strengths and how we defend and deter against enemies. And710I think, applying good economic analysis to aid programs and711other government programs because they need to pass a cost-712benefit analysis.713    Too often, I think, and especially given what we talked714about with the $36 trillion in debt, we are not applying good715tradeoff decisions in terms of how we spend our money, and I716think, again, that is one of the reasons why it is really717important that we focus in on this.718    I applaud what President Trump is doing here, because719somebody has to get a handle on this. I think it is a good720stimulate for Congress to do its own work to help support the721President and making sure we are protecting taxpayer money.722    Senator Johnson. We are very compassionate people. We are.723We want to help people. We want to help combat Acquired724immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) and feed the world.725    Where did USAID go off the rails? It was established, I726think, good purpose. Even things like Radio Liberty, those727types of efforts seem to make sense. But where did they go off728the rails? Mr. Shellenberger, do you have a theory on that?729    Mr. Shellenberger. The regime change effort that then730resulted in this effort that really starts around 2007, 2008.731It is led by USAID. USAID creates and provides all of the732initial funding. It was from the State Department originally.733    Senator Johnson. Who was in charge back then?734    Mr. Shellenberger. Of USAID? I believe, well, that was7352008, so President--I am not sure.736    Senator Johnson. So under the Bush Administration----737    Mr. Shellenberger. It was under the Bush Administration.738    Senator Johnson [continuing]. It started going off the739rails. Mr. Ruger, do you have any idea? What is your theory?740When did all this start going south, or going left?741    Mr. Ruger. Again, one question really, at the beginning, is742how effective are these types of assistance programs, period.743So you could argue that in some senses it just went off the744rails from the very beginning because it opens the door to the745idea that there is potentially no limit to what could be746effective for the United States if we spend that money abroad.747But, in fact, that is not the case, right. There has not been748the type of cost-benefit analysis that is needed here.749    Again, I think part of it is fundamental to a program where750you are spending millions and billions of dollars across the751globe in a way that it is very difficult to achieve752accountability, particularly if those within the bureaucracy753are less subject to the kind of incentives that care about how754this money is spent.755    Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Ruger. Thank you, Mr.756Chair.757    Chairman Paul. Senator Peters.758    Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chair.759    Donald Trump and Elon Musk's illegal dismantling of Federal760agencies will definitely harm the safety and financial security761of American people. We have seen already, and we are hearing762about their unlawful government actions related to USAID.763    But let's take a look at their next victim. They have764already taken action on their next victim, which is the765Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Conveniently, just as766President Trump's top lieutenant and his mega-donor, the man767with incredible conflicts of interest, Elon Musk, he is about768to launch a new payment system at his company X, and that769company would have been subject to CFPB regulation. But now770Trump has decided to dismantle that agency. I may also say the771CFPB has also received hundreds of complaints about Musk, his772other company, Tesla. Isn't that interesting, a man with773massive conflicts, a man who has not been vetted, is now774working to destroy an agency that would actually oversee his775operations, and operations that have received complaints776because of the actions that he has taken.777    CFPB was created by Congress, with bipartisan support, in778the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. Its mission is to779protect Americans from scams and predatory companies. CFPB has780improved American lives by capping credit card late fees, bank781overdraft fees, reduced junk fees, has banned medical debt on782credit reports--I could go on.783    But now, President Trump and the Office of Management and784Budget (OMB) Director Vought are illegally destroying the785agency. Let's be clear. This is an agency that has saved786American taxpayers $21 billion--saved taxpayers $21 billions--787and is in the sight of unvetted, billionaire, huge conflicts of788interest Musk. He wants to destroy it because it would oversee789his new business venture.790    With CFPB shuttered, seniors, veterans, student borrowers791are going to be at risk of unfair financial service practices,792including debanking, payday lending, and mortgage fraud. In793fact, if you look at some of that mortgage fraud it changes794with the Military Lending Act, where financial institutions795taking advantage of the men and women who are serving our796country. They counted on CFPB to protect them. Nope. Trump and797Musk get rid of that. Scrap saving money for taxpayers. We do798not like these regulatory actions over banks and payday lenders799and people like Elon Musk.800    With CFPB shuttered, seniors, veterans, student borrowers801are going to be at risk of unfair service practices on a802regular basis, and it will only let companies continue to rip803off consumers, and get away with fraud.804    Who will President Trump and Musk's next target be? It805looks like it is the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The806FAA works 24/7 to provide the safest flight experience across807the country. After the January 29th crash at Ronald Reagan808International Airport, Americans are now, more than ever,809concerned about having safe air travel.810    However, just days before that tragic crash, President811Trump encouraged air traffic controllers to resign. We already812have a shortage of air traffic controllers, and the President813urged them to resign, knowing full well you just cannot turn on814the spigot and hire new controllers when you already have a815shortage. It takes months, years to train air traffic816controllers. Before that crash, President Trump said, ``No,817resign, even though we have a shortage.''818    He then tapped Elon Musk to lead the efforts to remake the819FAA, despite his clear conflicts of interest. Musk leads the820largest private space company, SpaceX, which is regulated--oh,821a theme here--which is regulated by the FAA. Just this fall,822the FAA proposed $633,000 in fines to SpaceX.823    I believe the last thing Americans need is President Trump824allowing a self-interested, unvetted billionaire, with massive825conflicts of interest, to do whatever he wants to destroy826agencies that oversee his companies, where he is making huge827profits.828    Maybe they are going to go after the National Highway829Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) next. This agency is830tasked with ensuring that all cars on our roads are safe and831reliable. Elon Musk, of course, is the Chief Executive Officer832(CEO) of Tesla, and has criticized commonsense safety833requirements like reporting on crashes that involve his834partially automated vehicles.835    If we continue to let President Trump and Musk unilaterally836decide which agencies can function and even exist, our roads837and skies are going to be more dangerous, and more Americans838will die.839    Or maybe President Trump will make good on his view to get840rid of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).841Unfortunately, we have seen, over the past three weeks of his842presidency, he is again and again willing to peddle843disinformation, overstep his authority, and break the law.844Getting rid of FEMA would mean the Federal Government is845abandoning Americans before, during, and after disasters like846wildfires, tornadoes, hurricanes, and even floods.847    While I am sure everyone here would agree FEMA can and848should be reformed, and I will lead that charge to make sure849that they better meet the needs of disaster survivors, it still850plays a critical role. American lives and helping communities851rebuild after increasingly common and more destructive natural852disasters is something we should be focused on. Federal-853supported resources such as food, water, generators, urban854search and rescue teams, and communication infrastructures can855save lives in the aftermath of a disaster.856    FEMA also administers billions of dollars in mitigation857grants to reduce the impact of natural hazards, which can save858lives and protect property.859    Mr. Chair, I hope that we can look at these other changes860that we are seeing, to see whether or not it is fraud or abuse,861and whether or not that is something that we need to examine. I862would hope in future hearings we will take a look at an863unvetted, highly conflicted person making these choices, to864understand what is behind their actions.865    Chairman Paul. Senator Lankford.866867             OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD868869    Senator Lankford. Thank you, Chairman Paul. Gentlemen,870thanks for being here. Actually, yesterday I released my eighth871report, what we call Federal Fumbles, where we regularly put872out in front of the American people areas of waste and abuse873and fraud for improper payments, and try to be able to874highlight those and shine some sunshine on them to hopefully875get rid of them and to be able to make tax dollars more876efficient in the way we are spending on this.877    Many of those things, as you can imagine full well, were878foreign aid related, that we have talked about over the last879several years, including this year, as well. We highlighted880that the Federal Government and the American taxpayer paid for88112 drag shows in Ecuador. I am not sure why the people of882Ecuador could not pay for their own drag shows, but apparently883Oklahoma taxpayers had to pay for that.884    The USAID-funded fisheries in Algeria, where they literally885built a fish farm in the middle of the desert, among a people886that do not eat fish, actually, in their normal diet because887they live in the desert, they do not normally eat fish, and888were not interested in eating the fish, but American taxpayers,889my Oklahoma taxpayers paid for those, and that has become an890issue for me.891    There was a study that was done by the National Endowment892for the Humanities (NEH) on humans, chimpanzees, and climate893change in Sierra Leone. We highlighted how we did a study with894Oklahoma tax dollars to study the effect of climate change on895European butterflies. Again, I do not know why the Europeans896could not pay for that. We did a study on the effects of COVID-89719 on the Russians--again, not sure why the Russians could not898have paid for that. One of my favorites of the long list of899least-favorites here, we did a study on the benefit of seat900belts and helmets on individuals driving in Ghana. I could go901ahead and tell you right now, seat belts and helmets will help902you, and you do not have to pay a dime to be able to do that903study.904    So over and over and over again we have highlighted this.905The difference now and then is there is a bigger megaphone, and906part of the frustration from my friends on the left is Elon907Musk is daring to tell a billion people on X that this is908happening. But when it was only a few people that knew, or my909limited following on X, it was OK. But if the megaphone gets910louder, and it gets pointed out more, it becomes more offensive911because then it becomes a risk.912    I have several things that I want to be able to drill down913on. I have talked for years about Voice of America and the914messaging they put out. It is literally government-paid915journalists that are supposed to tell the government story of916America internationally. What they are actually doing often is917talking about murders in America, and riots in America, and how918Trump is ruining Christianity in America, and on and on and on919have been the negative stories about America that they are920telling to the world on it.921    One of my first questions to either of you is about the922messaging that we put out globally, that we put out with923Oklahoma tax dollars and American tax dollars, to tell the924American story and how the American story is being told925internationally.926    Mr. Ruger. Thank you, Senator. I could actually speak a927little bit from my experience with the Fulbright Scholarship928board, where I was also chagrined to see some of the people929that we were thinking about sending abroad clearly did not love930this country and clearly had a kind of criticism that I think931was not the best message that you would necessarily want to see932out there in the world.933    I also worry about the boomerang effect, so not just the934message that we are sending abroad but because of the nature of935technology today these voices that are meant to help create936narratives abroad actually coming back and being a form of937government propaganda here at home. Because that message, like938maybe in the 1950s, when we were trying to, say, subvert939communism in Greece, that message then comes back here. The940content of that message, like you are talking about, is so941critical that it is, in fact, something that is supportive of942our interests and accurate, and something that is not going to943undermine support for the United States here at home even.944    Senator Lankford. Right. Mr. Shellenberger, do you want to945add anything to that?946    Mr. Shellenberger. I mean, of course everybody should be947free to speak their mind. But I think if we are going to have948taxpayers funding this activity they should be talking about949how special this country is. That is why so many people have950been trying to come here. The level of anti-Americanism and951globalism that we have seen promoted by these organizations, I952think it is horrendous. I share your views.953    Senator Lankford. When the global media outlet for the954United States sounds a lot like Russia Today's messaging955globally, we have a problem, and that is our problem. They956spend a lot of time saying we are going to prove that we have957free press by having government-paid reporters tell a story. If958they want to prove we have a free press we can point to959Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS), American Broadcasting960Company (ABC), and National Broadcasting Company (NBC), and say961look, we have a free press on it, but we should be getting our962messaging out on this.963    One other quick question on this. The inspector general for964Afghan reconstruction noted at least $11 million has gone965directly to the Taliban from our foreign aid of the $2 billion,966and they could not identify the rest, exactly who were the967recipients of that aid. Have you been able to track at all aid968that has gone directly to the Taliban since we have left969Afghanistan?970    Mr. Shellenberger. I have not, sir, but what I will point971out is there have been a lot of complaints about the inspector972general at USAID being let go. What was the inspector general973doing exactly? I mean, we have seen all the waste, fraud, and974abuse that you have documented, so what is the point of having975an inspector general if they are not going to inspect?976    Senator Lankford. Right. I do hope that the President977actually nominates a new inspector general quickly. That is an978important role for Congress to be able to have some insight979into different agencies, and it is important to have that role.980But I would agree. Your job is to inspect and to be able to981report back, and if you are not identifying this waste, why are982you there?983    I yield back.984    Chairman Paul. Senator Blumenthal.985986            OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BLUMENTHAL987988    Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Mr. Chair. I am disappointed989that we are not having a serious hearing on how to improve990USAID. There is room for improvement in every agency, as there991is in almost anything that we do. But this hearing is simply992designed to give cover for President Trump's unlawful993dismantling of a congressionally established agency. Against994the law, and against the interests of this country, and against995the interests of many in this country, including American996farmers who benefit from it.997    The inspector general of the U.S. Agency for International998Development, Paul Martin, has submitted a report.\1\ I ask that999it be made part of the record, if there is no objection.1000---------------------------------------------------------------------------1001    \1\ The report submitted by Senator Blumenthal appears in the1002Appendix on page 100.1003---------------------------------------------------------------------------1004    In that report was critical of the so-called pause in1005foreign assistance funding, saying that it has delayed $4891006million of food assistance, at ports, in transit, and in1007warehouses--I am quoting--at the risk of spoilage,1008unanticipated storage needs, and diversion. That is waste in1009government, and it is not just a little bit of waste. It is1010humongous waste, $489 million in those fees alone. He says the1011pause in funding and reductions in staff, including over 901012percent of Behavioral Health Administration (BHA's) workforce1013furloughed or placed on administrative leave, as undermined two1014key oversight mechanisms to assure accountability over1015humanitarian assistance, funding, partner vetting, and third-1016party monitoring. I do not have time to go into the details,1017but that is also waste.1018    When we talk about the other effects of this pause, let's1019look at the effect on farmers, American farmers, who grow the1020food that USAID distributes. American farmers, in 2022 alone,1021USAID helped to distribute nearly four billion pounds of1022American-grown food to 58 million people around the globe.1023    I know that some of my colleagues are reluctant to defend1024foreign humanitarian aid. It does not always poll well. It is1025humanitarian assistance. I think Americans are better than1026trashing the idealistic goals that have motivated our nation1027over the years. But putting aside the humanitarian instincts1028behind some of USAID, here is what American farmers have said1029in reaction to these actions.1030    President of the Iowa Farmers Union said, ``USAID is1031important for farmers. It is unfortunate that we would drop1032those relationships that we have built over time.''1033    The Ohio Farmers Union President said, ``USAID plays a1034crucial role, not only providing food aid to millions around1035the world but also directly purchasing grains from Ohio1036farmers. Ohio farmers are more than capable of rising to the1037challenge of feeding the world, but they need stability to do1038so.''1039    In shuttering USAID, President Trump is pulling billions of1040dollars away from American farmers without apparently a second1041thought. That is a lot of harm, that is a lot of waste and a1042lot of abuse to people who are the backbone of food production1043in this Nation.1044    Already, a lot of their labor, investment, produce going to1045waste as a result of the Musk power grab, slash-and-trash1046agencies, in the name of eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse,1047but in fact creating it, and profiting from it. Elon Musk is1048giving America a middle finger, in seizing power, engaging in1049the biggest heist of information in America's history, delving1050into agencies and destroying them when his own corporations1051profit from contracts with them, and controlling contracts in1052the future that will benefit his corporations. That is waste1053and fraud, Mr. Chair.1054    Chairman Paul. Thank you. The accusation or criticism has1055been made that this is an un-serious hearing full of conspiracy1056theorists. Yes, the Democrats were asked to participate, like1057they always are, the same way we were when we were in the1058minority. They could have brought a witness. They chose not to1059even bring a witness. I cannot conjecture as to why, but maybe1060it is because it is so embarrassing, the stuff that USAID is1061spending their money on.1062    Who could possibly be against ending $2 million for sex1063change surgeries in Guatemala? I mean, who wants to defend1064that? I have not heard anybody yet defend the waste and1065malfeasance that is going on over there. Three million dollars1066for girl-centric climate change. Maybe there is not a witness1067here, maybe it is not serious, but I do not hear anybody1068explaining why we should continue to do that.1069    Now there is a legal question. If there is $40 billion in1070USAID and they do not spend it at all and it just sits there,1071can the President impound it? This is a real question, and it1072may come to that.1073    But I do not think any court is going to find that the1074Executive Branch cannot pause and audit spending. To crassly1075say, and just to jump to say, ``It's illegal. It's unlawful.1076It's a tragedy. It's constitutional chaos,'' well, auditing1077spending is what government should do. It is the traditional1078oversight that has not been done in a generation. That is why1079we are finding this stuff. It has been creeping up for a1080generation.1081    And $4.8 million for social media influencers in Ukraine.1082If people want to defend that, step forward and defend it. We1083are finding waste and malfeasance.1084    You also have to realize that when you have a social1085agenda, and your social agenda is, lesbian, gay, bisexual,1086transgender and queer (LGBTQ), well, when you take that to a1087conservative country that has religious problems with that, and1088you want to foist it on them and fly flags, what ends up1089happening is that does not increase diplomacy; that actually1090goes against diplomacy. I do not care what people's views are1091on any of these subjects. You can have any view on LGBT, but it1092should not be part of foreign policy to force this on everybody1093around the world. It just is not part of government, and should1094never be part of government.1095    But we are only finding this out because we have a1096President with the courage, including the advice of Elon Musk,1097including the advice of a lot of us, who have been saying for1098years we need to look at USAID and make sure that they are not1099committing fraud.1100    Look, this morning the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of1101FEMA was fired because she is spending $54 million on luxury1102hotels for illegal aliens. My goodness. There are a lot of1103Americans struggling to find work. Laken Riley's killer, we1104flew him and put him up in a luxury hotel in New York. He was1105there for a few months, we spent all of the money on his meals,1106and then we flew him to Atlanta, and then he drifted over to1107Athens, and then he killed Laken Riley. Most Americans think1108that is crazy and we should not be doing it, but we are only1109finding it out because for once we have a President with the1110courage to say no, to go over there and put a padlock on the1111door and take the name down.1112    But ultimately there will be a legal question. Can he1113impound it, or will it have to come back to Congress? I1114actually, frankly, think the better way is spend about $301115billion and send $10 back, and we do a recission. There is a1116method for doing that, and I hope that is what is done.1117    But even on the impoundment question there are questions1118exactly, and I do not think it has ever made it all the way to1119the Supreme Court. There is court precedent on it. We have not1120gotten to that. A pause in funding is an impoundment. A pause1121in funding to do an audit is just good government, frankly.1122    The question I have for the panel is this, though.1123    Senator Blumenthal. Mr. Chair, may I just inquire----1124    Chairman Paul. Sure.1125    Senator Blumenthal [continuing]. Because the Chair1126mentioned that we do not have a minority witness. I would1127suggest, and I am speaking out of turn here because the Ranking1128Member is not here and I do not purport to speak for him----1129    Chairman Paul. We are docking your time for next week. I am1130just kidding.1131    Senator Blumenthal. But I would respectfully suggest that1132we have Paul Martin, who was fired as inspector general, come1133before us, along with----1134    Chairman Paul. We did not deny any witnesses. Your side did1135not put forward a witness. We did not deny any witnesses. You1136did not put forward a witness. But I just think it is1137disingenuous to sit there and----1138    Senator Blumenthal. Rather than standing----1139    Chairman Paul. It is a personal attack on me to call this1140un-serious and a bunch of conspiracy. It is an attack on our1141witnesses, as well. That is a pejorative, and that is name-1142calling. All right? You are welcome to object to things they1143say have facts to counter them, but to call this an un-serious1144hearing of conspiracy theorists----1145    Senator Blumenthal. I never used that term, Mr. Chair.1146    Chairman Paul. You said it was not serious. You said the1147hearing was not serious.1148    The thing is, you all chose not to participate in it, so1149that is on you.1150    Senator Blumenthal. Maybe we can have a second hearing,1151because this is such an important topic.1152    Chairman Paul. We can have a dozen on this. There is so1153much to talk about.1154    But anyway, I am not criticizing your Ranking Member for1155being un-serious or conspiracy theorist. He has his opinions.1156We make our arguments, both sides. But we call names and say,1157oh, well, your ideas are conspiracy theories, that is a1158pejorative, and that does not get us anywhere, frankly. Because1159it is also dangerous in the sense that many people who then1160say, oh, it is a conspiracy theory, well, government should1161suppress that.1162    This is what went on. We had 23 scientists come forward in1163Lancet and say that the possibility that the virus came from a1164lab in Wuhan was a conspiracy theory. Then government promoted1165back, to Twitter and others, and met with them on a weekly1166basis, trying to suppress. Facebook, for a year and a half,1167said that ideas like mine, that it could have come from the1168lab, were to be suppressed.1169    Michael Shellenberger, if you would not mind responding to1170how the government was involved with trying to suppress speech,1171that you found out through Twitter Files.1172    Mr. Shellenberger. Sure, and also I would think whenever1173you hear somebody accuse somebody of a conspiracy theory, I1174think you should consider that they are themselves spreading1175disinformation. In other words, we know that the proximal1176origins paper that you are describing there, we know from their1177internal discussion that those scientists were pursuing the lab1178leak theory. We saw it in their Slack messages. Then they got a1179phone call--they talked from the higher-ups--and then they1180ended up changing their whole hypothesis over a weekend.1181    We have seen repeatedly that term used to dismiss very1182serious evidence of misconduct and of actual conspiracies. We1183have seen the rise of an entire censorship industrial complex.1184There is no theorizing here. These are just the facts of the1185censorship industrial complex that was created by the1186Department of Homeland Security, starting in 2021, really1187started before then in 2020, all the way culminating in the1188Disinformation Governance Board, which was so Orwellian that1189even Democrats had to back away from it.1190    Chairman Paul. Senator Hassan.11911192              OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HASSAN11931194    Senator Hassen. Thanks, Mr. Chair. I want to thank you and1195the Ranking Member. For years I have worked on a bipartisan1196basis to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse within the Federal1197Government, including on bills with you, Mr. Chair. These1198efforts are critical to ensure that taxpayer dollars are being1199spent efficiently.1200    If this Committee and President Trump, though, actually1201wanted to reduce waste and fraud, they would work together to1202support and bolster inspectors general. Inspectors General are1203indispensable watchdogs who identify multimillion-dollar1204overpayments to big corporations, exactly what Elon Musk claims1205he wants to root out.1206    To use the inspector general of the Department of Health1207and Human Services (HHS) as an example, last year the HHS1208inspector general exposed $35 million in improper Medicare1209payments after equipment companies charged the government for1210thousands of catheters for patients who did not need them.1211Additionally, last year two pharmacy owners went to jail after1212the HHS inspector general helped uncover that they had1213fraudulently submitted at least $20 million in false Medicare1214claims for cancer medication.1215    All told, the HHS inspector general identified $7 billion1216last year in waste, fraud, and abuse within the Department but1217did President Trump and Elon Musk support and empower1218inspectors general? No, they did not. Instead, just days into1219his Administration, President Trump illegally fired at least 171220inspectors general in a move to silence those who would provide1221accountability and oversight over his Administration. Since1222their firing we are growing to get a better picture of why they1223were fired. Just yesterday, we found out that the State1224Department is planning to buy $400 million in armored vehicles1225from Elon Musk's Tesla company. Elon Musk spent $250 million to1226get President Trump elected, and now President Trump is1227returning the favor.1228    After clearing out the watchdogs, the President decided to1229unleash chaos and confusion on Granite Staters and Americans1230through an illegal order to cutoff nearly all Federal grants.1231These were grants that fire departments count on to upgrade1232their equipment, police departments use to hire officers to1233protect our streets, and shelters need to provide homeless1234veterans a place to sleep.1235    While Federal courts have temporarily halted the1236President's funding cutoff, I continue to hear from1237organizations that are unable to access the Federal funding1238that they had been awarded, that we appropriated, that is law.1239    This is the real cost of the illegal move by President1240Trump to cutoff funding, Granite Staters left in the lurch, not1241knowing how much longer their community health center will1242remain open, or if their childcare facility will be able to1243stay open and they will be able to go to work.1244    The American people want relief from high costs, and they1245want their government to work. But as inflation and egg prices1246soar, the President illegally fired the people, the very1247people, who root out waste and fraud, and have a track record1248of doing it. Then he illegally took funding away from law1249enforcement and community groups.1250    I urge the President to reverse course and for this1251Committee to work together to find commonsense ways to address1252the challenges that Americans are facing today.1253    Thank you, Mr. Chair.1254    Chairman Paul. Senator Scott.12551256               OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SCOTT12571258    Senator Rick Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a great1259hearing. As you know, the Federal Government is spending money1260like it is going out of style. Last year it spent nearly $71261trillion, and the revenues were $5.2 trillion. Nobody in this1262country can do that. Nobody can do it in their personal life.1263Businesses cannot do it. Only the Federal Government. We are1264being forced to borrow another $1.9 trillion to make up for it.1265It is one of the reasons we now have over $36 trillion worth of1266debt, and we are heading quickly to $37 trillion.1267    Over the last four years, while the population has grown1268two percent, the Federal Government has increased spending by126953 percent. They have added $8 trillion to the national debt in1270four years. This is not sustainable. If nothing changes, our1271Federal Government is on track to add $1 trillion to the1272Federal debt every 180 days.1273    The cost of debt is another massive problem. Right now more1274than $1 trillion, money that hardworking Americans pay in taxes1275each year, is just going to pay the interest on the Federal1276debt. That is a waste.1277    I am very appreciative of what President Trump is doing and1278what DOGE is doing to try to find all this waste. They are1279going agency by agency, one by one, and finding out how every1280single dollar is spent, and making sure it is spent in the best1281interest of the American public.1282    Unfortunately, many Democrats among this Committee have1283expressed outrage, but the outrage is better suited for some of1284the absurd, wasteful spending they have already uncovered.1285Let's look at USAID. They provided full finding for al-Qaeda1286terrorist, Anwar al-Awlaki, to attend college in Colorado. They1287gave $310 million to start a Palestinian cement factor, which1288was used to help Hamas build terror tunnels into Gaza. How can1289you be this stupid?1290    Another $1.5 million to advance diversity, equity, and1291inclusion in Serbia's workplaces and to business communities.1292How does that help an American? Forty-seven thousand for a1293transgender operation in Colombia. How does that help America?1294And $2.5 million for electric vehicles in Vietnam. How does1295that help America?1296    A multiyear study for the Middle East Forum uncovered $1641297million of approved grants to radical organizations, $1221298million, according to groups aligned with designated1299terrorists. How does that help Americans? Billions more to1300charities that have histories of failing to vet their partners.1301    The families I represent would agree that is not how they1302want their tax dollars spent. They would rather have their tax1303dollars spent putting Americans first or advancing our1304interests abroad, not funding terrorists against us or allies1305who are funding some fringe globalist agenda.1306    I am very appreciative of what President Trump has done, I1307appreciate what DOGE is doing, and I appreciate what Marco1308Rubio, our ex-colleague, is doing running State.1309    Mr. Shellenberger, DOGE also discovered that the Biden1310administration spent millions of dollars on subscriptions to1311left-leaning media outlets like Politico. The Biden1312administration censored certain media and Americans online that1313did not favor the administration's narrative, and now we see1314that their administration was essentially financing media1315outlets to favor them. How is this not a conflict of interest,1316and what do you think of this?1317    Mr. Shellenberger. Yes, I agree it is a huge conflict of1318interest, and it is really just the tip of the iceberg. What we1319uncovered in our reporting is that the USAID has basically been1320bankrolling an organization called the Organized Crime and1321Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), which has been in the1322process, over the last decade and a half, of really taking over1323so-called independent investigative journalism around the1324world, usually relying on strategic leaks by the intelligence1325community but with an aim to really undermine the independence1326of investigative journalism.1327    When we started investigating these guys they threatened to1328sue us right away. They have a $9 million fund just to sue1329people. It is called Reporter's Shield, but it is an offense1330weapon that they use to basically shut down any inquiry into1331what they are doing. We have even seen now, we have now traced1332that USAID money to investigations that were essential to the13332019 impeachment of President Donald Trump and then also to the1334Russiagate hoax, particularly spreading misinformation and1335malinformation about Trump's alleged ties to the Russians.1336    Of course, one of the greatest conspiracy theorists of the1337recent era, which alleged that because President Trump banked1338with Deutsche Bank, and that there were Russian oligarchs who1339also banked with Deutsche Bank, that there had to be some sort1340of a conspiracy.1341    So that is just the tip of the iceberg, sir. It is really a1342deep corruption of so-called mainstream independent media.1343    Senator Scott. Based on your investigation, you also talk1344about how USAID transfers funds between projects to make it1345hard for anybody to track the funds. Can you elaborate?1346    Mr. Shellenberger. Sure. Part of what happened is that one1347of the media organizations in Germany, one of their big1348television stations, Norddeutscher Rundfunk (NDR), really1349turned the tables on OCCRP and began an investigation. USAID1350admitted, on camera, that they had routed money from the State1351Department's Law Enforcement Bureau through USAID just for1352optics reasons, admitting on camera that they did that because1353they knew that it would look bad for an investigative1354journalism organization to be supported by effective the cops,1355by law enforcement. That is not good journalism practice that1356violates basically every code of ethics by every journalism1357organization in the world.1358    They also acknowledged that the USAID has to agree to1359OCCRP's work plan and that they have to agree to their key1360staff. This was all literally recorded on video, USAID1361officials saying this. Then, afterwards, OCCRP denied it. They1362just said that that was not true. It just asserted that it was1363false.1364    I mean, really what you are looking at with OCCRP and also1365Internews is that these are really vectors of disinformation.1366They spread disinformation and then demand censorship on the1367basis of it. That is what they did with the COVID lab leak, as1368the Chair was mentioning. First they spread the disinformation1369that it was a conspiracy theory that it could have come from a1370lab when, of course, their own scientists suspected that is1371what it was. Then they demanded censorship on the basis of it.1372    The same thing happened with Hunter Biden, and we see that1373playbook, I think, underway here today, where when journalists1374start to expose these misdeeds, they just project and say, you1375are spreading a conspiracy theory, and, of course, that has1376been traditionally the basis for demanding censorship.1377    Senator Scott. In 2022, the Biden administration donated1378$344 million to United Nations Relief and Works Agency for1379Palestinian Refugees, and continued to donate hundreds of1380millions of dollars throughout 2023 and during the Israeli-1381Hamas war. We now know Hamas terrorists were stealing food and1382supplies intended for humanitarian purposes. So was the U.S.1383Government funding a terrorist organization?1384    Mr. Shellenberger. It sure looks like that, and I have not1385investigated that particular case. But I think one of the big1386lessons from all this, we may remember, those of us that are1387old enough to remember what we were learning after September138811, 2001 (9/11) is that that was a process of blowback. We had1389been arming the Mujahideen, and we had been in alliance with1390the folks that actually then, their networks then ended up1391creating the 9/11 attacks.1392    I think what we are seeing here is starting to blow back on1393us, where we see the disinformation and censorship being1394weaponized against the American people, because we have a USAID1395complex that has been completely unaccountable. Obviously, the1396inspector general was not doing his job right, and therefore I1397think merits this very serious audit.1398    I agree with the Chair. If there is good stuff that they1399have been doing--and I do not doubt that there has been--then1400it should make the case for it and be added in back later,1401rather than sort of, that we all assume that everything is1402fine.1403    Senator Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chair.1404    Chairman Paul. Senator Kim.14051406                OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR KIM14071408    Senator Kim. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for pulling this1409together. I just want to reflect on this a little bit because1410there is a room, and there is a way for us to have a debate1411about the effectiveness and the efficiency of foreign aid. But1412what is happening right now in our Nation, this is not the1413right way to go about it. I hear about a pause here, but this1414is not a pause. We are seeing a gutting of the staff down to1415approximately 600.1416    If it is a pause to look and reflect and see what is not1417working, what should not be done, then let's pause on the1418gutting of the staff. Let's pause on the transfer of USAID1419under the State Department.1420    I just wanted to show that this is not a pause. This is not1421a review. This is already a reorganization, already a1422dismantling of USAID as it is. I say that as someone who, a1423little over 20 years ago, stepped into the Ronald Reagan1424building for the very first day of my career in public service.1425I served at USAID. I do not know who else in this room has.1426    But I will just tell you that I was proud to be able to1427serve at USAID and serve this country. I worked at USAID. I1428worked at the Pentagon. I worked at the State Department. I1429have been a part of the three D's of our foreign policy, of1430defense, diplomacy, and development, and seen that in action.1431So I disagree with the idea that the type of power, the type of1432influence that we are trying to move forward on at USAID does1433not matter, that it is only about material military power.1434    We have seen how, for instance, when it was our response to1435the earthquake in Turkey or the flooding in Pakistan, how that1436was something that was able to open up diplomatic channels, to1437be able to move forward, build on the relationship. It was the1438work that we were doing through USAID that was able to get some1439of our diplomatic efforts, and including our military efforts,1440in a better position.1441    I say that as someone who walked into the Reagan Building.1442There is a reason why USAID is in the Ronald Reagan Building.1443It is because Ronald Reagan himself was a strong supporter of1444USAID and foreign assistance. He said, ``The ultimate1445importance to the United States of our security and development1446assistance programs cannot be exaggerated.'' He said, ``Our1447national interests are inextricably tied to the security and1448development of our friends and allies.''1449    When it came to people criticizing USAID, he said, ``You1450know the excuses. We can't afford foreign aid anymore, or we1451are wasting money, pouring it into these poor countries, or we1452cannot buy friends. Other countries just take the money and1453dislike us for giving it,'' a lot of things that we heard here1454today.1455    Ronald Reagan concludes, saying, ``Well, all of these1456excuses are just that, excuses, and they are dead wrong.''1457    What I heard today, people talking about USAID as if it is1458charity. One person said, ``Foreign aid is not charity. We must1459make sure it is well spent but is less than one percent of the1460budget and critical to our national security.'' The person who1461said that is Secretary of State Marco Rubio, when he was with1462us in the Senate.1463    He also went on to say that he urged President Biden to1464move forward and prioritize USAID funding, because he said it,1465``countered the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) expanding1466global influence.'' Our current Secretary of State also said,1467``We do not have to give foreign aid. We do so because it1468furthers our national interests. That's why we give foreign1469aid.''1470    I just wanted to be able to frame that. When I worked at1471USAID, I worked at USAID under the Bush Administration. I1472worked under a Republican President. I worked under an1473administrator there who was appointed by a Republican1474President, Andrew Natsios, who was just recently asked, ``Could1475you specifically respond to what Elon Musk's functionaries at1476the Department of Government Efficiency have done in terms of1477actually shutting down USAID?'' And Andrew Natsios said, ``It1478is illegal and it is outrageous. They have no right to abolish1479an agency, a statutory agency in the Federal Government.''1480    I just wanted to raise this, because what we are talking1481about here is efforts that are trying to end a long-standing,1482bipartisan understanding about our strength as a global leader.1483What we are also seeing--and this is something that just feels1484so personal--is just the demonization of public service. We can1485have a debate about foreign aid, but we can do it without1486demonizing the people who have sworn an oath to this country,1487many of them right now working in difficult and dangerous1488places. Some of them do not know how they are going to get back1489home right now because of how quickly all of this had been shut1490off.1491    What it really just shakes around the world when I hear1492from leaders in other countries is they say, ``What is the1493value of the American handshake right now?'' and I think that1494has been detrimentally affected and really negatively affected1495over the course of the last couple of weeks.1496    With that I will yield back.1497    Chairman Paul. Thank you. It has been bandied about that1498certain things are illegal, and I think it is worth a little1499bit of discussion over that--inspectors general have been let1500go, people at the USAID have been let go--and it has been1501alleged that this is illegal.1502    It is actually a little more complicated than that. This1503goes all the way back to Andrew Johnson and his fight with1504Congress. There was a Tenure of Office Act that was passed, and1505it said that he could not even fire members of his Cabinet, and1506they were in the same party. The Republicans controlled1507Congress, and Johnson, at the time, I guess, had become a1508Republican, being Lincoln's Vice President.1509    It was finally repealed, but there was a big dispute over1510if he could even hire members of his Cabinet. Later, in 1926,1511in Myers v. United States, the court rules that you really1512cannot restrict a President's right to hire and fire their1513Cabinet.1514    Now it has gone beyond that. In 2020 or 2021, the CFPB the1515Democrats created this and they did not want it to ever go1516away. The funding was supposed to go on forever, and the person1517in charge of it was not to be fired. Well, the court ruled that1518you cannot do that. You cannot set up an executive agency under1519the auspices of the President and say he cannot fire them.1520    Then there is the question with the inspectors general, and1521the Trump administration is challenging it, and I think we have1522to go with what the court decides. But there is legislation1523saying you cannot fire them. He asserts that under the court1524precedence that he can, and so this is in argument. That is1525what constitutional law and separation of powers is about. We1526will find out whether it is legal or illegal. But at this point1527it is an allegation that it is illegal.1528    With regard to the waste and abuse and the outrageous1529things that we are seeing, sure it draws the attention. It1530should draw the attention. But there is also the question of1531where the money comes from. What we bring in, in tax revenue,1532is equal to about four programs--Medicare, Medicaid, Social1533Security, and food stamps would soak up all of the revenue.1534There is nothing left.1535    When we vote on a budget, as Congress, for military and1536non-military, what is called discretionary spending, which is a1537third of all spending, it is all borrowed. Nearly $2 trillion1538of what we vote on, it is all borrowed.1539    This gets to the point that I will ask both of you on1540foreign aid. If it is about $40 billion, do you think we could1541just get better people over there and they will not do the bad1542projects, or do you think maybe they need a smaller number in1543order to have an incentive to cut out the waste?1544    We will start with Dr. Ruger.1545    Mr. Ruger. Yes, I think you are exactly right. There is1546very little incentive for agencies to get lean when the money1547keeps coming through the door. In fact, even if you increase1548the aid, or the support rather, then why would they change? I1549think this is the case in almost every government agency out1550there, is that putting it on a diet means that it will actually1551work better. When the budgets are bloated, then you see some of1552these less-prioritized or less-important projects are not1553scrapped or subject to the same type of analysis, in terms of1554their benefits relative to their cost that we would like to1555see.1556    One thing I would like to say also is that given the1557potential for USAID and the State Department to pursue1558different and potentially contradictory goals, it is also good1559governance to actually try to find a different architecture1560that can make sure that the money that is spent is actually1561doing so for a common purpose and achieving a common end, as1562opposed to being potentially contradictory here. That is one of1563the challenges that I think Secretary Rubio is trying to handle1564with this reform that he has already started down the path for.1565    Chairman Paul. Mr. Shellenberger.1566    Mr. Shellenberger. Yes, of course I absolutely agree you1567cannot get efficiency if you have a big or growing budget. I1568think the other issue is that, what is this money actually for?1569I think the fact that they are putting it in State Department1570is correct. If this is about our relations with foreign1571countries, encouraging the kind of governments we want,1572discouraging the kind of governments we do not want--you might1573call that regime change--that belongs in State Department.1574    Even on things that seem innocent, like food aid, there has1575been a long literature of academic studies on really big driver1576of starvation and hunger in poor countries tends to be war. It1577tends to be used as a weapon of war. Countries that are so1578vulnerable that they depend on food imports and cannot afford1579to replace them if the United States were to end those, those1580are countries that have a huge food sustainability problem.1581They have problems that go much deeper than just not getting1582that month's shipment of food from us. I think if we want to1583subsidize American farmers, that is a question that needs to be1584discussed, and economists and others can debate that.1585    But I think this idea that somehow it is good to just dump1586food on poor countries has been shown to really be quite1587devastating in many cases, undermining the local farmers who1588are actually required to make those countries self-sufficient.1589    I think if we are really concerned about helping poor1590countries to develop, then we have to have an eye toward self-1591sufficiency and self-reliance and not just endless dependence1592on the United States.1593    Chairman Paul. Apparently I am the last person to vote, and1594they really want me to go vote. I am going to go vote, and1595nobody is here to object. I am going to leave it open because1596there is one more Senator coming, and she is going to gavel it1597closed when she gets here, Senator Ernst, and I am going to let1598her ask questions for as long as she wants, and she gets to end1599it.1600    But if you would not mind sitting patiently, she wants to1601ask a few questions. [Pause.]1602    Senator Scott [presiding.] All right. If we can start1603again. I think Senator Ernst is coming back also.1604    This is for both of you. How important is it for the1605administration agencies to be completely transparent with U.S.1606taxpayer funds to ensure it is used to advance U.S. interests?1607    Mr. Shellenberger. I will say I think it is absolutely1608essential at least in terms of the actual development in AID.1609Obviously, there are covert operations. We have the Central1610Intelligence Agency (CIA) to carry those out. We have the State1611Department that obviously directs foreign policy. But I think1612if it is genuinely a charitable project or genuinely aimed at1613public health, that should be transparent.1614    We saw what happened with these huge investments into the1615Wuhan Institute of Virology, sort of masked through EcoHealth1616Alliance. Huge problems, obviously. If we had known about that,1617there probably could have been better regulation and better1618governance of it. It is one of the many unintended consequences1619of that kind of government secrecy.1620    Mr. Ruger. Yes. I mean, we talk about these programs being1621wasteful, and in many cases they are, I actually think that1622there is something potentially more pernicious, which is why I1623think shining the light on this and being transparent is so1624important, which is that I think, in many cases, these are1625purposely designed to try to promote progressive causes abroad,1626and that ideally that will have a boomerang effect here at1627home. In other words, this is part of a kind of progressive,1628global prioritization of different policy ideas. I mean, you1629seen this, $5.5 million for LGBTQ advocacy in Jamaica and1630Uganda. You see mental health programs for LGBTQ+ youth1631advocacy in Venezuela, for example.1632    This is part of a kind of progressive political campaign. I1633think the more and more that is brought to the fore and the1634people understand what is going on, then they can have a1635legitimate discussion about whether this best supports our1636national interests, as opposed to something, I think, that1637supports the interests of, again, many people in America but1638not the public good, if you will.1639    Again, shining that light on it, I think, will have that1640disinfectant that we have talked about throughout our country's1641history.1642    Senator Scott. So how would you do it? How would you create1643more transparency?1644    Mr. Ruger. One thing is a hearing like this. I think one of1645Congress' most important roles, as an overseer of spending, is1646to shine a light on things and to call people on the carpet, if1647you will. I would bring these people here regularly and ask1648them, why are you spending $6 million for Egyptian educational1649opportunities in the North Sinai? How does that tier up to our1650national interest?1651    If they have a good answer, great. Everyone has done their1652job. But if they cannot explain it in an open forum and look at1653the American public and say, look, if you are from Des Moines,1654Iowa, we want you, hardworking American, to pay for this1655because of X, Y, and Z reasons. The American public should be1656able to say, yes, that makes sense. But a lot of these things1657we have been seeing just do not. I do not understand why we are1658spending $20 million to tailor a program in Iraq through the1659Sesame Workshop. How does that support what Secretary Rubio1660talked about in terms of our strength, our security, or our1661prosperity? It just does not. It does not pass that test. I1662think Americans are fed up with that.1663    Again, we heard about Ronald Reagan praising these1664programs, but I am guessing that Ronald Reagan would not be1665proud of these programs today.1666    Mr. Shellenberger. Yes, I agree. I think that the whole1667concept of foreign aid needs to be reconceptualized. If it is1668part of soft power then it should be done through the State1669Department. If it is part of a genuine economic development1670initiative it should be focused on the things that we know1671drive economic development, including cheap energy,1672infrastructure, manufacturing, the ways that all poor countries1673rise out of poverty and develop. That is clearly not what it1674has been about because it would not be funding these frivolous1675projects around the world if it were serious about genuine1676economic development.1677    For me, I think it is an amazing moment, and I think the1678fact that it took such dramatic action shows just how burdened1679that agency was by all sorts of conflicting agendas. I think it1680is a great time for the Congress to recreate an aid function1681that is sort of separated from U.S. foreign policy, or at least1682from the soft power part of it.1683    Senator Scott. So in your jobs, how have each of you1684figured out how to be heard, because it is hard, right?1685    Mr. Shellenberger. One of the things that we have realized1686is that the way that we have imagined what the news media was1687for a long time, it really was not what we thought it was, that1688there was a really intense level of control that was being1689exercised by the national security state. We saw in the Twitter1690Files, and we saw with the Cyber Threat Intelligence League1691(CTIL) files, which a whistleblower gave to us, that showed1692that you had a former Ministry of Defense contractor from1693Britain, you had a Department of Defense (DOD) contractor in1694the United States on a kind of limited hangout, describing how1695the U.S. Government and British government had really exercised1696serious control over the news media since World War II.1697    That all starts to break apart with the rise of social1698media. Social media, at first, was being used to foment regime1699change operations in the Middle East in terms of the Arab1700Spring, and then in the color revolutions in Eastern Europe.1701Then when Trump was elected in 2016, there was really a turning1702inward, a turning against the American people for a counter-1703populaced effort by the intelligence agencies, as well as by1704USAID.1705    You see them participating in effectively regime change1706operations in the United States. That included this revelation1707that much of the investigative journalism that USAID had been1708funding since around 2008, 2009, through groups like OCCRP and1709Internews, were really aimed at gaining control over the1710information environments around the world. We would not have1711known that without the Twitter Files, which revealed the1712censorship industrial complex, seeking to censor millions of1713Americans, flagging disfavored information, including accurate1714information such as around COVID-19 origins, around the COVID-171519 vaccines.1716    For me this is the golden age of journalism. People can1717actually find sources of information outside of a tiny, narrow1718band of sources that we had between World War II and really the1719early 2000s, 2010, when social media rose. That is what is1720going on here. It has really been the revolt of the public, and1721now we see a revolt of the elites demanding that we put the1722genie back in the bottle. I do not think long-term it is going1723to work out. It really took someone like Elon Musk to unleash1724the full potential of social media, and we saw it in the last1725election podcasting playing this massive role.1726    I think it is a revolutionary moment. Get a huge change in1727apparently American foreign policy with a huge political1728transformation also occurring at the same time of this media1729transformation and revolution.1730    Mr. Ruger. Yes, and to add to that, my institution, the1731American Institute for Economic Research, was involved with the1732creation of the Great Barrington Declaration. You saw our1733institution and the authors of the Great Barrington1734Declaration, including, I think, the incoming head of the1735National Institute of Health (NIH), being subject to claims of1736disinformation and attempts to squelch our voice in trying to1737get the message out about different public policy approaches to1738how to handle the COVID-19 pandemic.1739    It is not just happening abroad. It is happening here at1740home. Again, I applaud what we have seen with the opening of1741Twitter and X, making that much more of an open forum. Again, I1742think generally speaking, kind of light is the disinfectant1743here.1744    Senator Scott. We see a lot of money being paid to1745researchers to, ``study disinformation.'' Can you paint a1746picture of that research can translate to actions to take down1747constitutionally protected speech, especially here in the1748United States?1749    Mr. Shellenberger. Sure. I am happy to talk about that,1750and, I think you have to understand that social media was first1751used by the U.S. Government to foment regime change in the1752Middle East and Eastern Europe. After Trump was elected, those1753tools were all brought back here, and there was an effort to1754create this conspiracy theory that President Trump was somehow1755controlled by the Russians. Then with COVID-19 we saw the rise1756of basically Department of Homeland Security asking four1757separate groups, Graphika, University of Washington, the1758Stanford Internet Observatory, and the Atlantic Council, to1759create really a cluster of organizations that would create1760little committees of experts to flag what they called1761misinformation. It was often just disfavored information, often1762accurate information, first around the 2020 elections and then1763around COVID-19 in 2021, where they actually had a direct1764pipeline to this JIRA software system, ticketing system, where1765they were able to basically demand directly to Facebook and1766Twitter that they take down posts that they thought were1767contributing, again, not just to false information but to the1768wrong narrative, including true stories of vaccine side effects1769that were contributing to vaccine hesitancy.1770    The good news is that after that was revealed in the1771Twitter Files and then Congressman Jim Jordan's committee on1772the House side subpoenaed and had witnesses, there was a whole1773elaborate process over the last two years, Stanford Internet1774Observatory shut down last year, under the weight of evidence1775that it was engaged in censorship. I think we have now been1776able to push back against a significant amount of it, and1777President Trump has obviously signed the Executive Order1778supporting free speech.1779    But I think it was a very dark moment over really the last178010 years, where we saw a whole set of groups that were involved1781in regime change operations abroad start to turn those weapons1782inward against us.1783    Senator Scott. Senator Ernst.17841785               OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ERNST17861787    Senator Ernst. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to our1788witnesses for being here today for this important hearing.1789    All Americans should be able to take great pride in our1790generosity, and the government agencies coordinate aid efforts1791should be eager to share the details about how their use of1792taxpayer money makes the world a better place.1793    Yet the hard truth is, as we have seen, USAID has been out1794of control for decades. There is no shortage of questionable1795USAID projects. For example, a $20 million grant to the Sesame1796Workshop nonprofit to create an Iraqi version of Sesame Street.1797More than $9 million intended for civilian food and medical1798supplies in Syria ended up in the hands of violent terrorists.1799And another one, $27 million was designated to so-called1800reintegration gift bags, which may even include a Barbie doll,1801for deported Central Americans. There was also $68,000 awarded1802for dance classes in none other than Wuhan, China.1803    After being stonewalled by USAID for years, I learned funds1804meant for economic relief in Ukraine were instead paying for1805Ukrainian models and designers to attend Fashion Weeks in New1806York City, London, and Paris.1807    Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent (UC) to enter my1808oversight letters\1\ and USAID's responses into the record.1809---------------------------------------------------------------------------1810    \1\ The oversight letters submitted by Senator Ernst appears in the1811Appendix on page 82.1812---------------------------------------------------------------------------1813    Senator Rick Scott. Without objection.1814    Senator Ernst. Thank you, Mr. Chair.1815    USAID is notorious for exploiting legal loopholes, as my1816COVID-19 origins investigations exposed. By law, all Federal1817spending is required to be publicly available on1818USAspending.gov. We have known for a while that Dr. Fauci used1819NIH funding to finance bat coronavirus research at the Wuhan1820Institute of Virology, but it took the watchdog White Coat1821Waste Project to expose evidence that USAID was funding it too.1822In fact, the bulk of the money came from USAID. Yet no grants1823to the Chinese lab appeared on USAspending.gov. It was hidden1824from the public through layers of unreported subgrants and1825subawards. Thankfully, my push to defund EcoHealth Alliance was1826successful, and the group is now barred from receiving U.S.1827Government grants.1828    But this is why my Tracking Receipts to Adversarial1829Countries for Knowledge of Spending (TRACKS) Act must become1830law, to prevent money being sent to China, the Taliban, or any1831other foreign adversary. Every grant recipient must be1832disclosed to ensure accountability, and we should not stop1833there. My bipartisan Stop Secret Spending Act, introduced with1834Ranking Member Peters, would add additional transparency to1835Federal spending.1836    Mr. Shellenberger, I will start with you, please. Why is1837USAID so secretive about how it spends billions of taxpayer1838dollars? Is it to avoid the public outrage over the waste, or1839is there something more nefarious there?1840    Mr. Shellenberger. Thank you, Senator, and first of all,1841thank you for your leadership in bringing transparency and1842accountability to USAID and the funding there.1843    Obviously, this example you just gave of the Wuhan1844Institute of Virology is incredible. It appears that the U.S.1845Government funded the creation of the virus that caused the1846global pandemic. We also know that President Barack Obama had1847banned that research, and that Anthony Fauci had created a1848workaround to get around that and move that research to the1849Wuhan Institute of Virology. Had there been some transparency1850about it, I think some questions would have been raised.1851    One of the claims, of course, that was made right after1852Senator Cotton raised the idea that maybe it did leak from a1853lab, Washington Post claimed it was a debunked conspiracy1854theory. Anybody who had just googled ``virus lab leak'' would1855have discovered that there had been years and years, maybe1856decades, of news stories about viruses leaking from labs. It is1857a very common thing. Of course, it was one of the main reasons1858that we wanted to end that risky gain-of-function research1859because we knew the high risk of something leaking from a lab.1860    I think I applaud your work. We need much more transparency1861with it. As I mentioned before, I do think that some part of1862that motivation may have been to hide regime change operations1863that were run by USAID in concert with the State Department. If1864you are going to be doing regime change operations, those1865belong in the State Department and with the CIA, not in a1866charitable organization. Because if you genuinely want people1867to trust in vaccines or other public health measures, it is a1868terrible thing for them to believe that maybe it is part of1869some counter-terrorist operation or some manipulation by the1870U.S. Government that has some political motivation or some1871regime change motivation. If it is truly charitable support for1872things like good causes, then there has to be a firewall1873between that and what the CIA and the State Department are1874doing.1875    Senator Ernst. Yes. Transparency, transparency,1876transparency. It is so important.1877    I will continue with you and then, Mr. Ruger, you can add1878your thoughts, as well. But absent a forensic audit by the1879Trump administration, do you think we would have ever known the1880full depth of USAID's spending, or misspending in this case?1881    Mr. Shellenberger. No. I mean, obviously the Administration1882is pursuing a model that Silicon Valley has used for a long1883time, which is that you do need to make changes to actually see1884what is going on. So yes, no, I think it is an incredible1885moment of reform. I wish it were bipartisan. The last time of1886serious reform in the United States was, of course, in the mid-18871970s we had the Church Committee hearings, exactly 50 years1888ago this year, that were bipartisan, that revealed much of the1889abuses of power by the CIA, by the FBI. It led to a set of1890reforms, including greater whistleblower protections. I do hope1891that Democrats will join you, Senator, in pushing for those1892reforms because it is obviously in the interest of all of us,1893all Americans.1894    In most of the past, the FBI has been weaponized against1895leftists in the United States. It is only recently that we see1896the deep state mostly targeting right-wing populace. But this1897sort of commitment, it is an all-American commitment to not1898letting the State be abused for political reasons. I think next1899time you never know. It could be weaponized against the left1900again. I hope that Democrats will join you in making this1901renewed push, and I applaud the Republicans for taking up the1902mantle of pushing for greater disclosure, greater transparency,1903greater accountability.1904    I just think some overall clarity about what does the1905United States want its interaction with the world to be. Are we1906still in the period after World War II to today, or do we need1907to kind of rebalance our relationship? I think the public voted1908for a rebalancing toward a more America First agenda. I also do1909not think Americans want to completely withdraw from the world.1910But again, I do think that some basic hygiene is in order in1911terms of separating out what is genuinely charitable or1912development activities from what is regime change, censorship,1913disinformation, information control activities.1914    Senator Ernst. Right. I agree. Thank you1915    Mr. Ruger, do you have thought there, as well?1916    Mr. Ruger. Sure. I think what DOGE is doing, really, is a1917form of creative destruction, right. It is breaking through the1918status quo and getting these issues at the front of the1919Americans' minds and the front of the minds of elites here in1920Washington.1921    Too often things continue to kind of be on autopilot, and1922it is very hard, as you well know. There are so many issues1923that could be focused on and to put them under the microscope1924is challenging, even when it is pretty obvious to some of the1925experts out there. But how do they get that voice up there?1926    I think what Elon Musk has been able to do, and again,1927through President Trump's leadership, is to make sure that this1928does not disappear, that there is sustained attention to it.1929That is going to mean that some messiness will occur, right.1930You are going to have to put holds on things to make sure that1931we are not spending wastefully. I think that, on net, is going1932to be valuable as we try to reform our Federal Government,1933particularly in light of the fact that we are $36 trillion in1934debt.1935    We are spending my children's money and your children's and1936grandchildren's money. We are spending their money now. We1937better make sure that if we are going to do that, because1938sometimes it is necessary to take out debt, for example, for1939war, purposes of fighting wars, that we are doing that for good1940reason. That means that we really need to be really kind of, I1941think, rinsing out the kind of towel of government spending and1942make sure that only what survives is necessary.1943    Senator Ernst. Thank you. There are so many analogies that1944we could use. We are breaking up the boulder of Federal1945Government, and there are some gems that we will be able to1946pull out of there. But the rest is rubble, and it needs to go1947away.1948    I know from the Chair, Chairman Paul, Senator Johnson,1949Senator Lankford, and I have all engaged in these efforts, each1950of us, for over a decade now, and attempting to identify the1951waste, the fraud within our Federal Government, trying to get1952those reforms over the finish line. It was not until we had the1953Trump presidency and the appointment of those in the Department1954of Government Efficiency with Elon Musk that we actually have1955the platform now to get it down. I am really grateful that we1956have that opportunity to do that now.1957    I know I am way over, but we will go ahead and close out.1958But I will give you some closing thoughts, as well. I just want1959to be clear, as we are talking about this, that there are many1960other groups that are supported by USAID that are doing great1961work. As I said, there are some gems amongst the rubble. There1962are programs that help us care for orphans. There are programs1963that help us care for people with HIV. Those are important1964programs. But imagine how much more good work could be done if1965we used those dollars that instead ended up enriching1966terrorists and mad scientists in adversarial countries.1967    So after keeping its spending records hidden from Congress1968and taxpayers, USAID employees are now protesting the review of1969the agency's records by President Trump's Department of1970Government Efficiency. It is pretty outrageous. It is no1971surprise that Washington insiders are more upset at DOGE for1972trying to stop wasteful spending than at USAID for misusing1973their constituents' tax dollars. The question that we really1974should be asking at this point is not why USAID's grants are1975being scrutinized, but why it took so long.1976    I want to thank both of you very much for being here today1977and sharing your thoughts. I think it was a very important1978Committee meeting here in the Homeland Security and1979Governmental Affairs Committee.1980    With that, I do want to thank your witnesses for joining us1981here today to share their testimony and their expertise with1982the Committee. The record for this hearing will remain open for19837 days, until 6 p.m. on Friday, February 20, 2025, for the1984submission of statements and questions for the record.1985    The hearing is now adjourned.1986    [Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]19871988                            A P P E N D I X19891990                              ----------19911992[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]19931994                                 [all]