The Highwire with Del Bigtree - DOGE AUDIT EXPOSES USAID

Episode Date: February 10, 2025

The Trump administration’s new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has launched a mass audit of frivolous federal spending and USAID has been exposed as a kingpin. U.S. tax dollars can be traced to Bill Gate’s organization GAVI, gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab through USAID, and even link to recent biased media coverage of the RFK Jr. hearings.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

The United States Agency for International Development, that's USAID, has been under a mass audit by Elon Musk and a team that was chosen to go in there and give clearance to look at the books, if you will. And just give people an idea of this organization because there's a lot of questions about what is supposed to be international development. Well, in 2014, you have Democracy Now, and they publish, now this normally a left-leaning primarily media organization. They published this headline. is USAID the new CIA. And this is kind of the consensus. This is a cover for the CIA operations. It says agency secretly built Cuban Twitter program to fuel anti-castle protest.

So that's regime change. And there's a lot of people out there saying what USAID does is dual use. So they'll go in and try to help, but they'll also do something for a central intelligence agency to gain a foothold for the American interests. Well, Trump has went in there. Just to catch people up to speed here. Trump suspends U.S. foreign assistance for 90 days, pending review. so he walked in there and suspended these payment systems for the USAID.

Musk moves in there. And then you're seeing headlines like this. Again, even out of the Hill, which is more of a left-leaning organization, conservatives are correct. America's foreign aid system is broken. So there's this consensus now of like, well, maybe this money wasn't going to the, exactly all of it was going to the right things. So Marco Rubio is now in charge of this agency. He was installed in there.

And he went out on an interview and he was making some headlines. He says, Rubio says no choice, but to bring U.S. AID under control, an agency takeover. He says there's rank insubordination within agency. There's a lot of just ignoring for records requests. An audit was just completely out of, out of, no one was going to do that because this agency was somewhat rogue. And we're just now beginning to see kind of the feeder routes that go out where this organization was really had its hands into. And we can go for hours on this conversation about some of the ridiculous this things that was funding. But let's stick with, let's stick with a focus of our audience.

So Gavi, that's Bill Gates, Bill Melinda Gates started Gavi. This is the Vaccine Alliance, a global vaccine alliance. And we look into the books here for the U.S. AID payment system. And you can see just from the screenshot here, Gavi, now this is over several years, but $4 billion the U.S. AID was paying to Gavi. And you can go down there a little bit, another $880 million payment. You see the World Health Organization in there, a little over $700. million dollar payments. So there's a lot of a lot of money going to really Bill Gates, the World Health Organization. And it's interesting because as soon as Trump suspended the payment system for this 90-day review and Musk moved in, you saw Bill Gates do a media tour.

And it sounded like this. So I'm a little worried, particularly with this USAID stuff. My foundation partners with USAID on nutrition and getting vaccines out. There's incredible people. You know, they're not actually worms that work there. So, you know, hopefully we'll get some of that work back in shape. In fact, if we don't, you know, you could have literally millions of deaths. I mean, we report on this guy all the time, Jeffrey. it's questionable whether he does good.

There's international lawsuits now against his vaccine programs, accusations of things like sterilization programs going on. There's real questions on whether his polio vaccine program is causing polio. I spoke with Robert Redfield that has some concerns on that. So, you know, but all things being equal, I think one of the conversations that came up is we all heard when Bill Gates went and met with President Trump at Mar-Lago, Everyone's like, oh my God, they're buddying up.

You know, he's going to start working for Bill Gates again. And there was real concerns in, you know, in our audience, in our movement. But I would say, you know, if you're just going to like read the tea leaves here, after those meetings, President Trump has pulled funding from WHO. He's just shut down USAID for a deep review, which you're about to get into, which clearly none of this works in Bill Gates' favor. So for those of us that were really questioned, what happened in that? meeting. Well, whatever happened, it does not appear that Bill Gates set his hooks into President

Trump and has got him on a leash of any kind. In fact, so far, everything seems to be going against Bill Gates's agenda, which is, I think, we're just noting that. Is that the permanent structure? I don't know, but that's what we're recognizing right now. And Bill Gates is pretty clear character. He's kind of a one-trick pony. Anything that seems to subtly threaten him, You'll see him do a media tour and just go, millions will die. Sorry. And then you'll hit this headline was made on that same interview. Bill Gates says the odds of another pandemic in the next four years are 10 to 15 percent.

We're not prepared. So he comes out, people are going to die. Another pandemic, you know, basically do not cut my funding. And we saw that during COVID as well when the vaccine hesitancy was coming. He was kind of playing the same game there. And so there's Bill Gates, Mr. Sweater. And we also go into the funding of the Wuhan lab. This is USAID as well. A lot of people don't know this. This was in the intercept. They did an investigation

documents link potential COVID patient zero to US funded research in Wuhan. This is Ben Hu. And we can see that this is the actual, this is from white coat waste or a nonprofit. They for you to get this document. But we can see this funding structure here, $41 million when you add that up of USAID to the Wuhan Institute of Virology there and to Ben Hu, who was working in there during that time. Just to give people another memory on this, we have Ram Paul. He was in a hearing. He brought forth Samantha Powers at the time, the administrator of USAID, and asked her some questions about, you know, the gain of function, about Equal Health Alliance.

Take a listen. Ms. Powers, did USAID fund coronavirus research in Wuhan, China? We did not fund gain of function research, as you know. The question is, did you fund coronavirus research? in Wuhan, China? Before my time, there was the PREDIC program with which you're familiar, which ended in China in 2019. This is a $200 million program, and the GAO has also identified that some of these grants went directly to the Wuhan Institute of Irology, where there is a suspicion that the lab leak began, that began the pandemic. Has USAID awarded funds to the Academy of Military

Medical Sciences in China? Not to my knowledge, but I'd have to give me. I think the answer is, is once again yes. GAO has found that there have been sub awards of NIH money as probably as well as USAID money that went to the academy of not just medical research, military medical research in China. Now part of the unknowns here is we can't get the records to look at this. So I've been asking for months and months for records. In September of last year I wrote Ms. Powers the USAID request asking for records from the PRED program. These are not classified. These are simply records of scientific research and we want to read the grants to find out what they were doing and whether the research was dangerous or not. The response I got from your agency was USAID will

not be providing any documents at this time. They're just unwilling to give documents on scientific grant proposal. We're paying for it. They're asking for $745 million more in money and we get no response. This is such a, it's really such an important dialogue happening there. And, and, you know, Kudos to Rand Paul. By the way, I had a really nice conversation with him at the Maha ball just two weeks ago. But to have pressed in here, and it shows it's finally coming to fruition. And what he's saying, USAID, I mean, billions of dollars are being put out. They work for the American people, first and foremost.

And then our representatives get to oversee what you're doing. And you're saying no. You're saying no, basically, to your CEO and to the people. you don't get to see our work. You don't get to see what we're up to. That's insane that this has been allowed to go on the way that it has. And that video should be really a reminder to people saying, this is an agency that's on the up and up.

We shouldn't be disrupting it. It's going to cause, you know, death around the world. Well, remember how they acted. I mean, they were stonewalling in hearings. They would not give the coronavirus conversation, where that started is and was one of the biggest conversations in the world. And they're not going to even step up on that. Come on. So what's also happening during this expose, I guess, of government funds is the public and the government is reaching in to see where just government funding is going for the most part.

And we go to the media now. And this is a headline that was made just recently over the past couple days. Doge canceled political government funding after $8 million in subscription contracts revealed. So they've had millions and millions of dollars. So this is basically the U.S. government propping up Politico as an organization, a media organization. And there's a lot of government agencies in there that had these pro subscriptions. One of them famously was 37 people at the FDA totaling $500,000 in these pro-subscriptions. So it seems to be some type of laundering operation where the U.S. government is propping up these, you know, again, these kind of dead corporate media outlets that people go, why?

No one's listening to them. How are they still functioning as a business? This may be one of the reasons. But I want to go back to USAID at this point because that whole media, government funding media conversation is going right now. Well, I mean, just before we move on, it's kind of important because we've been saying here on the Highwire, what you're watching on your paid news is propaganda. What we're now seeing is proof of that evidence that funding is coming from your government into your news agencies. You're under this impression that they're private organizations, that aren't controlled. I mean, but then you look and oh my God, you know, there seems to be government funding. We already know there's pharma funding, this corporate funding that is already manipulating

this, manipulating the agenda. But more and more as this is unpacking, it's like, do we have news? Because I think this is key. I've always, I've been saying to people as I walk around, look, in Russia, you know, they have propaganda. They don't have news. In North Korea, propaganda, that's not news. The only difference I think between the United States of America and those countries is their citizens know it's not news. They know it's propaganda. Our problem here is that if it's propaganda, but we still think it's news, we are at a severe disadvantage for understanding our place in this country and our place in the world. Absolutely. And it's a fact that USAID has propped up media and journalists and independent media around the world.

And so you have to wonder, is that a quick pro quo? What are they paying for? kind of messaging are they getting out we know it's in ukraine as well but they also in 2021 i remind people foundation for freedom online had FOIA requests and received these documents which was the the u.s.aid disinformation primer so they in 2021 middle the pandemic when everyone was being shut down they put out a rosetta stone on and this is really this was this should be in a time capsule because it's kind of like they're looking at the information space and they're going oh this something's happening here we need to really change this and this information primer

was basically kind of the blueprint that was sent out and given to all of the organizations, Meta's Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, Google, and this was kind of the marching order. So there's a lot of quotes here. I just want to pick out some specific points on this, because they're looking at the nature of how people access information. They're finding out this has changed and we're in the middle of pandemic and we can't really control it anymore. So it says in this quote down a little bit, it says, because traditional information systems are failing, some opinion leaders are casting data on media, which in turn impacts USAID programming and

funding choices. So it's, hey, people aren't listening to corporate media anymore. Free thinking is getting in our way is what that says. Free thinking is getting the way of USAID's agenda, we need to insert ourselves. Absolutely. And this couldn't be more clear. So it goes on to say it leads to a loss of information integrity, whatever that is, online news platforms have disrupted the traditional media landscape, which is supposed to be good. Government and officials and journalists are not the sole information gatekeepers anymore. That's a problem for USAID apparently. It goes on to say to users, these spaces enable them to collaborate and validate their own claims and interpretation of the world that differ from mainstream sources. That's great.

With this individuals contribute their own research to larger discussion, collectively reviewing and validating each other to create a populist expertise, justify, shape, supports their alternative beliefs. This is crowdsourcing information. This is what social media, this is what X is doing, and we see how successful that's been. Again, USAID does not like that. So then they start going to this next conversation, which gets a little darker. And they start kind of wargaming. How do we stop this? Well, they said, cutting this financial support found in the ad tech space would obstruct disinformation actors from spreading messaging online. Efforts be made for their advertisers and basically say, look, this is going to be a threat to your brand safety. You shouldn't do this. And it goes at the

bottom. Aim to redirecting funding to higher quality news domains. So you can see just straight up right there. They're going after how these people are being funded, which a lot of people have talked about that. I mean, Alex Jones is one of the first examples how people just cut the advertisers left, cut their funding, they intimidated their advertisers. But then it goes to this, and this is one of the most creepiest. It says pre-bunking. So they have all these ideas of how to really disrupt the information space that's forming. Pre-bunking, as a measure to counter disinformation and make debunking more impactful, Donovan recommends pre-bunking, what she defines as an offensive strategy that refers to anticipating what disinformation is likely to be repeated by politicians,

pundits, and provocateurs during key events and having already prepared a response based on past fact checks. So I want to move on to the next section here, and that's RFK Jr.'s hearings, with that pre-bunking in mind. So we know these hearings are coming up. And it was interesting as I started to see, as these hearings were the days ahead of these hearings, I started to see the New York Times specifically, but other outlets as well, they're starting to do. pre-bunking stories. They start writing stories that kind of had no relevance of what they've ever been reporting on. Maybe once or twice they reported on it. All of a sudden these headlines come up and you go, well, this isn't breaking news. We've been talking about, been fighting to get this information

out for 10 years. Here's one of them. New York Times headline. Yes, some vaccines contain aluminum. That's a good thing. Where did that come from? What are you talking about? Well, specifically, that's right before the hearings. And this has been a big issue because as a lot of people who watching the show, there's no really good studies out there that show that injecting aluminum through a vaccine is healthy, is safe. And actually, I can sued the CDC, sued the NIH, and said, show us the studies that allow these aluminum adjuvants to be in vaccines. They were unable to provide a single study to support that, to support the safety of injecting aluminum adjuvants despite widespread use in the childhood vaccines. And then we have another problem.

So there's aluminum adjments in these vaccines, but there's different levels. So there was a study by Chris, actually one of the world's largest experts, biggest experts on aluminum. And he looked at that study. And he found that there was, the vaccines were containing widely different amounts of aluminum. He said we found only three vaccines contained the amount of aluminum indicated by the manufacturer. Six vaccines contained a statistically significant greater quantity, while four vaccines contain a statistically significant. lower quality. So it's all over the board. So again, I can I can ask the FDA, by the way, can you confirm the level of aluminum adjuvants in these vaccines injected in babies? Because

there's quite a few of them. Do you have a monitoring system? What's going on here? They've never replied to us. And so this is, so when the New York Times just pops up a headline like this, they're going to get slapped down. And what's interesting, just on this little side conversation we're having, the aluminum adjuvant until they find something new, they have to defend. this ingredient in the vaccines. Which, by the way, on all of our research, all of our investigations I can that you have funded out there, those of you that support I can, we can't find a single study of a human being, a human study looking at the safety of injecting aluminum.

We, you know, I've seen Brett Weinstein's out there talking about a rabbit study he found. We've referred a lot to a rat study, oral studies, not injected studies. I mean, this science is really lacking, especially when we think about, you know, day one old babies, hepatitis B, 250 micrograms of aluminum, which appears to be 10 times the amount ever approved in an oral rat study. So this is a, it's a problem. It's a problem. And when you don't even know how much is in the product, it could be more, could be less, and you don't know what its safety profile is. These are the types of things that those of us with blood still moving through our brain cells want answers to. And the industry wants to move away from aluminum, and we know that because there's studies going on to find other adjuvants.

Remember, adjuvants, they create an inflammatory response to kind of wake up the immune system when these vaccines go into arms. And so here's MIT scientists are using a new type of nanoparticle to make vaccines more powerful. It says in a study of mice, the researchers showed that this MOF, that stands for metal organic framework, could successfully encapsulate and deliver part of a SARS-CoV tube spike protein, while also acting as an adjuvant once the MOF is broken down inside cells. So think about this. Remember, the lipid nanoparticles that were in the COVID shots were going all over the body, the brain, the heart, liver, kidney, ovaries. Think about this.

If all those lipid nanoparticles, which were supposed to be inert, now that they're saying we know every one of those encapsulating the SARS-CoVi tool will create an inflammatory response wherever it goes in the body, I don't see how this can end well. And I guess God help us if that's the future of vaccine technology. Are they like, in my mind, it's like they're building a metal cage now inside the liquid. So now it's not just a liquid nanoparticle. It's got like a little cage around it that they hope dissolves.

I mean, you've already made this spike protein and these, you know, MRNAs last longer. You're protecting them from the immune system. Now let's put an aluminum or metal cage around it. I mean, I don't know. I mean, I know, I'm sure the scientists know exactly what they're doing and what. We should just stop asking all questions. And certainly there should be no need for safety tests. Just go right ahead.

Let's call it safe. Let's get a move on, move on. Of course. So off on a little tangent there. Let's go back to the media kind of response to RFK Jr's hearings. So as soon as the hearings were over, we have our friend Lena Wenn. Remember, she was the carrot in the stick person during COVID. She told us that freedoms were at the end of a syringe if you wanted them back.

And then she said, I'm sorry. I was wrong. Well, it looks like she's jumping in again. This is Washington Post opinion. RFK Jr.'s confirmation hearings were even worse than expected. So here we have more gaslighting. People that watched the hearings probably didn't come away with that, but she wants you to believe that.

And then you have other headlines coming around here. RFK artificial die risks impact on food giants. So we're getting some kind of fear headlines there. And then another one, vaccine stocks fall as Senate panel advances RFK Junior's nomination for HHS secretary. So we're probably going to see a lot more of that in the coming week. So I want people to be aware that's media literacy. When you see the media all of a sudden narrowing on these fear-based kind of not real conversations

to try to shape the hearts and minds of people for major events that are happening. Yeah. I was really interesting. I came out of the, you know, of the hearing and, you know, you got approached by, I don't know, five to ten different news organizations as you're trying to walk down the hallway. And I have to say you get this impression that they're all out to just try to make you say something stupid because they are on attack. I mean, it's odd, isn't it, that there doesn't seem to be anyone in support of getting chemicals out of food. There's no one into deeper scientific research

and transparency. None of these news organizations seem to care about the corruption in the regulatory agencies, which you feel like they should. It's just, I'm talking to them, just thinking, who do you work for? Like, how did we get to this point? I thought, like, isn't your job to be like at least, hey, you know, what do you think? We get a guy in there that's going to challenge all these things. Anyway, we're used to it, but it is a surreal world that I think is actually is shifting. I think it's clear that the movement of the people, and you got to ask yourself, are these mainstream news organizations, are they just going to become like the leaders of the minority, the propaganda for the minority as the majority of America starts to wake up and say,

hey, I like the transparency. I like that you're looking at USAID. I like that you're looking at an HHS secretary that's going to go wild on chemical companies. You know, how long will they remain, you know, irrelevant and hold on, and especially if they're not getting USAID money, where's that going to go? Exactly.