The Young Turks - Sorry Not Saudi

Episode Date: February 6, 2025

Fox Hosts STRUGGLE To Justify Trump’s Horrific Plans For Gaza. The Next Phase In Trump’s USAID Shutdown Has Begun. Trump Campaign Promise Gets SLAPPED DOWN By Oil Industry. Hosts: Ana Kasparian SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE ☞ https://www.youtube.com/@TheYoungTurks FOLLOW US ON: FACEBOOK ☞ https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER ☞ https://twitter.com/TheYoungTurks INSTAGRAM ☞ https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK ☞ https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕MERCH ☞ https:/www.shoptyt.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to The Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. There are some problems here. Sorry, big time. I'm so upset. Oh my God. Bega! Welcome to TYT. I'm your host, Anna Casparian, and we have, as we always do, especially during the Trump era, a colossal show ahead for you. Massive show, lots of news, breaking.

throughout the day. So we've got some updates on the USAID debate, where the fate of that organization or government agency currently stands. We're going to give you some of the reactions among Republican lawmakers and even members of the right wing media in regard to Donald Trump's statements about the United States taking over Gaza and potentially putting boots on the ground there. So there is, believe it or not, some pushback from some on the right. So we'll talk a little bit about that. In the second hour, Wazni Lombray will be joining us. John Iderola is off for the night. But Waz will be here not only to talk about some second hour stories, but also in the bonus episode, he will weigh in on a big mistake that Donald Trump made in regard to Tommy

Tuberville, a lawmaker, a lawmaker, allegedly being the coach of an NFL player that he wasn't actually the coach of. So I can't wait to see Waz's reaction to that and more. But as always, just want to encourage you all to like and show the stream if you're watching us live. You could also help support the show by becoming a member by going to t-y-t.com slash join. Well, without further ado, why don't we get to our first story? I also hear the criticism, perhaps from some on the right who would say, wait a second, well, wait a second, you all criticize George W. Bush for nation building. Well, what is this? What will this be? How is this?

How is this not de facto nation building? And to that, you would say? There's one deal. No president's ever been able to make peace in the Middle East. Is taking over Gaza the solution? We don't know. Do the Palestinians want this? We'll have to send Johnny to Gaza to find out.

But you're not going to get results by doing the same old thing over and over again. Maybe Trump is not trying to take Gaza. Maybe this is a grand part of a negotiation. to get Iran to come to the table, to get Iran to hold back the proxies, to get Iran to stop its nuclear warfare on the world. In order for Iran to stop its nuclear warfare on the world, it would have to, you know, use nuclear weapons against other countries, which hasn't happened. In fact, there's no reason to believe that Iran has any nuclear capability at this very moment. But nonetheless, of course, if you're relying on corporate media to give you accurate information, you're just not going to get it. And just to answer Jesse Waters' two questions, whether the United States taking over Gaza will lead to peace in the Middle East or whether Palestinians like it, the answer to both of those questions is no.

And Laura Ingram is correct. There has been some pushback against Donald Trump following his pretty disgusting statements yesterday in regard to the United States taking control of Gaza, essentially being the latest occupier of that region. And even putting American military boots on the ground in Gaza to help clean it up, clean it out, you know, do away with all of the undettonated bombs. Absolute lunacy. And honestly, totally goes against what Donald Trump was representing himself as when he was running. He claims he's the anti-war president. He claims he is not interested in nation building, but he seems to want to pursue this. and we also have some more information about how long he had been considering this plan. Now, is this a negotiating tactic or is he serious? I personally think he's serious, but I also think that with enough pushback from his base, he could back off this idea.

But let's give you some more details about what's going on. Now, of course, there are some Fox News hosts who are very much in favor of what Donald Trump had proposed yesterday during a joint press conference with Benjamin Nanyahu, but at least one Fox News host has called Trump's bluff on his proposal. And we're going to get to that momentarily. But first, if you missed what Trump said yesterday, this will catch you right up. The U.S. will take over the Gaza Strip and we will do a job with it too. We'll own it and be responsible for dismantling all of the dangerous,

unexploded bombs and other weapons on the site. Mr. President, given what you've said about Gaza, to the U.S. send troops to help secure the security vacuum? As far as Gaza is concerned, we'll do what is necessary. If it's necessary, we'll do that. We're going to take over that piece, and we're going to develop it, create thousands and thousands of jobs, and it'll be something that the entire Middle East can be very proud of.

You're talking tonight about the United States taking over a sovereign territory. What authority would allow you to do that? Are you talking about a permanent occupation there? I do see a long-term ownership position, and I see it bringing great stability to that part of the Middle East and maybe the entire Middle East. How do you envision world people living there? The world's people. I think you'll make that into an international, unbelievable place. I think the potential and the Gaza Strip is unbelievable. It's just as infuriating the second time I watched that. So if you hadn't seen it, there it is. And it does appear that what Trump said yesterday during that joint press conference

caught Washington by surprise. There is a possibility that it even caught his own chief of staff, Susie Wiles, off guard. I mean, look, sometimes photos don't mean anything. Sometimes it just catches someone in a weird expression that doesn't indicate anything. But get a load of this picture, I think it's pretty incredible. Benjamin Ryan tweeted it saying Susie Wiles' expression when Trump said that Gaza should not be allowed to return to Gaza is the new Fauci putting his hand to his face in the briefing room during the COVID pandemic, of course. So you see her eyes there. She looks shocked.

But there are some people who did know that this was something that Donald Trump had been considering. Two Trump administration officials said the idea of the Gaza takeover was formed recently, interesting, with the president running it by AIDS and allies in recent days. The proposal was closely held other administration officials who work on Middle East issues said. Everyone outside of Trump's inner circle was not aware of this plan and did not know that he was going to announce it. But according to that same report, Trump seems to have been considering this proposal for much longer than just a few weeks. In fact, apparently he had been thinking about this over the past year in late summer when, you know, the election cycle was still ongoing. Trump told Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel in a phone call that the Gaza Strip was a prime piece of real estate and asked him to think about what kinds of hotels could be built there, according to a person with direct.

knowledge of the conversation. But he didn't mention the U.S. taking it over. The Times of Israel is also reporting that Jared Kushner played a pivotal role in hatcheting up this ridiculous idea of the United States essentially taking over and occupying the Gaza Strip. And there's more to this. This morning, Fox News host Steve Ducey luckily sees that this is a ridiculous idea. He even completely ruled out Trump's proposal to own the strip. Let's take a look. Obviously, the president knows when he says, we'll take Gaza. He knows the United States can't invade another country. The last thing he wants to do is put boots on the ground in Gaza.

I mean, you know, he is always, in his first term, he was talking about he would like to get out of every war in the Middle East. I think what he did yesterday by, and I'm going to give him the benefit of a doubt, I think what he did by saying, you know, look, if we take over and we redevelop it, I think that's the first step in a negotiation. Look, I think that Steve Ducey is right in that, you know, Donald Trump wants to appease his base. He's not like Democrats. Like Democrats seem to loathe their base and will promise things fail to follow through on those promises. And then if the base gets upset about it, they basically

tell you to shut up and you have to still support us because the other side is so evil. Trump is different, though. That doesn't mean that I favor Trump in any way, but it's just to say that when he makes promises that get him elected, he typically listens to his base and when they're upset, he might decide maybe this isn't a good idea. I prefer admiration from my base as opposed to them loathing me for not keeping my promises. However, there is an exception, and that exception is Donald Trump's own personal financial interests. He wants to make money off of this. I mean, I think it's pretty clear. When he talks about building hotels and when he talks about America taking over the Gaza Strip. You think that it's just about peace in the Middle

East, which of course, that idea, that plan wouldn't even bring about peace. No, it's about a money-making opportunity for Donald Trump. And if you think he wouldn't use American resources and wouldn't risk the lives of American soldiers in order to pursue his own personal financial interests, I have a bridge to sell you. I really do. So, Steve Ducey isn't the only one trying to pour some cold water on this idea. Dave Smith, who's a libertarian, also says the following. He says that Trump has done a lot of good things in the last few weeks. That's his opinion.

But it's hard to overstate how awful the Gaza idea is. Committing an ethnic cleansing on behalf of Israel who has wanted exactly that way before October 7th and taking ownership of the region is about as awful. an idea as any president has ever had. I hope he reconsiders. And look, he might, if there's enough backlash, he might. That's really the only hope at this point. But let's now talk about the reaction from politicians, Republican politicians specifically. So unsurprisingly, many Republican politicians have completely signed on to this idea, are celebrating it. They think it's great. Others, though, do seem skeptical about it. So we'll start with the supporters. So first,

you have Representative Nancy Mace, who's like really hell-bent on ensuring that I despise her. But she tweeted the following, let's turn Gaza into Mar-Lago. Then you have House Speaker Mike Johnson. I never doubted for a second that Mike Johnson is a neoconservative. And his neoconservative roots are really showing here where he says, we're trying to get the details of it. But I think this is a good development. We have to back Israel 100%. Do we?

Is that just a given? We just have to back Israel 100% regardless of what they want, what they want us to do, how they want us to be involved. If we take the Israel lobby out of the equation, would Mike Johnson still feel the same way that the United States, the American people, our tax resources, has to back Israel 100%. I don't know, something tells me that he might change his mind, depending on, you know, campaign finance laws and rooting out some of the influences

that push our lawmakers to value the best interests of the Israeli government over the best interests of the American people. But I have more. Now, unsurprisingly, Democratic Senator John Federman also got behind the proposal as well. He even took it further. Fetterman called President Trump's remarks provocative, but said that he would support a potential American occupation of the Gaza Strip, adding that Palestinians for years have, and then he regurgitated Israeli government talking points and propaganda, refused or have been unwilling to deliver a government that provided security and economic development for themselves. I mean, I'm sure someone like Benjamin Netanyahu had nothing to do with that, right? Benjamin Netanyahu

seeking to undermine the Palestinian authority to help to funnel money to Hamas. But I'm sure Fetterman would never bring that up. use of the United States' resources to spend a bunch of money in Gaza. I think maybe I'd prefer to be that to be spent in the U.S. first, but let's see what happens. So he's kind of attacking it from a America First perspective, which honestly for Josh Hawley, I think is very smart to do, because that is the angle that seems to be most persuasive with Republican voters. And in a pretty shocking turn of events, Senator Lindsey Graham, who never met a foreign war that he didn't love, publicly advised against Trump's suggestion that U.S. troops could be sent into Gaza. Here's

what he wrote on X. In 1983, 241 U.S. service members were killed by Iranian-backed suicide bombers at the Marine Corps barracks in Beirut, Lebanon. Ronald Reagan stationed these Marines, sailors, and soldiers in Lebanon as part of a plan to stop war. factions in the region. As much as I admire Ronald Reagan, this was one of his worst decisions. I fear putting American troops on the ground now in the midst of a raging Middle East will yield the same results as it did in 1983. I can't believe I'm saying this, but maybe for the first time, Lindsay Graham is right. I think it's a really bad idea to risk the lives of American soldiers by sending them into Gaza to clean it up, by the way, to deal with the bombs that

haven't blown up yet. It's just unbelievable how worthless the lives of our soldiers are to these American politicians. It really does discuss me. Now, Senator Graham might want to reserve some of those American bodies for a possible war with Iran, which is what Graham has been egging on for years now. But let's go to Senator Rand Paul, who was much more direct in his framing. He said that the pursuit for peace should be that of the Israelis and the Palestinians. I thought we voted for America first. We have no business contemplating yet another occupation to doom our treasure and spill our soldiers' blood. So look, only time we'll tell what will happen next. But I will say this. If you listen closely to some of the statements coming from Trump administration officials,

including his Secretary of State Marco Rubio, it seems like they're trying to backtrack a little bit on what Trump said. I don't want to get too excited yet. But listen closely to Secretary of State, Marco Rubio. What President Trump announced yesterday is the offer, the willingness of the United States to become responsible for the reconstruction of that area. And while you are rebuilding, while you're clearing debris, by the way, there are unexploded munitions. There are all kinds of Hamas weaponry still buried underground. For people to be able to live in a place safely, all of that has to be removed. It's an enormous undertaking. And the only thing President

Trump has done very generously, in my view, is offer the United States willingness to step in, clear the debris, clean the place up from all the destruction that's on the ground, clean it up of all these unexploded munitions. And in the meantime, the people living there will not be able, the people who call at home will not be able to live there while you have crews coming in and removing debris, while you have munitions being removed, et cetera. So what he's very generally very generously has offered is the ability of the United States to go in and help with debris removal, help with munitions removal, help with reconstruction, the rebuilding homes and businesses and things of this nature, so that then people can move back in. But in the meantime,

they'll have to live somewhere. It was not meant as a hostile move. It was meant as, I think, a very generous move. Trump said that the United States would own Gaza. How was that not a hostile move? Come on. Come on, Marco. I know you're trying to clean up Trump's mess here, but come on. But what was even more fascinating was the statements coming from White House press secretary Caroline Levitt. So let's take a listen to what she had to say today. It's been made very clear to the president that the United States needs to be involved, in this rebuilding effort to ensure stability in the region for all people.

That does not mean boots on the ground in Gaza. It does not mean American taxpayers will be funding this effort. It means Donald Trump, who is the best deal maker on the planet, is great deal maker on the planet, is going to strike a deal with our partners in the region. He did not rule out American troops in Gaza last night. Are you doing that now? I am saying that the president has not committed to that just yet. Okay.

Let's get that Trump press conference video ready again, okay? Because I want to listen to it one more time. But before we do, okay, that's A2. Before we do, the idea that the United States taxpayers, are not going to be bankrolling the cleanup effort in Gaza and the reconstruction of Gaza is laughable. The idea that we haven't already spent $300 billion in foreign aid, military aid toward Israel is also something that should be cleared up here, that should be brought up. Because obviously, look, the left and the right, the people on the left and the right,

who have issues with our U.S. foreign policy as it pertains to this ongoing conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians, don't like it for different reasons, for the most part, right? I understand that. So on the left, there's the unfairness, right? The stealing of land from the Palestinians. Like there are moral issues at play for the left. Certainly that is what fuels my disdain for U.S. foreign policy toward Israel and the Palestinians. For the right, what's speaks to them is the fact that they are serious about being America first. They see the suffering in the United States. They see the fact that Americans are nickel and dime by our lawmakers time and time again when it comes to important bread and butter issues. When it comes to things

like health care, when it comes to things like ensuring that our own are taken care of, homes that were lost as a result of natural disasters, hurricanes, fires are taken care of. That is what fuels them. So the reason why Caroline Levitt, in that press conference is trying to make it clear that no, no, no, no taxpayer money is going to go toward this effort is because she doesn't want to turn the Trump supporters off by telling the truth. And the truth is, we're going to keep bankrolling what's happening. We are. Okay, we're going to keep sending foreign aid to Israel year after year. That's never going to change unless we do something about the way our politicians and elections are

financed. And we're obviously going to play a role in the, whatever ends up happening with Gaza. Now, if Trump gets what he wants from that press conference, there's no doubt in my mind that the cleanup effort will be funded by the United States. And I want to be clear about something. We supplied the bombs that Israel dropped on Gazans. We supplied the bombs that destroyed nearly every single building in Gaza, every hospital, every school, every university, every refugee camp, all of them, gone. So it's only fair that we help with the reconstruction effort in Gaza. I don't have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with, though, is that Israel, like, we're having a conversation about this as if Israel isn't responsible

for paying for the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip. They're the ones who drop the bombs. period. So look, we'll see what happens. It is so incredibly frustrating to play this game with people's lives and not just the lives of Palestinians, but the lives of our soldiers, because we don't know what the future holds. We don't know what Trump is thinking. You know, some people who don't want to see Trump carry out what he proposed or hoping

that he's just, you know, this is like his negotiating tactic. I'm not so sure. I guess we're going to have to wait and see. But one thing that I do know is if there's a loud enough chorus of Trump supporters who voice their disdain toward any proposal like this, toward anyone who's proposing something like this, Trump might reconsider. Might. And even that, I think, is being overly optimistic. But we'll see what happens. And one final thing that I'll say, you know, an argument that I'll hear a lot of Republicans make in support of what Trump wants to do is, Well, I mean, this is a better idea than what we've been doing. I mean, insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. You'll hear Republicans say that. Yeah, you know what?

I agree with them that it is insane to keep doing the same thing over and over again and expect a different result. So how about we stop providing the offensive weaponry that Israel uses to essentially demolish all of these buildings and terrorize the lies of innocent Palestinian civilians in Gaza. How about we do that? How about we continue providing the defensive capabilities and stop sending them the bombs that they're dropping on Palestinians, both in Gaza and also, let's not forget, the West Bank. That would be a different way of doing things.

But funny how that never gets brought up. All right, we got to take a break. When we come back, we'll do an update on USAID. I've done a little bit more digging in regard to what's, you know, being funded. There are good programs, but there are a lot of bad programs too. But let's talk about the fate of USAID and more when we come back. What's up, everyone? Welcome back to TYT. I'm your host, Anna Kasparian. Before we get to this U.S. aid story, I wanted to read a few more comments. So this one's from

Ryu Raul, who says, I think this might cause a MAGA civil war in regard to Donald Trump's proposal to take over Gaza and build properties there. Half will be very upset about boots on the ground in Gaza and the other half, evangelical Christians and Zionists, will be up for it. Yeah, we'll see what happens. But you're right. There are war, I don't want to say warring factions, but there is disagreement among the Republican voting base in regard to what to do in the Middle East. And Occam's taser writes in and says, it has been at least 15 hours and John still hasn't sent me a present for his birthday. So it is John's birthday. Just want to say happy birthday to John. That's probably the reason why he has some time off today. But hopefully he'll be back on the Wednesday show next week. So with that in mind, let's get to our next story. The USAID chases China all around the world, making sure that China doesn't monopolize contracts for critical minerals and port infrastructure all around the world. And just like Elon Musk did not create USAID, he doesn't have the power to destroy it. And who's going to stop him? We are. We're going to stop him.

Well, the official website for USAID or USAID, also known as the US Agency for International Development, has been taken down and essentially replaced with a web page informing the agency's employees and staff that they're now on administrative leave. So here's what you'll find if you go to USAID.gov. It reads on Friday, February 7th, 2025 at 1159 p.m. U.S. AID direct hire personnel will be placed on administrative leave globally, with the exception of designated personnel responsible for mission critical functions, core leadership, and specifically designated programs. So there is a lot of anger, a lot of fear in regard to the fate of this government agency. This is a federal government agency that the executive branch cannot unilaterally dismantle since it was turned into an official government agency through Congress after it was officially or initially formed through an executive order by JFK. Now, there have been some concerns about Elon Musk's potential conflict of interest. As we know, U.S. AID has been in the crosshairs for the Department of Government Efficiency or Doge, which is the unofficial group that's led by Elon Musk. And so the concern is, well, was USAID investigating Elon Musk? And is that the reason why he's trying to dismantle it?

So when those allegations came out, I took it seriously. It was reported by the lever. And I took it seriously. I mean, that is a source that I definitely trust. But I did investigate it further, and that's actually not the case. And I want to kind of clear that up before we move on to some of the issues here. So as the lever reports, Elon Musk's crusade to shut down the U.S. Agency for International Development comes months after the agency announced a probe of his company's Starlink terminals, according to pages that still remain on the agency's website. But when you read the actual archived links that were included in the Lever's report, it's actually clear that the Office of the Inspector General for USAID was reviewing Ukraine's use of equipment. So just to back up a little bit. So Elon Musk's Starlink was purchased by USAID. They spent about $800,000 on it in order to provide Ukrainians internet access.

the whole point. So let's just acknowledge $800,000 is a lot of money for a normal person, not a lot of money for Elon Musk or his Starlink business. But also, USAID was not investigating Elon Musk. In fact, they were looking to investigate how Ukraine was utilizing Starlink. So let's go to the USAID Inspector General press release on this, dating back to September of 2024. They wrote that in addition to another ongoing audit on direct budget support, we are examining USAID's energy security project, USAID's oversight of Starlink satellite terminals provided to the Ukrainian government and USAID's efforts to protect against sexual exploitation and abuse in Ukraine. An earlier press release by the Inspector General's office

from May of last year sheds more light on the nature of the investigation. It says that the USAID Office of Inspector General inspections and evaluations division is initiating an inspection of USAID's oversight of Starlinked satellite terminals provided to the government of Ukraine. Our objectives are to determine how, one, the government of Ukraine used the USAID provided Starlink terminals and two, USAID monitored the government of Ukraine's use of USAID provided Starlink terminals. So there wasn't an investigation into Elon Musk, and that is not something that sparked his interest in dismantling this government agency. Honestly, my read of it is Elon Musk spends way too much time on X, and everyone on the right has been saying on X that the whole point of USAID is to carry out woke policies. And so he just kind of believes it and thinks that USAID needs to be dismantled for that reason. I think that's what's motivating him. I don't think it's

an effort to diminish or prevent an investigation into him. Now, let's get to some interesting waste that's been identified by reporters that I trust on USAID because, look, let me just be clear. There are important things that USAID does. And the whole point of the government agency is not to do good things around the world for the hell of it. Okay, the whole point is soft power. Think of soft power like the carrots, whereas military pressure is the sticks. Countries like the United States don't want to constantly use military in order to get what it wants. You use soft power, you use the carrots. So for instance, when you're doing a favor for a country, when you're providing funding for things like HIV and AIDS prevention in Africa or treatments for infectious diseases

in various countries. The United States is doing that. Those programs exist because we're hoping to get something in return. It's a way of influencing the actions of other countries. It's soft power. I know that this is a very realist mentality in international relations, but I believe in realism. Okay, this is what it's really about. And so I think that makes sense. I would much rather use soft power as opposed to military pressure or military campaigns. But what we're noticing is there are some issues with USAID in where some of the donors to politicians would want some of these programs to be funded internationally that don't necessarily benefit the United States in any way, but it certainly benefits the donor.

for various politicians. Another thing that you'll notice with some of these programs is that, you know, USAID goes back to JFK. He's the one who created it through executive order. This is a Cold War era relic. And the whole point initially was to contain communism, okay, to prevent the spread of communism globally. And you'll still see traces of that in some of the programs that are being funded now. So let's get into some of those details, okay? For instance, if you look at this piece that was recently reported by Lee Fong, it's titled USAID funded censorship smears of Americans, the controversial agency provides backdoor ways for the American government to finance propaganda against American citizens. So keep in mind, USAID is funded by American citizens. So the

idea that U.S. taxpayer money is used on programs that unfairly smear Americans is outrageous. So in the piece, he writes that USAID funded a pesticide industry public relations effort known as V-fluence, which dug up dirt about American food journalist Michael Pollan and Mark Bittman. The V-Fluence campaign sought to intimidate critics of toxic pesticides linked to cancer and other serious health issues. The effort included a database set up in concert by the industry trade group Crop Life America and USAID. Now prominent voices who were like rooting for a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine were also targeted and smeared as Russian agents. And it was part of a US AID program. So while American government entities are restricted from spreading propaganda

against Americans for obvious reasons. USAID actually provides a massive loophole to that. So since the funding goes to foreign entities that are free to smear American journalists all they want and politicians through their advocacy group, they go ahead and do that. There's nothing stopping them from doing that. And they're receiving American taxpayer money in order to do it. So USAID, through its contractor, Internews, supports a network of social media-focused news outlets, including New Voice of Ukraine, Vox Ukraine, Detector Media, and the Institute of Mass Information.

Lee Fong writes, these news outlets have produced a series. of videos and reports targeting economist Jeffrey Sachs, commentator, Tucker Carlson, journalist Glenn Greenwald, and professor John Mearsheimer, as figures within a controlled network of Russian propaganda. Now look, you might not like those people, but that doesn't matter, right? Like certainly in the case of Jeffrey Sachs, Tucker Carlson, and I think John Mearsheimer, if he still lives in the United States, their tax money is going toward programs that are smearing them as Russian agents without any hard evidence because they want Russia and Ukraine to like sit together and come up with a peace deal. I think that's crazy. And keep in mind that

Vox Ukraine was an official fact checking partner for META. And that was of course before meta decided that they're going to now pivot to a community notes type fact checking thing, much like what you'll experience over at X. Now, the attempt to manipulate Americans is pretty gross as well. There's evidence of that. USAID contract documents show provide special grants to detector media to undermine Kremlin information operations and bolster international support for solidarity with Ukraine. In 2021, detector media received 35.1% of its nearly $1 million budget from USAID, contractor inner news. In 2023, USAID provided a $2.5 million direct grant to detector media. Now again, I just want to reiterate, American taxpayer money should not fund

programs that then go on to smear Americans. And there are examples of that happening. But it's also important to keep in mind that there are programs that actually do what was intended for this whole government agency to begin with, right? The whole idea is to use soft power. So when you have the programs to help people on the ground, unfortunately, a small percentage of the money allocated to USAID every year, which is around $40 billion, goes toward those efforts. But those are the efforts that I think matter and help us maintain positive influence on countries around the world. But what's really interesting is when you listen to our democratic lawmakers and left-wing media, they're not willing to engage in this nuance because the knee-jerk reaction is, well, Trump is doing it. So if Trump is doing it, that must mean we have to come out and we have to defend everything that USAID is doing.

Keep in mind, the Trump administration can't dismantle the agency unilaterally. They can do a 90-day pause to review where the money's going. and that's what they're allegedly doing, right? But I don't think it's a good look when Democratic lawmakers right out of the gate are coming out and speaking out against that, especially when so much news is coming out now in regard to some of these programs that most Americans are not going to favor.

They're not going to like. And I also find it really interesting that Democrats are focusing on defending these programs as opposed to doing fiery press conferences on how Donald Trump, illegally fired a Democratic member of the National Labor Relations Board, Gwen Wilcox. We did a story on that last week. How come I'm not seeing any Democratic lawmakers protesting that? How come I'm not seeing any fiery press conferences on that?

By the way, according to foreign policy in 2010, USAID funded a covert mission to create a Twitter-like social media platform with the expressed intention of sparking a Cuban spring, much like the Arab Spring. And guess what? It failed miserably. Foreign policy reported that according to an associated press investigation, the project ultimately failed to foment political unrest, but it did turn out to be a useful way for Havana to secretly gather intelligence on the political leanings of the 40,000 Cubans who used it. Mission accomplished. Wow, good job. There's more. A WikiLeaks cable released in 2013 outlined the U.S. strategy for undermining

Hugo Chavez's government by penetrating Chavez's political base, dividing Chavismo, and isolating Chavez internationally. The program was carried out by USAID's office of transition initiatives. And so when you hear people call the government agency nothing more than a CIA slush fund, there is some truth to it. But I think that is also unfairly labeling the agency as one thing, when in reality, mixed in there, you will find programs that are good. Okay, so I want to be clear. The World Central Kitchen receives funding from USAID. I'm highly, highly supportive of that.

I think that's a good thing. It provides relief to refugees. I think that's a good thing. These are programs that should remain. But again, all of these negative programs are the ones that Americans are hearing about now. And it's really important for Democrats to just take a beat and really reconsider what their messaging is going to be and what they are willing to defend. So let's go to Senator Chris Murphy, who's been on the warpath defending USAID. And he kind of told on himself and expressed the real mission of USAID while speaking to Jake Tapper on CNN.

Take a look. So Congress writes a law that dictates how USAID spends money to make sure that we're counter countering. Chinese influence inside Africa to make sure that we don't lose access to critical mineral supplies. Okay. So, you know, you, the reason why China has influence in Africa right now and they're working toward access to the same thing that Chris Murphy is referencing is because they're literally building infrastructure on the ground in Africa. That's how soft power works. You think China cares about Africa? No, they care about the minerals in Africa. They want to access it for their own economic purposes. And they're not going to use military to do it. They're going to help Africa by

building infrastructure. It's a give and take type situation. And what we're seeing with what USAID is doing on the ground, there's some positive stuff, you know, helping out with AIDS and HIV prevention, certainly, helping prevent the spread of Ebola. That kind of stuff is great. but there needs to be an admission that you know what, there are some areas of waste. And I want to seat at the table. I want to work with, you know, the Republican Party, the Trump administration in rooting out the bloat, rooting out the waste, so we can keep the programs that matter. But you're not going to get any of that from Democrats.

You're just going to get a blanket defense of USAID or USAID as all these like negative news stories are coming out. And again, I mean, he could have very easily, in my opinion, done something different. If you want to protest the Trump administration, I mean, it's a target-rich environment. Why aren't any of the Democrats at all concerned about the fact that Trump fired that Democratic NLRB member illegally? But I guess that's not really a priority for Democrats. We're very concerned about losing working-class voters, but they're just unwilling to do anything to look out for working class voters. These are the kinds of mistakes that they keep making. So obviously we're going to find out what's going to happen after the 90 days are up. The Trump White House

cannot just do away with the government agency. But it's really up to Congress to decide what they're going to do. And so as the story develops, we're going to find out if USAID will remain a government agency or if the majority of Republicans in both the House and the Senate, somehow manages to rally enough support to get 60 votes in the Senate to dismantle this federal agency. We're going to wait and see, but it's important to know the nuances of the story because it's not all good, it's not all bad. What is bad, though, is when you have someone like Elon Musk who just doesn't really know much about this government agency, isn't really going through it with a fine-tooth comb and wants to totally dismantle it based on what he's hearing about it

on Twitter or X. All right. We'll be right back. We've got more news for you when we return. We're about to do something a little different. We're about to do something a little different because Trump made a lot of promises in regard to oil production. You know, he's, oh, we're going to drill, baby, drill. We're going to drill, baby, drill. But his plans are not quite working out so well. It's not really a big story. It's not

grabbing a bunch of attention. But I think you should know about it. So let's get into it. And I'm also going to ask Saudi Arabia and OPEC to bring down the cost of oil. You've got to bring it down, which frankly, I'm surprised they didn't do before the election. That didn't show a lot of love. With oil prices going down, I'll demand that interest rates drop immediately and likewise, they should be dropping all over the world. That was President Donald Trump at the World Economic Forum back in January, announcing that he would pressure Saudi Arabia to produce more oil in order to bring inflation down, and that would allow him, Donald Trump, to pressure the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates.

That's the plan. That's how he's going to lower inflation. That's how he's going to make the cost of borrowing lower. But Saudi Arabia is putting a damper on Trump's efforts, telling officials that it's just unwilling to augment oil supplies to bring costs down. I mean, think about it. Let's just pause for a second. Saudi Arabia is rich because of what? Because of oil.

It is one of the top oil-producing countries. And if you produce a lot of oil and you have, more supply, thus bringing the cost down, Saudi Arabia loses money. So they kind of have a vested interest in manipulating oil prices by holding back production. We're going to get into more details on that in just a minute, but this is how the OPEC cartel works. Okay, this is how it works. It's important to understand it because oftentimes our politicians lie to us about how all All we need to do is drill baby drill. Drill baby drill in America if we just, we're not producing enough oil.

We're the top oil producer in the entire world. We're also the top oil exporter in the entire world. But we'll get back to Saudi Arabia in just a minute because first we should get familiar with what is happening in regard to energy production in the United States and elsewhere. Now remember, Trump said this repeatedly on the campaign trail. What is the first thing you would do to help bring down the cost to make things more affordable? Drill baby, drill. Drill, baby, drill. We're going to drill baby drill. Drill, baby, drill. Drill, baby, drill. Are you? Because it doesn't seem like that's happening. And the reason why

that's not happening is because America's oil producers don't want to. Okay, so this is according to the Wall Street Journal, they report that another American oil boom, isn't in the card soon, no matter how many regulations are rolled back, according to oil executives. After many producers overdrilled themselves into bankruptcy during the shale boom heyday, the industry is now focused on keeping costs down and what do they have a fiduciary responsibility to do? Return cash to their investors. That is what they're focusing on right now. So clearly Donald Trump's plans to drill baby drill here in the United States, not working out. It's not coming to fruition at the moment. So Trump's advisors say

that the best strategy to bring down oil prices is to persuade OPEC countries. These are oil producing countries, also known as OPEC cartel, or organizations of the petroleum exporting countries and Saudi Arabia to ramp up oil production. In other words, he wants other oil producing countries to drill more, produce more so we have more supply, bring costs down. There's just one teeny tiny problem. Saudi Arabia, not buying it. They're not interested in doing it because it is not in their best interest to lower energy prices, considering oil is what makes that country wealthy. Keith Kellogg, Trump's special envoy to Ukraine and Russia, has said global producers should try slashing oil prices to $45 a barrel to pressure Russia into ending war with Ukraine.

Now, their oil production is one of the ways that they're still making money. And so if you produce more oil, it kind of undercuts Russia's oil production, and they're going to lose money through that, right? That's the idea. However, these insanely low oil prices would be a complete and utter disaster for Saudi Arabia. So the last time prices sank below $45 a barrel. During the pandemic in 2020, it prompted a painful war for market share between Saudi Arabia and Russia and pushed dozens of shale drillers into bankruptcy. At lower oil prices, Saudi Arabia would struggle to generate enough revenue to pay for social services, monthly payments to citizens and big infrastructure projects.

It will need about $90 a barrel this year to balance its budget according to the international monetary fund. Saudi Arabia doesn't give a damn about the United States. They don't care about what we're dealing with with inflation. They don't care about any war in Russia, Ukraine. They care about their own wealth and the ability to balance their own budget. And the idea of going down to $45 a barrel is ridiculous to them. It would crush them. They need to be at $90 a barrel.

You guys see how this international oil market works? It's all connected. Okay, so the reason why the U.S. is furious with countries like Venezuela is because they've nationalized their oil. Now, they do also trade or export oil in the global economy. But when you as a country, when the people of that country own the natural resources and it doesn't belong to multinational. or corporations, well, then they get to make decisions about how much oil they produce, where the oil goes. They can ensure that the oil actually benefits their own people first. We don't have that situation in the United States. The American taxpayers, American people do

not own our own natural resources. They belong to the oil companies. And they're going to go ahead and export wherever they please. And the same goes for other oil producing countries. And so let's get to what Trump has tried to do in order to kind of reinvigorate oil companies in America. He's been slashing regulations, right? And he's like, look, look, you don't have to worry about environmental regulations anymore. You don't have to worry about national monuments. I'm going to rezone things and make it easier for you to drill where you want. But apparently there are some issues there as well. So his advisors are saying that the lack of regulations, including making it easier to build pipelines, could appeal to investors. More capital flowing to the industry is

expected to increase output, but not anytime soon. It's going to take a while. And this could take many years. In fact, even with Trump's deregulation in mind, Ed Crooks, who's the vice chairman at energy consulting firm Wood McKenzie, told the Wall Street Journal, quote, we don't see anything that will make a colossal difference to the economics of production. Oil executives are noting that U.S. production is already at record highs. So remember, on one hand, you'll hear Republican lawmakers and Trump himself argue, oh, the Democrats, they're the ones who have stood in the way of oil production. We're not producing oil anymore. That's not true at all. Beginning with the Obama administration, we have been the top oil producing country in the world.

We're also the top exporter of oil in the world. So the idea that we're not drilling enough is laughable. And even the oil executives are saying that, okay? Oil executives note that U.S. production is already at record highs. But they do expect production to increase a little bit this year. The energy department projects domestic output will rise about 2% to about 13.7 million. in barrels a day by December, and then stay relatively flat in 2026. And aside from improving the U.S. economy through more oil production, Trump also wants to slap Iran with additional sanctions, you know, to make his daddy BB Netanyahu happy in Israel, of course. But when he does that, well, that's going to limit the global oil supply because Iran is one of the major

oil producers. We don't buy oil from Iran, but China does. And if it's harder for China to buy oil from Iran, they're going to want to buy oil from other oil producing countries, thus limiting the supply for importers of oil. And so that's going to make the cost go up as well. Those two policies are leading to some tension when it comes to Donald Trump's agenda in lowering inflation so he can then go to the Federal Reserve and urge them to continue lowering interest rates. And that's the other thing. Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Jerome Powell, surprisingly, has pushed back against Donald Trump's pressure to lower interest rates. About six days ago, it was reported that Trump was pressuring Powell to lower interest rates. And he's noticing that

inflation is ticking up again. He's like, nah, we're not going to do that. So look, we'll see how it develops. But the whole purpose of me doing this story is so people understand. how the oil industry really works, how everything is tied together globally, how the decisions of an OPEC cartel member country like Saudi Arabia has a big influence on the price of oil globally. And, you know, there are other options if we're looking for, you know, ways to diversify our energy, how we get our energy. I know a lot of people get touchy about this, but I really do think focusing on the cleanest form and most reliable form of energy we have at the moment, nuclear is a better option than destroying the environment by drilling

more. I think it would be better than relying on a country like Saudi Arabia to produce more oil. But right now, we are slaves to the whims of OPEC cartel countries. And that's just the reality of the situation. All right. I only did three stories in this hour, and that is not good. But it's okay. We're going to take a break. When we come back, I'm going to do one more story on my own about, well, what Bernie Sanders and Josh Hawley are up to. They're proposing a really important bipartisan bill, and they're calling Donald Trump's bluff on a campaign promise. So let's get to that and more when we come back. Thank you.

Thank you.