Why are they so scared of Elon Musk? Why do they want to put Elon Musk in jail? Soon they'll be in jail for life. That's why they have to bark so hard. They act like the last minute candle when the flame gets brighter before it dies.
Elon Musk, claimed The New York Times had received "tens of millions" from the U.S. government over the past five years.
By Tom Norton
President Donald Trump's administration and his supporters have turned their eyes to media outlets paid by federal agencies, promoted by a misleading claim this week that the USAID had spent $8 million on subscriptions to news outlet Politico.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt shared a poorly researched claim that the aid agency, which the Trump administration wants to shutter, spent $8 million, when that amount was for subscriptions across all federal agencies.
In the clamor following the story, another falsehood, shared by Department of Government Efficiency head Elon Musk, claimed The New York Times had received "tens of millions" from the U.S. government over the past five years.
A post on X, formerly Twitter, by Elon Musk, posted on February 5, 2025, viewed 14 million times, highlighted another post by conservative comentator Ian Miles Cheong, that said: "The US Government gave the New York Times tens of millions of dollars over just the past 5 years despite paying relatively little money to the NYT in the years preceding 2021. For instance, in August 2024, the US government awarded $4.1 million to the NYT.
"The bulk of the funds came from the US Department of Health and Human Services at $26.90m, followed by the National Science Foundation at $19.15m."
Musk replied: "NYT is government-funded media."
The post included screengrabs from the government spending site USAspending that showed spending filtered by the keyword "New York Times."
The data Cheong gave and Musk amplified does not show that the U.S. government "gave" The New York Times "tens of millions" of dollars.
Searching for "New York Times" returns unrelated spending for other institutions that include the words "New York" in some part of the spending entry. They include grants to The Research Foundation for the State University of New York, New York University and the New York Genome Center Inc.
The results also show spending records for more than 17 years.
USAspending.gov can correctly filter specific payments to The New York Times which shows that over the last five years, government agencies spent about $1.6 million, almost entirely on subscriptions. Other payments include ads, legal notices and delivery charges.
Over the past 17 years, the period Cheong searched under, total spending came to $3.1 million.
The New York Times' managing director of external communications, Charlie Stadtlander, told Newsweek: "It was surprising to see social media attention on the fact that a small number of government offices, libraries and courts purchase subscriptions to The New York Times and other media outlets.
"These officials and other public servants are simply seeking to better understand the world through our independent journalism, like millions of other Americans.
"It's worth noting that we offer these government subscriptions at a heavily discounted rate. For example, one arrangement provides more than 1 million active-duty and retired military members and their families access to The Times to understand what's happening in the world."
The New York Times confirmed that it has received no federal grants, that subscriptions have been bought for decades under Democratic and Republican administrations, including the first Trump administration, and that revenue earned from federal subscriptions amount to "less than 1/1000th of what we take in annually."
False.
The claim is based on faulty research. It quoted a search of U.S. government spending that included unrelated organizations. An accurate search reveals that U.S. government agencies spent about $1.6 million over the past five years on The New York Times services, almost entirely on subscriptions.
FEMA To Fire Employees Over 'Egregious' NYC Hotel Payments, But $59 Million Claim Lacks Confirmation
by: Ed Payne
Did the Federal Emergency Management Agency fraudulently send $59 million to luxury hotels in New York City to "house illegal migrants"? It's complicated: A New York City Hall spokesperson told Lead Stories that New York "never paid luxury-hotel rates" and that about a third of the $59 million -- around $19 million -- covered "direct hotel costs." A Department of Homeland Security statement said FEMA is firing four employees who made "egregious payments for luxury NYC hotels for migrants," but the agency wouldn't confirm the amount.
The claim appeared in a post published on X by Elon Musk on February 10, 2025. The post's caption said:
The @dogE team just discovered that FEMA sent $59M LAST WEEK to luxury hotels in New York City to house illegal migrants.
Sending this money violated the law and is in gross insubordination to the President's executive order.
That money is meant for American disaster relief and instead is being spent on high end hotels for illegals!
A clawback demand will be made today to recoup those funds.
This is what the post looked like on X at the time of writing:
The post does not provide any evidence to support its assertion that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) fraudulently sent $59 million to luxury hotels in New York City to house undocumented immigrants.
Department of Homeland Security
A February 11, 2025, statement (archived here) from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the parent agency of FEMA, did nothing to validate the $59 million figure. It said:
Effective immediately, FEMA is terminating the employment of four individuals for circumventing leadership to unilaterally make egregious payments for luxury NYC hotels for migrants. Firings include FEMA's Chief Financial Officer, two program analysts and a grant specialist.
Asked by Lead Stories in a February 11, 2025, email to confirm the amount of money and how it was spent, the DHS Office of Public Affairs said:
We have nothing more at this time.
New York City
In a February 11, 2025, email, a City Hall spokesperson told Lead Stories that New York City had paid out billions on the "international humanitarian crisis." Their statement continued:
We continue to see hundreds of migrants entering the city's care every week, with over 46,000 still in our shelter system and emergency-contracted hotels.
We have already spent over $7 billion on this crisis alone, and the previous administration committed only $237 million in funding to help house the migrants in our care and for future services. We have continued to receive previously allocated reimbursements through the past week. We will discuss this matter directly with federal officials.
City Hall disagreed with the numbers in Musk's social media post, saying New York never paid luxury hotel prices. It added that the city applied for the funds in April 2024, and FEMA approved them later that year. Out of the $59.3 million the city said it received from the agency, about $19 million went directly to hotel costs, $26 million covered services like food and security, and $13 million was used for group shelters and related services.
Attachment 2488272 Musk calls for impeachment of judge who blocked DOGE access at Treasury
by Ian Swanson
Elon Musk is calling for the impeachment of the federal judge who made a decision early Saturday morning that the Treasury Department should block access to anyone “other than civil servants with a need for access to perform their job duties” from its payment systems.
The order explicitly prohibits special government employees and those detailed from outside the department from getting access to the systems, a designation that would cover Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
That appeared to anger Musk, who expressed his irritation in a few Saturday posts on the social platform X, which he owns.
“A corrupt judge protecting corruption,” Musk wrote in one post at 2:11 a.m. “He needs to be impeached NOW.”
That post was written in reply to a post by the conservative media pundit Glenn Beck.
Musk, the leader of DOGE, in an earlier post at 1:40 a.m. wrote “it’s time” in response to another post about impeaching judges who have ruled against actions by the Trump administration.
U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer, an appointee of former President Obama, in his ruling ordered anyone who is now blocked from access to the Treasury Department payment system, which doles out trillions of dollars, to immediately destroy any material they’ve already downloaded.
Engelmayer’s ruling came in response to a suit by by 19 Democratic state attorneys general worried over the access Musk and his team was getting to the information. Musk’s efforts have sparked concerns from Democrats and career public servants at the Treasury Department and other agencies that sensitive private information of citizens could be endangered.
It has also raised questions about the end game behind Musk’s actions, including whether the access to the payment systems could be used to cut off appropriated funds by Congress that President Trump’s team feels are not in line with the new administration’s policies or objectives.
The ruling from Engelmayer lasts until at least Friday, when another judge who is permanently overseeing the case will hold a hearing in New York about whether to grant a longer pause.
“The Court’s firm assessment is that, for the reasons stated by the States, they will face irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief,” Engelmayer wrote in his decision.
“That is both because of the risk that the new policy presents of the disclosure of sensitive and confidential information and the heightened risk that the systems in question will be more vulnerable than before to hacking,” the judge continued.
The state attorneys general had only filed their case on Friday before Engelmayer’s decision came down early Saturday.
Musk’s efforts to win access to the systems of various federal agencies have provoked a number of legal actions in a whirlwind few weeks since President Trump’s inauguration.
Musk is the richest man in the world and has become a key part of Trump’s inner circle. The president offered a vote of confidence in Musk’s actions on Friday during a press conference with Japan’s prime minister.
In response to a legal challenge brought by a coalition of unions, the Trump administration earlier this week agreed to limit access to two personnel at the Treasury Department until the next stage of the case, but the ruling issued Saturday went further in restricting access.
The courts have emerged as a key power challenging Trump as he seeks to make a number of enormous changes to policies in Washington, from birthright citizenship to the holding of migrants at Guantánamo Bay to the closing of federal agencies such as the U.S. Agency for International Development.
Musk’s threat to impeach a judge could open a new front in what is emerging as a battle between the executive and judicial branches of the federal government.
Attachment 2488167 “It’s not going to be some sort of backroom secret thing,” Musk said last year. “It will be as transparent as possible,” maybe even streamed live online.
It hasn’t worked out that way so far.
By CHRIS MEGERIAN
WASHINGTON (AP) — Elon Musk made a clear promise after Donald Trump decided to put him in charge of making the government more efficient.
“It’s not going to be some sort of backroom secret thing,” Musk said last year. “It will be as transparent as possible,” maybe even streamed live online.
It hasn’t worked out that way so far.
In the three weeks since the Republican president has been back in the White House, Musk has rapidly burrowed deep into federal agencies while avoiding public scrutiny of his work. He has not answered questions from journalists or attended any hearings with lawmakers. Staff members for his so-called Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, have sidelined career officials around Washington.
It is a profound challenge not only to business-as-usual within the federal government, which Trump campaigned on disrupting, but to concepts of consensus and transparency that are foundational in a democratic system. Musk describes himself as “White House tech support,” and he has embedded himself in an unorthodox administration where there are no discernible limits on his influence.
Donald K. Sherman, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said Trump has allowed Musk to “exert unprecedented power and authority over government systems” with “maximal secrecy and little-to-no accountability.”
The White House insisted that DOGE is “extremely transparent” and shared examples of its work so far, such as canceling contracts and ending leases for underused buildings. House Republicans said the Trump administration also discovered that Social Security benefits were being paid to a dozen people listed as 150 years old.
“We’re going to find billions, hundreds of billions of dollars of fraud and abuse and, you know, the people elected me on that,” Trump said in a Fox News interview to be aired along with the Super Bowl on Sunday. He described Musk as “terrific” and said he would soon focus on the Department of Defense, the country’s largest government agency.
Asked on Friday if Musk should publicly answer questions about his work, the president said, “Oh sure.”
“He’s not shy,” Trump said. “Elon’s not shy.”
That is true, at least judging by Musk’s social media, where no thought appears to be suppressed. His X account is a flood of internet memes, attacks on critics and professions of loyalty to the president. He has made clear the grand scope of his ambitions, talking in existential terms about the need to reverse the federal deficit, cut government spending and roll back progressive programs.
“This administration has one chance for major reform that may never come again,” he posted on Saturday. “It’s now or never.”
Musk is used to doing things his own way. The world’s richest person, he became wealthy with the online payment service PayPal, then took over the electric car manufacturer Tesla and founded the rocket company SpaceX. More recently, he bought Twitter and rebranded it as X, cutting jobs and remaking its culture.
He seems to be taking a similar approach to the federal government, but he can be tightlipped about his plans. For example, he has not explained how his team will utilize access to payment systems that include sensitive data on people in the United States.
Much of DOGE’s work is happening behind the scenes. Team members have shown up at the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Treasury Department, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, among other agencies. Their arrival is never publicly announced, and career staff members are looking over their shoulders for unfamiliar faces in the hallways.
At the Education Department, DOGE employees are working out of a conference room on the seventh floor, which also houses the secretary’s office.
Sheria Smith, president of a federal employees union that represents some of the agency’s staff, said it is unclear what internal systems have been accessed by Musk’s team and for what reason.
“It’s the lack of transparency that’s alarming,” she said.
While longtime staff members fret about their future, DOGE workers have been spotted cheerfully trading high-fives with each other.
“They don’t seem to answer to anyone and are not engaging with anyone in our agency,” Smith said.
Sometimes a rumor circulates that Musk himself is making the rounds. But he generally has been at the White House complex, where he has an office.
David Sacks, a Musk ally working on artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency issues for the administration, said he stopped by to check on the DOGE team.
“The whole room was full of young coders,” he said during The All-In Podcast, which Sacks hosts with three other venture capitalists. “The facilities people don’t know what to do because they’ve never had people ask to stay late on Friday night before.”
Journalists have been piecing together the identities of people who work for DOGE, discovering a cadre of young acolytes with technology and engineering backgrounds.
Some were previously employed by Musk’s companies, and Musk has said it is a crime to reveal their names. He has not cited any law that would be broken by such a disclosure.
It does not appear to be an idle threat. Ed Martin, the Trump-appointed interim U.S. attorney in the nation’s capital, said last week that “we will pursue any and all legal action against anyone who impedes your work or threatens your people.”
Martin followed up on Friday to thank Musk for referring suspects who were “stealing government property and/or threatening government employees.” No additional information was provided by Martin’s office or the White House.
Energy Secretary Chris Wright defended DOGE’s work, saying in a CNBC interview Friday that members of Musk’s team were like “young gun management consultants coming in to take a critical look at how things are run.”
“They’re part of a team assembled by DOGE, friends in Elon’s broader circle that are very good at IT and very good at systems,” Wright said.
It took more than two weeks after Trump’s inauguration on Jan. 20 to figure out that Musk had formally joined the administration as a special government employee. The White House said Musk will file a financial disclosure report, but it will be kept secret. Because of Musk’s sprawling business interests, the report would likely be among the most extensive ever compiled.
It’s unclear whether Musk swore an oath to the Constitution like other federal workers. Even though Trump promised that Musk would steer clear of any areas where he has a conflict of interest, no details have been provided on how that is being evaluated. A test of that arrangement could come soon, with Musk set to review spending at the Pentagon, where SpaceX has billions of dollars in contracts to put satellites in orbit.
Democrats on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee tried to issue a subpoena to force Musk to testify, but the effort was blocked by Republicans.
“Who is this unelected billionaire, that he can attempt to dismantle federal agencies, fire people, transfer them, offer them early retirement, and have sweeping reform or changes to agencies without any congressional review, oversight, or concurrence?” said Rep. Gerald Connolly of Virginia, the committee’s top Democrat.
House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York said Republicans were “doing the bidding of an unelected, out of control, billionaire puppet master.”
The unedited transcript of CBS News’ "60 Minutes" interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris doesn’t show that the news outlet replaced Harris’ answers to questions about U.S.-Israel relations with responses from a different part of the interview.
CBS News used a longer version of Harris’ answer in a video clip preview on the CBS News show "Face the Nation." It used a shorter excerpt in the "60 Minutes" interview that aired Oct. 7, 2024. Both versions come from the same three-and-a-half-minute exchange on U.S.-Israel relations.
It’s standard practice for news outlets to edit interviews for length and clarity.
By Sara Swann
President Donald Trump’s monthslong feud with CBS News’ "60 Minutes" reignited after the news program released the full, unedited transcript and video of its pre-election interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris, the 2024 Democratic presidential candidate.
About three weeks after the Oct. 7, 2024, interview aired, Trump sued CBS Broadcasting Inc. and CBS Interactive Inc. for $10 billion, claiming the news outlet deceptively edited the "60 Minutes" interview to favor Harris. Then, at the end of January, the Federal Communications Commission, led by Trump appointee Brendan Carr, called on CBS to release the unedited transcript and video. CBS News complied, releasing the content publicly Feb. 5.
In response, Trump posted Feb. 6 on his social media platform Truth Social that CBS committed "fraud."
"CBS and 60 Minutes defrauded the public by doing something which has never, to this extent, been seen before," Trump wrote. "They 100% removed Kamala’s horrible election changing answers to questions, and replaced them with completely different, and far better, answers, taken from another part of the interview."
Trump claimed ‘60 Minutes’ replaced Harris’ interview answers. That’s not what the transcript shows.
If Your Time is short
The unedited transcript of CBS News’ "60 Minutes" interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris doesn’t show that the news outlet replaced Harris’ answers to questions about U.S.-Israel relations with responses from a different part of the interview.
CBS News used a longer version of Harris’ answer in a video clip preview on the CBS News show "Face the Nation." It used a shorter excerpt in the "60 Minutes" interview that aired Oct. 7, 2024. Both versions come from the same three-and-a-half-minute exchange on U.S.-Israel relations.
It’s standard practice for news outlets to edit interviews for length and clarity.
See the sources for this fact-check
President Donald Trump’s monthslong feud with CBS News’ "60 Minutes" reignited after the news program released the full, unedited transcript and video of its pre-election interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris, the 2024 Democratic presidential candidate.
About three weeks after the Oct. 7, 2024, interview aired, Trump sued CBS Broadcasting Inc. and CBS Interactive Inc. for $10 billion, claiming the news outlet deceptively edited the "60 Minutes" interview to favor Harris. Then, at the end of January, the Federal Communications Commission, led by Trump appointee Brendan Carr, called on CBS to release the unedited transcript and video. CBS News complied, releasing the content publicly Feb. 5.
In response, Trump posted Feb. 6 on his social media platform Truth Social that CBS committed "fraud."
"CBS and 60 Minutes defrauded the public by doing something which has never, to this extent, been seen before," Trump wrote. "They 100% removed Kamala’s horrible election changing answers to questions, and replaced them with completely different, and far better, answers, taken from another part of the interview."
Trump’s statement misrepresents what happened.
Trump claimed ‘60 Minutes’ replaced Harris’ interview answers. That’s not what the transcript shows.
If Your Time is short
The unedited transcript of CBS News’ "60 Minutes" interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris doesn’t show that the news outlet replaced Harris’ answers to questions about U.S.-Israel relations with responses from a different part of the interview.
CBS News used a longer version of Harris’ answer in a video clip preview on the CBS News show "Face the Nation." It used a shorter excerpt in the "60 Minutes" interview that aired Oct. 7, 2024. Both versions come from the same three-and-a-half-minute exchange on U.S.-Israel relations.
It’s standard practice for news outlets to edit interviews for length and clarity.
See the sources for this fact-check
President Donald Trump’s monthslong feud with CBS News’ "60 Minutes" reignited after the news program released the full, unedited transcript and video of its pre-election interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris, the 2024 Democratic presidential candidate.
About three weeks after the Oct. 7, 2024, interview aired, Trump sued CBS Broadcasting Inc. and CBS Interactive Inc. for $10 billion, claiming the news outlet deceptively edited the "60 Minutes" interview to favor Harris. Then, at the end of January, the Federal Communications Commission, led by Trump appointee Brendan Carr, called on CBS to release the unedited transcript and video. CBS News complied, releasing the content publicly Feb. 5.
In response, Trump posted Feb. 6 on his social media platform Truth Social that CBS committed "fraud."
"CBS and 60 Minutes defrauded the public by doing something which has never, to this extent, been seen before," Trump wrote. "They 100% removed Kamala’s horrible election changing answers to questions, and replaced them with completely different, and far better, answers, taken from another part of the interview."
Trump’s statement misrepresents what happened.
Sign up for PolitiFact texts
Trump is referring to Harris’ answers in two videos CBS News released. In an Oct. 6, 2024, video clip previewing the interview on the CBS News show "Face the Nation," Harris answered a question about U.S.-Israel relations. The next day, when the "60 Minutes" interview aired, it showed Harris giving a different answer to the same question.
The full, unedited interview transcript shows that CBS News’ "60 Minutes" took Harris’ answers in both videos from the same three-and-a-half-minute exchange on U.S.-Israel relations. It does not show that CBS News replaced Harris’ answers on this topic with a response from a different portion of the interview.
It’s typical for news outlets to edit long interviews into shorter broadcast segments or published stories.
Trump backed out of his CBS News "60 Minutes" interview before the 2024 election, breaking a decadeslong tradition of major party presidential candidates’ interviews with the network ahead of the general election.
PolitiFact contacted the White House for comment, but received no response.
What the full, unedited transcript shows
Because the interview aired on the anniversary of the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel, "60 Minutes" correspondent Bill Whitaker began the interview with questions about Israel and the Biden-Harris administration’s relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
PolitiFact annotated the unedited interview transcript below to show how "60 Minutes" presented Harris’ answers in the preview clip and aired interview.
The full, unedited interview video is available on "60 Minutes" YouTube page. The exchange about U.S.-Israel relations starts about six minutes in.
You can also read the full, unedited interview transcript here. The exchange about U.S.-Israel relations is on Pages 11-13. Parts highlighted in yellow were included in the preview clip, parts highlighted in blue were in the aired interview and parts highlighted in green were in both videos.
Why did "60 Minutes" share different clips?
When publishing the transcripts and video the Federal Communications Commission requested, CBS News said in a statement that the content shows "the ‘60 Minutes’ broadcast was not doctored or deceitful."
In its statement, CBS News noted that it’s common practice for journalists to edit interviews for time, space or clarity. The full, unedited interview video is 57 minutes long; that was edited down to 20 minutes.
CBS News said it broadcast a longer portion of Harris’ answer to Whitaker’s question about U.S.-Israel relations in a preview clip and a shorter version of Harris’ answer was included in the aired interview.
The news outlet said it edited the "60 Minutes" interview to include as much of Harris’ answers to Whitaker’s questions as possible, while fairly representing the substance of Harris’ answers.
CBS News made a similar statement Oct. 20, 2024, rebutting Trump’s accusation of deceitful editing.
Kelly McBride, senior vice president and chair of Craig Newmark Center for Ethics and Leadership at the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, told PolitiFact that CBS News’ "60 Minutes" edited the Harris interview reasonably. (The Poynter Institute owns PolitiFact.)
"I would say that their edits are completely within the standards that journalists employ when they try to create an informative product for the public," McBride said. "It seems very much like what journalists do with all verbose speakers, including and especially Donald Trump."
Trump posted on Truth Social that CBS News and 60 Minutes "replaced" Harris’ "60 Minutes" interview answers "with completely different, and far better, answers, taken from another part of the interview."
The full, unedited interview transcript does not show that CBS News’ "60 Minutes" replaced all of Harris’ answers to questions about U.S.-Israel relations with a response from a different part of the interview. CBS did not change Harris’ meaning.
News outlets commonly edit interviews for length and clarity. CBS News used a longer version of Harris’ response in a video clip previewing the "60 Minutes" interview on the CBS News show "Face the Nation." It used a shorter excerpt of Harris’ answer in the aired "60 Minutes" interview. Both parts of Harris’ answer were taken from the same segment of the interview, the unedited transcript shows.
A media ethics expert said the "60 Minutes" interview adhered to typical journalistic standards.
The judge limited access to “civil servants with a need for access” who have “passed all background checks and security clearances.”
By Kyle Cheney
A federal judge on Saturday issued a sweeping block on most Trump administration officials — including Elon Musk and his allies — from accessing sensitive Treasury records for at least a week while legal proceedings play out in New York.
Manhattan-based U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer issued the middle-of-the-night order after an emergency request by 19 Democratic attorneys general warning that the efforts by Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency allies to take control of Treasury’s sensitive payment systems — which have access to personal information of millions of Americans and the government’s financial transactions — were putting their residents at risk.
Engelmayer said he agreed with the states’ assessment that the abrupt changes in policy implemented by the Trump administration had created a risk that sensitive data would be disclosed or that the system could be hacked. He also said the states were very likely to show that the new arrangement was legally improper.
A federal judge in Washington had already limited access to this system to a pair of Musk allies who had been embedded within Treasury as “special government employees,” as well as other existing Treasury employees and officials with legitimate reasons to access it. But Engelmayer’s order goes further, barring even the two Musk-associated officials — Tom Krause and Marko Elez — and many other government employees from accessing the system until at least Feb. 14, when a different federal judge has called a hearing on the matter.
Instead, Engelmayer limited access to the Treasury system to “civil servants with a need for access … who have passed all background checks and security clearances and all information security training” required by laws and regulations.
The Barack Obama-appointed judge also affirmatively barred any political appointees or special government employees detailed to Treasury — the designation given to Musk’s allies — from accessing the system. And he ordered Treasury Department leaders to require that any newly prohibited officials who already accessed such information to “immediately destroy and all copies of material downloaded.”
The order is the latest in a series of emergency interventions by the courts to block the Trump administration’s rapid-fire attempt — led by Musk’s DOGE office in the White House — to remake the federal bureaucracy. Engelmayer’s order followed by just hours a block by a federal judge in Washington on a Musk-led drive to quickly dismantle USAID, the agency responsible for administering foreign aid programs. And other judges have intervened to limit Trump’s early efforts related to birthright citizenship, a sweeping spending freeze, a government-wide resignation program and the relocation transgender prison inmates.
Though Engelmayer issued the emergency order, the case will ultimately be handled by U.S. District Judge Jeannette Vargas, a Joe Biden appointee who was confirmed to the bench last year.
Attachment 2487765 President Donald Trump's executive orders have faced a slew of legal roadblocks.
Judges have blocked orders on birthright citizenship, transgender inmate rehousing, and spending.
Trump's tariff plans for Canada and Mexico were paused after negotiations.
Laura Italiano, Natalie Musumeci, Haven Orecchio-Egresitz, and Katie Balevic
Some of President Donald Trump's boldest moves during his new administration's seismic first three weeks have been grounded before ever taking flight.
The administration and its Department of Governmental Efficiency, led by Elon Musk, the world's richest man, promised a list of swift-moving changes to the US government's operations. While some of those plans have progressed, others were put on hold, either in the courts or by the administration itself.
The White House says this is all part of a long game that Trump, ultimately, will win.
"Each executive order will hold up in court because every action of the Trump-Vance administration is completely lawful," Harrison Fields, the principal White House deputy press secretary, told BI on Friday.
And as for Trump's walked-back plans to hit our closest neighbors with tariffs — that was an all-out victory, said another White House spokesman, Kush Desai, who said Trump changed course on Mexico and Canada after "critical concessions" from both countries.
Still, much of Trump 2.0 remains on ice for now.
For those who haven't been able to keep up with the firehouse of actions announced by the White House and DOGE, here are the key ones that have been held up — for now.
A 'fork in the road' resignation offer
A federal judge in Massachusetts delayed Trump's plan to root out federal employees with buyout offers.
On January 28, the Trump administration gave just over two million government workers the chance to resign and maintain full pay and benefits until September 30. The so-called "fork in the road" resignation offer was a strategy straight out of Musk's playbook.
US District Judge George O'Toole Jr. on Thursday extended the buyout deadline until at least Monday, just hours before the actual deadline. The order came in response to a lawsuit brought by labor union groups. A Trump administration official told BI that over 40,000 federal workers had taken the buyout as of Wednesday.
Musk's DOGE and the Treasury
The White House launched another fiscal bombshell on February 3 when Trump told reporters he had given Treasury data access to Musk, whose DOGE is tasked with cutting government spending.
The idea that DOGE would have access to the personal information of millions of Americans — including anyone who had ever paid taxes, taken a federal loan, or collected Social Security — resulted in another legal challenge.
On Thursday, a federal judge in California set strict interim limits on the Treasury data, banning DOGE from accessing it directly.
Then, Saturday morning, another federal judge temporarily blocked a slew of people — including special government employees (like Musk), political appointees, and government employees not assigned by the Treasury — from accessing the Treasury's payment systems. The judge also ordered those who had gained new access to the systems to destroy all copies they may have made of materials and records they downloaded.
In the order, US District Judge Paul Engelmayer cited the risk of "disclosure of sensitive and confidential information" and the "heightened risk that the systems in question will be more vulnerable than before to hacking."
A freeze on federal spending
On January 27 — the first full Monday of Trump 2.0 — Trump budget officials dropped a bombshell memo ordering the temporary freezing of "all federal financial assistance" beginning 5 p.m. the following day, so that the spending could be reviewed. In an instant, the future of billions of dollars in federal funding was thrown into question.
The shockwaves were just as swift, even in the hours before the freeze was to take place. Medicaid portals used by states to access federal reimbursement quickly shut down across the country. Head Start funds were frozen in some states. Officials in California wondered if FEMA wildfire assistance was at risk.
Judges presiding over two hastily-drafted lawsuits issued separate injunctions blocking the freeze, including a federal judge in DC whose order came down minutes before the 5 p.m deadline.
The next day, Matthew Vaeth, director of the Office of Management and Budget, sent out a second memo. It said that the first memo is no longer in effect.
Backing off from tariff threats
Trump touted his plans to impose new 25% tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico, and they were set to go into effect on Tuesday.
The announcements were met with retaliatory plans from both countries, where leaders said they'd enforce their own tariffs on American products.
The expected trade war rattled the markets. On Monday, stocks and crypto tumbled, while the US dollar and oil climbed.
In the end, though, these tariffs that left American investors scrambling were put on hold.
Trump and Mexico's president, Claudia Sheinbaum, struck a deal on border policy, delaying the expected tariff on Mexican imports for 30 days. Similarly, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau negotiated a pause until March for that set of tariffs.
A similar threat of 25% tariffs on goods from Colombia was put on hold after the country agreed to accept all deportation flights from the US.
An additional 10% tariff on imports from China did go into effect Tuesday, and was quickly matched by retaliatory tariffs on US exports to that country.
Bid to end birthright citizenship
Trump's executive order seeking to abolish the constitutional right of birthright citizenship has been indefinitely blocked by two separate federal judges.
A judge in Washington state issued a nationwide preliminary injunction against the order on Thursday, just a day after a Maryland judge did the same. The order — one of the first signed by Trump after he was sworn into office — has been challenged in the courts by more than 20 Democratic-run states and immigrant rights advocates who have argued it violates the 14th Amendment.
Judge John Coughenour of the US District Court for the Western District of Washington temporarily halted the order on January 23, calling the move to end automatic citizenship to US-born children of parents who are in the country illegally "blatantly unconstitutional."
Coughenour issued his Thursday ruling following the decision by Maryland US District Judge Deborah Boardman. Boardman wrote that Trump's order "conflicts with the plain language of the 14th Amendment, contradicts 125-year-old binding Supreme Court precedent, and runs counter to our nation's 250-year history of citizenship by birth."
Dropping USAID into the 'wood chipper'
A federal judge on Friday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from placing 2,200 USAID employees on paid leave.
The workers, some of whom are overseas, were set to go on leave just before midnight Friday.
Musk said in an X post on Monday that he had "spent the weekend feeding USAID into the wood chipper."
The American Federation of Government Employees and the American Foreign Service Association, however, filed a lawsuit against the administration's USAID cuts on Thursday, arguing that the moves to dismantle it were made without congressional authorization.
Constitutional law experts told Business Insider that dismantling the agency without congressional approval is indisputably illegal.
Forcing transgender women inmates into men's prisons
Trump's Day One order to house transgender women into men's men's facilities at federal prisons has also been blocked in the courts.
The order says the attorney general and Homeland Security secretary shall "ensure that males are not detained in women's prisons" and calls to end gender-affirming care for transgender inmates. It was challenged in two lawsuits brought by a handful of transgender women in prison.
US District Judge Royce Lamberth in Washington, DC, granted the plaintiffs' request for a temporary restraining order on Tuesday. In his order, Lamberth wrote that the plaintiffs "have straightforwardly demonstrated that irreparable harm will follow" if the restraining order request was denied.
Lamberth's order followed a separate ruling by US District Judge George O'Toole in Massachusetts, who also issued a temporary restraining order on January 26.
Eleven out of 12 claims about the agency’s work are misleading, wrong or lack
context.
Analysis by Glenn Kessler
As the Trump administration this week dismantled the U.S. Agency for International Development, the primary vehicle for U.S. foreign aid, the White House issued a statement justifying its actions. Titled “At USAID, Waste and Abuse Runs Deep,” the news release claimed USAID “has been unaccountable to taxpayers as it funnels massive sums of money to the ridiculous — and, in many cases, malicious — pet projects of entrenched bureaucrats, with next-to-no oversight.”
The news release then listed 12 examples, plucked from the websites of right-wing media. But the numbers cited — as low as $32,000 — hardly justify the claim that these are “massive sums” of money. In fact, they are so low that some of the funds appear to have been awarded at the ambassador level, without Washington involvement. At least one dated from the first Trump administration, and some were actually State Department grants, not USAID.
Whether they are “ridiculous” might be in the eye of the beholder. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt held up the sheet before reporters on Monday and declared, “I don’t know about you, but as an American taxpayer I don’t want my dollars going toward this crap.”
In fiscal year 2023, USAID was appropriated about $25 billion by Congress, according to ForeignAssistance.go v. (The website in recent days has been changed to combine USAID spending with foreign aid distributed by the State Department, so the combined total is nearly $39 billion.) The White House identified only about $12 million in grants — one of which was $6 million — though one allegation vaguely claimed “hundreds of millions of dollars.” Upon inspection, that turned out to be from 2005 to 2008.
As a reader service, we examined these line items, as they have spread across social media. By eliminating USAID’s website, the administration made harder to ascertain the details of some of these programs. But we determined that, as framed by the White House, only one claim — out of 12 — was accurate. After we highlighted key errors in the statement to the White House, we received a statement from spokeswoman Anna Kelly: “This waste of taxpayer dollars underscores why the president paused foreign aid on day one to ensure it aligns with American interests.”
The Facts
According to surveys, many Americans have a misguided view of how much money the United States devotes to foreign aid. Polls consistently reveal that Americans believe that it is about 25 percent of the federal budget — and that a majority believe it should be more like 10 percent. In reality, foreign aid is less than 1 percent of the budget.
On top of that, other countries are more generous with foreign aid. By raw dollars, the United States gives more foreign aid than any other country. But when measured as a percentage of a country’s economy, the United States is far behind nations such as Britain, Norway, Sweden, Germany and the Netherlands. The United Nations has set a target of contributing 0.7 percent of gross national income in development aid; the United States clocks in with less than 0.2 percent, near the bottom of the list of major democracies, according to a 2020 report by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Much of the time, this aid does not actually leave U.S. shores. Then, if it does, it generally goes to nongovernmental organizations, not host governments. The exception might be direct cash transfers as a reward for counterterrorism operations to countries that support the United States, such as Turkey and Jordan, or Egypt and Israel for signing the Camp David Accords, according to the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Very little since the 1970s has been spent on direct construction of roads, irrigation systems, electric power facilities or similar projects, CRS said.
About two-thirds of U.S. foreign assistance funds in fiscal year 2018 were obligated to U.S.-based entities, CRS said. For instance, food aid must be purchased in the United States and by law must be shipped on U.S. carriers. With the exception of some aid given to Israel, all military aid must be used to purchase U.S. military equipment and training — meaning foreign military aid in reality is a jobs program in the United States.
Here’s a line-by-line examination of the White House list, in the order presented.
“$1.5 million to ‘advance diversity equity and inclusion in Serbia’s workplaces and business communities’”
This is mostly accurate. USAID provided $1.5 million to a group called Grupa Izadji, which focuses on creating opportunities for young LGBTQ people. Aleksa Savić, executive director of Grupa Izadji, said in an email that the goal “was to raise the perception among employers and the broader Serbian public that the economic engagement of all individuals, including LGBTQI+ persons, yields positive effects for the economy and creates better conditions for economic growth and development.” Under the terms of the three-year grant, USAID delivers money after certain milestones have been met. The organization has received $1.14 million and on Jan. 24 “submitted additional milestones valued at $755,000, for which we are awaiting payment from USAID,” he said. For many years, USAID has tried to improve civil society in Serbia as interest groups could advocate with the government on reforms. LGBTQ people faced discrimination, so one area of focus was ensuring acceptance of Belgrade Pride, an annual parade that previously was canceled after threats of violence. The 2024 parade was peaceful, and the government is discussing legislation on same-sex partnerships.
“$70,000 for production of a ‘DEI musical’ in Ireland”
This is wrong.This was a State Department grant, not USAID. In 2022, the U.S. ambassador hosted an event featuring Grammy-winning folk duo Francesco Turrisi and Rhiannon Giddens, along with other Irish and American musicians.
“$2.5 million for electric vehicles for Vietnam”
This is wrong. This was for more than electric vehicles. USAID launched a $2.5 million fund that provided awards up to $100,000 to organizations with promising new products, business models, or financing models in Danang or SaiGon cities. The fund was part of a larger effort to bring green energy to a country that is one of the world’s fastest-growing per capita greenhouse gas emitters. China has a head start on green energy, but the United States has sought to keep Vietnam out of China’s orbit, so the program was intended to boost the U.S. brand in green energy.
“$47,000 for a ‘transgender opera’ in Colombia”
This is wrong. USAID did not fund this. The White House appears to be referring to a $25,000 State Department grant to Universidad De Los Andes in Bogotá to stage an opera, “As One,” composed by Laura Kaminsky, an American. The rest of the money came from other sources, according to Juana Monsalve, the lead actress in the Colombian performances. “This is a well-known opera in the U.S., highly acclaimed by audiences,” Monsalve told a radio show in Spanish. “The last thing I expected was to hear those statements from the White House.”
“$32,000 for a ‘transgender comic book’ in Peru”
This is wrong. USAID did not fund this, and it was not specifically transgender. Instead, the grant says the State Department provided $32,000, under the guise of public diplomacy, to Peru’s Education Department “to cover expenses to produce a tailored-made comic, featured an LGBTQ+ hero to address social and mental health issues.”
“$2 million for sex changes and ‘LGBT activism’ in Guatemala”
This is misleading, as it suggests USAID arranged for sex changes. The three-year grant to Asociación Lambda, a Guatemala LGBTIQ+ organization, was to “strengthen trans-led organizations to deliver gender-affirming health care, advocate for improved quality and access to services, and provide economic empowerment opportunities.” The World Health Organization defines gender-affirming health care as “any single or combination of a number of social, psychological, behavioral or medical (including hormonal treatment or surgery) interventions designed to support and affirm an individual’s gender identity.” About $350,000 of the grant has been delivered. Officials at Asociación Lambda could not be reached, but a former senior USAID official who worked on LGBTIQ+ programs for the agency said, “I regularly went to the Hill and communicated on the record to note that for USAID, gender-affirming care does not include surgeries, hormone replacement therapies or any other medical interventions.”
“$6 million to fund tourism in Egypt”
This is wrong. This initiative was launched in the first Trump administration to “increase educational opportunities and strengthen the livelihoods of the people of North Sinai,” according to the citation provided by the White House. The money would “provide access to transportation for rural communities and economic livelihood programming for families.” There is no mention of funding tourism.
“Hundreds of thousands of dollars for a nonprofit linked to designated terrorist organizations — even AFTER an inspector general launched an investigation”
This is dubious. Allegations of links to Pakistani terror groups have never been proved and have been denied as “baseless and defamatory” by the organization, known as Helping Hand for Relief and Development. Some GOP members of Congress for years have claimed the group has terrorism links, and the Washington Examiner reported last year that the USAID inspector general began an investigation. The State Department, in a brochure on American Muslims published during the first Trump administration, said Helping Hand was “lauded for its ability to deliver effective aid.”
“Millions to EcoHealth Alliance — which was involved in research at the Wuhan lab”
This lacks context. Before the pandemic, up until 2019, USAID provided $1.1 million to EcoHealth Alliance, an environmental health nonprofit, via a subagreement on virus research. USAID initially awarded a grant to the University of California at Davis to improve monitoring of zoonotic viruses with pandemic potential in African and Asian countries. UC-Davis then hired EcoHealth, which in turn contracted with Wuhan University and the Wuhan Institute of Virology, to collect biological samples from roughly 1,500 individuals in the Yunnan province with exposure to bats, other wildlife and domestic animals, according to the Government Accountability Office. The origin of the covid virus has still not been determined. In 2022, USAID awarded EcoHealth $4.7 million for a conservation project to improve farming practices in southwest Liberia — completely unrelated to virus research.
“Hundreds of thousands of meals that went to al-Qaeda-affiliated fighters in Syria”
This is highly misleading. As the article cited by the White House makes clear, investigators, including the USAID inspector general, discovered that the head of a nongovernmental organization diverted $9 million intended for Syrian civilians to combatant groups. He was charged in a 12-count indictment unsealed in November. “USAID OIG works tirelessly to ensure that U.S.-funded humanitarian assistance does not fall into the hands of terrorist organizations,” said Jason Donnelly, special agent for the inspector general, in a news release. “We will continue to work with the Department of Justice and law enforcement partners to hold accountable those who compromise USAID programs for vulnerable populations around the world.” Yet the White House is now blaming the agency for fraud that it exposed.
“Funding to print ‘personalized’ contraceptives birth control devices in developing countries”
This is misleading. USAID gave a grant to the University of Texas at Austin to develop personalized 3D-printed nonhormonal intrauterine devices (IUDs). The grant was part of a program managed by Eastern Virginia Medical School at Old Dominion University and USAID to improve reproductive health by researching low-cost, safe and noninvasive HIV prevention methods as well as contraceptives.
“Hundreds of millions of dollars to fund ‘irrigation canals, farming equipment, and even fertilizer used to support the unprecedented poppy cultivation and heroin production in Afghanistan,’ benefiting the Taliban”
This is false. USAID never intended to support opium poppy cultivation or the Taliban, and in fact the United States sought to stem it. The White House cites a right-wing news site’s account of a 2018 report by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) — whom President Donald Trump recently fired — that found that USAID efforts to fund alternative development projects during the George W. Bush administration (2005 to 2008) had failed. The Taliban before 2001 had successfully banned poppy cultivation, but the U.S. invasion led to a power vacuum that was exploited by poppy growers. USAID was the lead U.S. agency for implementing alternative development projects, modeled after a more successful effort in Colombia, but the report documented how conflicts among agencies and with allies hampered the effort. It’s a stretch to now, years later, accuse USAID of helping the Taliban.
Posts shared online connected the rumor to her work for the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation.
By Grace Deng
Claim:
Chelsea Clinton received $84 million in taxpayer dollars from the U.S. Agency for International Development.
Rating: False
On Feb. 5, 2025, social media users spread a claim that Chelsea Clinton, daughter of Democratic former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton, received $84 million in taxpayer money from the U.S. Agency for International Development, a humanitarian aid agency.
The claim spread primarily on X but it also appeared in posts on Facebook, Threads and Bluesky. Many of these posts included an image purporting to show how money flows to "Bill Hillary & Chelsea Clinton."
WorldNetDaily, a far-right news outlet known for publishing conspiracy theories, posted a story about the rumor, citing what appeared to be a since-deleted X post from tech mogul Elon Musk. Based on the embedded post in the WorldNetDaily story, Musk appears to have quoted a post claiming Chelsea Clinton was "casually taking home $84 million" with "Wow." Snopes could not find a screenshot or archived link verifying that Musk posted this, but we found quote posts and replies to a deleted post from Musk discussing this claim.
In short, Chelsea Clinton has not received $84 million from USAID. The graph shared purporting to show how money flows to "Bill Hillary & Chelsea Clinton" is a reference to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, not Chelsea Clinton specifically. A search of tax records and the U.S. government's spending tracker found that Chelsea Clinton has not personally received any money from USAID since 2008 — the first year records are available online — and that she receives no salary from the only Clinton-related initiative that has received money from USAID. Thus, we rate this claim as false.
Graph references Clinton Foundation, not Chelsea Clinton
The graph appears to be from datarepublican.com's charity graphs (archived). The webpage says it creates its graphs using employer identification numbers — federal tax identification numbers — as well as the USASpending.gov website, the American government's "official open data source of federal spending information." It is unclear how often datarepublican.com's information is updated, although its X account was announcing updates as recently as Feb. 5, as of this writing.
An IRS search for the EIN, listed under "Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton" on the image leads to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, a philanthropic nonprofit group that carries out various humanitarian efforts. Chelsea Clinton received $0 for her work for this foundation in 2022, according to publicly available tax returns (see Page 7).
ProPublica also offers an easily searchable Nonprofit Explorer tool using these IRS documents, which show Chelsea Clinton had not received any compensation from the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation since at least fiscal year 2013.
It is also worth noting that datarepublican.com's own nongovernmental organization tracker meant to show connections between charities and USAID funding noted as of this writing (screenshot) that Chelsea Clinton receives $0 in compensation from all nonprofit organizations where she is listed as an officer.
Clinton Foundation and USAID funding
The Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation also received no money from USAID from fiscal years 2008 to 2024 — which ran from October 2007 to September 2024 — according to a search of USASpending.gov, which goes back to fiscal year 2008. Fiscal year 2025 is not over as of this writing, but the foundation received no money from USAID through Feb. 6, 2025, either.
Another search of USASpending.gov found that the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation has received only one financial award from the U.S. government in total: $49,998 in 2010 for AmeriCorps National, a federal initiative that provides Americans opportunities to do community service.
In 2022, the Clinton Foundation had about $302 million in net assets. ProPublica also has 2023 tax returns available that do not appear to be on the IRS lookup search yet, which show the organization's net assets at $293 million.
From fiscal years 2008 to 2024, USAID has awarded money to only one Clinton organization: the Clinton Health Access Initiative, which was founded by the Clinton Foundation but is its own nonprofit group. The initiative received a grant for $7.49 million and spent $6,049,198.09 of that grant from 2019 to 2021.
From 2019 to 2021, Chelsea Clinton did not receive any compensation for her position as a board member for the health initiative, either, IRS documents say (see Page 18 in the organization's 2019 and 2021 tax returns and Page 17 in the 2020 return).
ProPublica's Nonprofit Explorer tool provides information on executive compensation at the Clinton Health Access Initiative from fiscal years 2013 to 2024, and according to the tool Chelsea Clinton received no compensation from the organization during those years.
Thus, there is no evidence Chelsea Clinton has received any money from USAID, nor is there any evidence that she received any compensation from the Clinton organization that has received money from USAID.
Did USAID spend over $8 million on Politico, LLC, as social media posts imply? No, that's not true: The government spending database only shows $44,000 in two transactions. Both were subscriptions, not grants.
by: Uliana Malashenko
The claim appeared in a post (archived here) on X where it was published on February 5, 2025. It opened:
So let me get this straight...
USAID has been spending millions of taxpayer dollars every year funding not only the BBC, but also Politico?
However, the screenshots in the post displaying the figure of over $ 8.1 million among other things did not represent searches per agency.
Politico, LLC is a journalistic organization predominantly covering politics.
Lead Stories searched the database applying two filters, a recipient's name and an awarding/funding agency. The results below show that the total amount spent by the USAID (the U.S. Agency for International Development) on Politico, LLC, is below $50,000. The database only shows two transactions, and both were not grants but subscriptions, as seen here and here.
A breakdown of the overall $8 million figure from the post on X summarizes what all government agencies spent on Politico, and most of the transactions manually reviewed by Lead Stories were subscriptions.
USAID wasn't even Politico's top paid subscriber among government agencies
No, Melania Trump didn’t sue ‘The View’ for $900 million
By Sofia Ahmed
After daytime talk show "The View" co-host Sunny Hostin made disparaging remarks about President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump’s relationship, some social media users said the first lady sued.
"Melania wins $900M ‘defamation lawsuit’ against The View & Sunny Hostin," a Feb. 1 Threads video’s text said. The video included what sounds like an artificial intelligence-generated narration that said Hostin claimed "without a shred of evidence that Melania hates her husband and only pretends to love him."
During an Oct. 3 episode of "The View," when discussing the stance on reproductive rights Melania Trump relayed in her memoir, Hostin said of Melania Trump, "I think she hates him (Donald Trump) … She doesn’t wanna sleep in the same room with him. She can’t tolerate him."
But Trump did not sue "The View" or Hostin for the comments.
A search of Google and the Nexis news database for reports about Melania Trump suing "The View" for defamation yielded no credible results. We did find reports about Trump settling defamation lawsuits against the Daily Mail for $2.9 million in 2017 after the paper falsely said she was once an escort.
PolitiFact previously fact-checked several similar claims that public figures including musician Jason Aldean, X owner Elon Musk, and swimmer Riley Gaines sued "The View."
We rate the claim that Melania Trump won a $900 million defamation lawsuit against "The View" and Hostin False.
Did Elon Musk post he found out at DOGE that the Pentagon spent $600 million per year on sushi, the Air Force $1,280 per paper coffee cup and the IRS $230k per month on "Starbucks Cinammon Roast K Cups"? No, that's not true: Those claims originated on a parody account that pretended to be Elon Musk. The account was literally named "Not Elon Musk" and it had a bio that said "This is a parody account."
by: Maarten Schenk
The claims originated in a post on X (archived here) published on January 24, 2024. It read:
Good morning 𝕏! My experience with DOGE has been totally wild so far. I told you yesterday about the $600 million per year the Pentagon was spending on Sushi...
Well, I just found another wild one! The Air Force was spending $1,280 per paper coffee cup! Like literally those ones you find at the office. $1280!!! We also found that $230k per month was being spent by the IRS on Starbucks Cinammon Roast K Cups, but everyone was working from home!
Anyway, back to work! Have a great day!
The accompanying image of Musk bore the logo of Grok AI and the Hive AI detector Chrome extension said it was 99.5 percent confident the image was create with AI.
The account @iamnot_elon (archived here) on X has a bio that reads:
Parody account
NOT Elon Musk. This is a parody account. Short stories, news, polls and more! @NotSpacewear. Boss of @lindayaxc, dad of @teddy_musk. New acct @xMotivationClub
A Google search of the doge.gov website (archived here) did not reveal any content mentioning sushi, paper coffee cups or cinnamon. Neither did a search of DOGE's X account (archived here).
Trump signed an executive order to implement tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China.
He has been threatening the tariffs on the three countries and others for months.
Canada and Mexico have vowed to impose retaliatory tariffs against the US.
By Ayelet Sheffey, Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert, Katie Balevic, Rebecca Rommen, and Kenneth Niemeyer
Canada and Mexico have hit straight back at President Donald Trump's latest tariffs, vowing to impose retaliatory levies on the US.
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced Saturday that Canada would impose 25% tariffs on C$155 billion (around $106 billion) of US goods, some of which will go into effect on Tuesday and others in three weeks' time.
Mexico's President, Claudia Sheinbaum, said in a post on X that she had also ordered retaliatory tariffs.
"I instruct the economy minister to implement Plan B that we have been working on, which includes tariff and non-tariff measures in defense of Mexico's interests," she wrote.
The Trump administration said Saturday it had imposed a 25% tariff on goods from Canada and Mexico and a 10% tariff on China. On Sunday, the president reacted to Canada's retaliation, saying it would "struggle to exist" without US subsidies.
"We pay hundreds of Billions of Dollars to SUBSIDIZE Canada. Why? There is no reason. We don't need anything they have," Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social.
China's Ministry of Commerce, meanwhile, accused the United States in a statement released Sunday of violating World Trade Organization rules with the tariff.
The ministry said China would file a lawsuit with the WTO against the United States and take "corresponding countermeasures to firmly safeguard its own rights and interests."
Economists expect many firms to pass increased costs caused by tariffs onto customers, and several companies have already said they are preparing to raise prices in response. Electronics, groceries, and apparel are among the most likely products to see price increases.
The White House said the tariffs will work to deliver Trump's campaign promises. Regarding his proposed first round of tariffs, an official told Business Insider that "Trump has been clear about his desire to end the fentanyl crisis, and it's time for Mexico and Canada to join the fight as well." Trump has said a tariff on China would also help fight the fentanyl problem.
Here are all the countries Trump has targeted with his trade proposals so far.
China
China was a key focus for tariffs on the campaign trail. While campaigning, Trump proposed a 60% tariff on all goods imported from China, alongside a 10% to 20% tariff on imports from other countries.
Once Trump took office, though, his ideas for tariffs on China appeared to narrow. On January 21, he suggested a 10% tariff on imports from China into the United States beginning on February 1 "based on the fact that they're sending fentanyl to Mexico and Canada."
The Trump administration cited the fentanyl crisis on Saturday as the impetus for the new tariffs.
China is a major electronics supplier to the United States, so cellphones, computers, and games could get more expensive.
Mao Ning, a spokesperson for China's Foreign Ministry, told reporters on January 22: "We believe that there's no winner in a trade or tariff war, and we will firmly uphold our national interests."
Canada and Mexico
The new tariffs make good on an earlier threat Trump posted in November on his social media platform, Truth Social. He indicated at the time that he would impose tariffs on those two countries on his first day in office if they didn't strengthen their border policies.
The US imports many key goods from both Mexico and Canada. Americans receive $92 billion in crude oil from Canada, as well as billions of dollars worth of vehicles and vehicle parts. In addition to car parts, Mexico also supplies $25 billion worth of computers to the United States.
BRICS nations
On November 30, Trump posted on Truth Social that he would impose a 100% tariff on the BRICS group unless they committed to not creating a separate currency that competes with the US dollar.
BRICS consists of nine countries: Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Ethiopia, Egypt, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates.
Pharmaceutical preparations, crude oil, and household goods are the top imports from countries in the BRICS group, excluding China. The Trump administration did not announce any tariffs on the BRICS nations on Saturday.
Denmark
Trump said during a press conference on January 7 that he would "tariff Denmark at a very high level" if the country didn't agree to cede control of Greenland, an autonomous Danish territory, to the United States.
The president has not offered further details on that claim, nor have any such tariffs been implemented. The Financial Times reported that Trump and Denmark's premier, Mette Frederiksen, had a call to discuss the threat, during which Frederiksen reportedly emphasized that Greenland was not for sale.
The US primarily imports medicinal products and machinery from Denmark.
BRUSSELS — The European Union is warning U.S. President Donald Trump the bloc will retaliate if he imposes tariffs on EU goods.
By Zia Weise
The European Commission, the EU’s executive body, said it “regrets” Trump’s decision to impose blanket tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China on Saturday. The U.S. president has vowed to take similar measures against the EU.
“Our trade and investment relationship with the U.S. is the biggest in the world. There is a lot at stake,” a Commission spokesperson said on Sunday. “Tariffs create unnecessary economic disruption and drive inflation. They are hurtful to all sides.”
Nevertheless, the spokesperson said, “the EU would respond firmly to any trading partner that unfairly or arbitrarily imposes tariffs on EU goods.”
France’s Industry Minister Marc Ferracci went further, demanding a “biting” response from Brussels, which manages trade relations on behalf of the EU's 27 member countries.
"Trade negotiations with Donald Trump must assume a form of power dynamic," Ferracci told France Info on Sunday.
Given Trump's threats to impose tariffs against the EU, “it is obvious that we must react,” Ferracci said, although he added that “we are waiting for the American administration’s decisions on what will concern Europe.”
Ferracci added that for countermeasures to be effective, “the response must focus on products that are important” to the U.S and that "it must be 'biting,' meaning it should have an impact on the American economy to have a credible threat in negotiations." He called on Brussels to not be naive and draw up a “Buy European Act.”
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz stressed the benefits of open trade, but at the same time hinted that the EU has the ability to respond to any potential moves by the U.S.
“It’s important that we don’t divide the world with numerous tariff barriers,” Scholz said on Sunday after meeting with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer in the U.K. The EU is "a strong economic area and has its own courses of action," Scholz said.
In contrast, German Finance Minister Jörg Kukies urged Europeans to keep calm and carry on. “One should not react to the first decisions with panic, but see them as the beginning of the negotiations and not as the end,” he was quoted as saying by Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung during a trip to the Persian Gulf on Sunday.
Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani opted for a cautious tone, writing on X: "The tariff war is not good for anyone. ... We have ideas and strategies to protect our companies with Italy being the best ambassador for the EU in the dialogue with Washington."
Bernd Lange, chair of the European Parliament’s international trade committee, described Trump’s tariffs as violating international law. The EU now has to prepare “to defend our economic interests 1:1,” he added, while calling on Brussels to “stabilize and quickly expand” trade relations with other countries.
Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk on Saturday issued a video message telling people that there is “cause for concern but not for fear” after listing recent developments including irregular immigration, Russia’s war in Ukraine and Trump’s tariff threats.
Meanwhile, former Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt called the U.S. tariffs a “blatant attack on its own people and a gift to billionaires, all while tearing apart his closest allies.”
He added: “The EU must not bow to his bullying tactics.”
President Barack Obama in 2010 ordered federal agencies to prioritize hiring more people with disabilities. The Federal Aviation Administration incorporated such efforts into its diversity hiring program.
These efforts remained in place throughout President Donald Trump’s first administration. The FAA under Trump expanded its effort to hire people with disabilities, announcing in 2019 a program to hire 20 people with disabilities to be air traffic controllers.
Trump in 2018 eliminated an Obama-era assessment used in hiring air traffic controllers that scored applicants based on their work and education history and personality traits. Biden did not revive it.
By Caleb McCullough & Maria Ramirez Uribe
Hours after a plane crashed over the Potomac River a few miles from the White House, President Donald Trump held a press briefing in which he blamed his predecessors’ diversity hiring policies as a possible reason for the accident.
Sixty-seven people were presumed dead after an American Airlines passenger jet collided in midair with an Army helicopter near the Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport on Jan. 29. The victims included three U.S. service members aboard the helicopter and everyone aboard the plane, including several young figure skaters, a civil rights lawyer, a newlywed, a pilot and several flight attendants.
Trump started his Jan. 30 press conference with a moment of silence but pivoted to blame Democratic Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden, who Trump said led Federal Aviation Administration diversity programs that inspired the agency to hire unqualified air traffic control employees. Trump said he ended those initiatives in 2017 when he was first elected, but Biden reinstated them.
Trump faults DEI hiring in plane crash and falsely describes FAA policies under Obama, Biden
If Your Time is short
President Barack Obama in 2010 ordered federal agencies to prioritize hiring more people with disabilities. The Federal Aviation Administration incorporated such efforts into its diversity hiring program.
These efforts remained in place throughout President Donald Trump’s first administration. The FAA under Trump expanded its effort to hire people with disabilities, announcing in 2019 a program to hire 20 people with disabilities to be air traffic controllers.
Trump in 2018 eliminated an Obama-era assessment used in hiring air traffic controllers that scored applicants based on their work and education history and personality traits. Biden did not revive it.
See the sources for this fact-check
Hours after a plane crashed over the Potomac River a few miles from the White House, President Donald Trump held a press briefing in which he blamed his predecessors’ diversity hiring policies as a possible reason for the accident.
Sixty-seven people were presumed dead after an American Airlines passenger jet collided in midair with an Army helicopter near the Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport on Jan. 29. The victims included three U.S. service members aboard the helicopter and everyone aboard the plane, including several young figure skaters, a civil rights lawyer, a newlywed, a pilot and several flight attendants.
Trump started his Jan. 30 press conference with a moment of silence but pivoted to blame Democratic Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden, who Trump said led Federal Aviation Administration diversity programs that inspired the agency to hire unqualified air traffic control employees. Trump said he ended those initiatives in 2017 when he was first elected, but Biden reinstated them.
"I changed the Obama policy, and we had a very good policy," Trump said. "And then Biden came in and he changed it. And then when I came in two days, three days ago, I signed a new order, bringing it to the highest level of intelligence."
Trump read from a Fox News headline that said the Federal Aviation Administration diversity hiring initiative "includes focus on hiring people with severe intellectual and psychiatric disabilities." Trump said it came out a week before he took office, but it was published Jan. 14, 2024. After the press conference, the White House also pointed to an Obama-era biographical assessment for air traffic controllers that critics said prioritized diversity over skills.
A close look at the FAA’s hiring policies under Obama, Biden and Trump shows that Trump mischaracterized the policies and misled about his actions and the actions of his White House predecessors. He also provided no evidence these policies had any connection to the fatal crash.
The crash has generated renewed concerns about air traffic controller staffing, and the cause remains under investigation. Experts warned against singling out any specific cause of the crash, including diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, less than 24 hours after it occurred.
Trump expanded — not withdrew — a hiring initiative aimed at people with disabilities
In 2010, Obama’s administration issued an executive order directing federal agencies to hire more people with disabilities, noting that although 54 million people in the U.S. have disabilities, they were underrepresented in the federal workforce. The FAA incorporated the directive into its hiring practices.
That didn’t stop when Trump took office in 2017. Archives of the FAA’s website show the agency continually highlighted its diversity hiring initiatives, including its aims to hire people with disabilities, from 2013 up until Trump reclaimed office in 2025, including throughout Trump’s first term, 2017 to 2021. The page was taken down after Trump was inaugurated Jan. 20.
During his Jan. 30 press conference, Trump maligned a list of "targeted disabilities," including severe intellectual disabilities, saying their emphasis in hiring was unique to his predecessors.
The term "targeted disabilities" is legally defined across the federal government to include "hearing, vision, missing extremities, partial paralysis, complete paralysis, epilepsy, severe intellectual disability, psychiatric disability and dwarfism."
Yet in 2019, also under Trump’s first term, the FAA launched a program that aimed to hire 20 people with disabilities to be air traffic controllers, including people who have these "targeted disabilities."
In its April 11, 2019, press release, the agency said the program’s key focus was to "identify specific opportunities for people with targeted disabilities, empower them and facilitate their entry into a more diverse and inclusive workforce."
After being sworn in for his second term, Trump on Jan. 20 and Jan. 22 signed executive orders aimed at shutting down diversity programs in the federal government, including the FAA.
The White House confirmed Jan. 30 that Trump’s executive orders did away with those goals.
Trump ended a controversial Obama-era hiring protocol, but Biden did not reinstate it
In 2014, the Obama administration launched a hiring assessment for air traffic controllers that weighed biographical information such as work and education experience and personality traits as part of a person’s application. The training standards for those who were hired didn’t change.
The assessment did not ask specifically about race, but critics said it was designed to create a more diverse hiring pool at the expense of people who were more qualified or performed better on skills tests. People who failed were not allowed to continue with their application. The FAA introduced the assessment into its hiring protocol in 2014 after it commissioned a study of the barriers racial minorities and women face in becoming air traffic controllers.
Throughout his first term, the Trump administration defended the Transportation Department in a lawsuit over the assessment, which plaintiffs said was discriminatory. Trump’s administration and Biden’s administration both denied in court that the process favored nonwhite applicants. Nevertheless, in 2018, Trump jettisoned its use of the air control biographical assessment, the White House said.
Biden’s administration did not reinstate the assessment, and it has not been a part of the application process since 2018.
All air traffic controllers undergo rigorous tests regardless of disability
All air traffic controllers need to pass skills and medical tests to be hired, air traffic management experts told PolitiFact. That didn’t change under either hiring initiative.
Some disabilities could be disqualifying, Margaret Wallace, an aviation management professor at Florida Institute of Technology, said. Some examples could include heart conditions or neurological issues that might unexpectedly incapacitate a person, or "poor or no vision, color blindness, poor or no hearing, speech issues that could affect the ability to communicate as needed," Wallace said.
Michael McCormick retired from the FAA in 2015 after working under Republican and Democrat administrations, and his work included hiring controllers. He said most of the conditions Trump listed would not meet the agency’s medical standards.
"The decision to hire a controller is solely based upon aptitude testing, medical certification and security investigation," McCormick said.
Our ruling
As he speculated about the Jan. 29 air crash’s cause, Trump said "I changed the Obama policy (on hiring air traffic controllers) ... And then Biden came in and he changed it."
The White House said he was referring to two separate policies.
The first was a push to hire more people with disabilities that started under Obama. Trump didn’t end the initiative — he expanded the effort by announcing a program aimed at hiring 20 people with disabilities to be air traffic controllers. All air traffic controllers had to pass medical, security and skills tests, regardless of any disability.
The second involved an Obama-era hiring assessment that critics said prioritized diversity over qualifications. Trump was wrong to say that Biden reinstated it — he did not. The assessment has not been in place since 2018, when Trump ended it. But even under that practice, training standards did not change.
Trump conflated policies, obfuscated about his role in them and misled about what they did.
Investigators are still piecing together what led to the crash, a process that could take months. Trump’s leap to connect these policies to what unfolded over the Potomac has no basis.
U.S. President Donald Trump says he is 'not looking for concessions' from Canada as the White House confirmed he's going forward with 25 per cent levies on imports from Canada on Saturday. Trump added he will 'probably' set tariffs on Canadian oil at 10 per cent.
At news conference, Trump read a list of disabilities he calls disqualifying, but his administration started such hiring in 2019
Analysis by Glenn Kessler
“All qualify for the position of a controller of airplanes pouring into our country, pouring into a little spot, a little dot on the map, a little runway.”
— President Donald Trump, decrying what he called DEI standards imposed by previous administrations, Jan. 30
In the aftermath of the deadly collision between a jetliner and a Black Hawk helicopter at Reagan National Airport, Trump held an extraordinary news conference during which he speculated on the cause of the accident. At length, he attacked former presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden for imposing what he called “a big push to put diversity” that he said weakened the Federal Aviation Administration.
Reading from a 2024 Fox News report — which he incorrectly identified as being two weeks old — Trump listed conditions that he suggested disqualify people from being air traffic controllers: “hearing, vision, missing extremities, partial paralysis, complete paralysis, epilepsy, severe intellectual disability, psychiatric disability, and dwarfism.”
“Can you imagine?” he asked. “Brilliant people have to be in those positions, and their lives are actually shortened, very substantially shortened because of the stress.” He suggested that it was wrong for anyone with those conditions to qualify “for the position of a controller of airplanes pouring into our country, pouring into a little spot, a little dot on the map, a little runway.”
But here’s the rub: During Trump’s first term, the FAA began a program to hire air traffic controllers with the conditions that Trump decried.
The facts
In the news conference, Trump said Obama weakened standards and “I changed the Obama standards from very mediocre at best, to extraordinary. … Then they changed it back — that was Biden.”
Trump’s claim was repeated in an executive order Trump signed Thursday that ordered a review of aviation safety: “During my first term, my Administration raised standards to achieve the highest standards of safety and excellence.”
That’s false. In his first term, Trump left the standards unchanged.
For air traffic controllers, the Obama administration in 2013 instituted a new hiring system that introduced a biographical questionnaire to attract minorities, underrepresented in the controller corps. The program was criticized, such as in a Fox News report in 2015, as making it harder for more skilled applicants to get hired as controllers.
But Trump, in his first term, left the policy in place, leading to a class-action lawsuit filed in 2019 by Mountain States Legal Foundation. The case was due to go to trial this year.
Moreover, the FAA under Trump in 2019 launched a program to hire controllers using the very criteria he decried at his news conference.
“FAA Provides Aviation Careers to People with Disabilities,” the agency announced on April 11, 2019. The pilot program, the announcement said, would “identify specific opportunities for people with targeted disabilities, empower them and facilitate their entry into a more diverse and inclusive workforce.”
The link under “targeted disabilities” is now dead, but the Wayback Machine retains links from June 2017 and January 2021 that show the page was unchanged during Trump’s tenure. The list included:
Hearing (total deafness in both ears)
Vision (Blind)
Missing Extremities
Partial Paralysis
Complete Paralysis, Epilepsy
Severe intellectual disability
Psychiatric disability
Dwarfism
The June 2019 webpage for the Aviation Development Program (ADP) — also now removed but still visible on the Wayback Machine — said the program “provides an opportunity for Persons with Targeted Disabilities (PWTD) to gain aviation knowledge and experience as an air traffic control student trainee.” Participants would get up to one year of experience in an Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC), with a possibility of getting a temporary appointment at the FAA Academy.
In August 2021, the FAA announced that one of the first three ADP candidates graduated from the FAA Academy and became an official air traffic control trainee. “Twelve candidates are in the pipeline for the ADP, pending completion of the clearance process,” the agency said. “Candidates must first pass the Air Traffic Skills Assessment (ATSA), followed by the security and medical clearance process.”
The announcement said the program was conceived when an air traffic manager met a quadriplegic student who had assumed he would never qualify to be a controller because of his condition. The FAA stressed that participants must meet the same qualifications as any other air traffic controller student.
A White House spokesman declined to comment.
The Pinocchio Test
Trump claimed that he had changed Obama’s criteria for hiring air traffic controllers with greater diversity — when in fact he left it unchanged. Moreover, he decried the fact that FAA hired controllers with a range of disabilities that he listed at the news conference. But that program was launched during his first term.
The figure would rain 1.5 billion condoms on an area only double the size of the District of Columbia.
by Glenn Kessler
“DOGE and OMB also found that there was about to be 50 million taxpayer dollars that went out the door to fund condoms in Gaza. That is a preposterous waste of taxpayer money. So, that’s what this pause is focused on, being good stewards of tax dollars.”
— White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, remarks at a news briefing, Jan. 29
In her maiden news briefing, Leavitt defended the Trump administration’s freeze on federal grants by pointing to a particular line item as “preposterous” — $50 million to fund condoms in Gaza.
Regular readers know that we have a high bar for fact-checking flacks, as they are paid to mislead and dissemble. We prefer to keep our scrutiny on policymakers and people with authority. But this was Leavitt’s first news conference, and she made an astonishing claim that spread rapidly on social media.
Could it be true? When we queried Leavitt, she responded by sending a Fox News article that initially just quoted her own statement. Quoting yourself is not evidence. Moreover, the article quoted an unnamed White House official as saying that the “State Department halted several million dollars going to condoms in Gaza this past weekend.”
That’s not the same as $50 million.
Last year, the State Department launched a five-year, $50 million program to improve health care in Gaza. But the contractor, Anera, said it was not supplying condoms.
“Definitely no purchase of condoms in our program, and there are no components for family planning in the GHRA [Gaza Health Recovery Activity],” spokesman Steve Fake said. “We have asked around, and no one is sure what this is referring to.”
Last night, State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce posted a thread on X in which she cited examples of “unjustified and non-emergency spending.” The first example was “Condoms. Prevented $102 million in unjustified funding to a contractor in Gaza, including money for contraception.”
She did not identify the contractor, but, in an email to State Department reporters, her office said it was “$102,236,000 to fund the International Medical Corps in Gaza.” IMC is a global first responder based in Los Angeles.
Could half — or even a significant portion — of that contract be for condoms? There is no evidence of that.
The Facts
Let’s start with why the U.S. government distributes condoms overseas: It’s to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS. Perhaps the Trump administration believes that is a preposterous waste of money, but many of those condom purchases are for a George W. Bush program called the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), which is credited with saving 26 million lives. No countries or territories in the Middle East are part of PEPFAR.
More broadly, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) distributes condoms to address gaps in their availability and use, especially in low- and middle-income countries, to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.
A USAID report for fiscal 2023, the most recent detailing condom expenditures unrelated to PEPFAR, showed that about $46,000 was spent on condoms in the Middle East — but only in Jordan. The report said that was the first shipment of condoms to the Middle East since fiscal 2019, when $1 million was spent.
Indeed, according to the report, spending $50 million on condoms for an entity roughly double the size of Washington would be a huge increase in condom spending. From fiscal 2016 to 2022, USAID spent $118.6 million to buy 3.6 billion male condoms for 60 countries. That’s an average of $17 million a year for the entire world — one-third of the amount Leavitt said would be spent just on Gaza. (USAID also distributes female condoms, but that’s a small fraction of the spending.)
In effect, USAID has been buying condoms at an average price of 3.3 cents. Was the U.S. government really going to distribute more than 1.5 billion condoms in Gaza? That makes little sense.
Traditionally, family planning in the Palestinian territories, including Gaza, was handled by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). The agency distributed oral contraceptives and condoms, but President Joe Biden froze U.S. funding a year ago after Israel claimed that 12 of the agency’s 33,000 employees participated in Hamas’s 2023 attack on Israel.
The war that erupted after that attack created a family planning crisis in Gaza, according to the International Planned Parenthood Federation. “Contraception is also in very short supply, with reports of women sharing contraceptive pills leading to unintended pregnancies,” the IPPF said in a 2023 report. “The unavailability of condoms, which were already heavily restricted in Gaza, will lead to the transmission of sexually transmitted infections, including HIV.”
With the ceasefire now in place, it’s possible there is a pressing need to fill. But we could not find any evidence that the International Medical Corps contracts called for condom delivery.
Todd Bernhardt, IMC spokesman, told The Fact Checker that “no U.S. government funding was used to procure or distribute condoms.”
In a November report describing its activities in Gaza, IMC said it deployed two state-of-the-art field hospitals — the first in January 2024, with 200 beds, and the second in July 2024, with 50 beds. The hospitals operate 24 hours per day, seven days per week. Each day they see as many as 2,000 patients, perform an average of 45 surgeries and deliver an average of 10 babies, the report said. CBS News last year aired a report on American doctors working at the hospitals.
“Since January 2024, International Medical Corps has provided health care to more than 383,000 civilians who had no other access to services or treatment, including performing about 11,000 surgeries, with one-third of those categorized as major or moderate procedures,” Bernhardt said. “We have assisted in the delivery of some 5,000 babies, about 20 percent of them via the Caesarean section. In addition, International Medical Corps has screened 111,000 people for malnutrition, treated 2,767 for acute malnutrition, distributed micronutrient supplements to 36,000 people, and more.”
“If the stop-work order remains in place, we will be unable to sustain these activities beyond the next week or so,” he said.
White House and State Department officials did not provide further clarity.
The Pinocchio Test
On the face of it, Leavitt’s statement that $50 million was going to be spent on condoms is preposterous. That figure is three times the yearly average spent by the U.S. government for the entire world. Moreover, neither she nor the State Department could provide documentation supporting this claim. The department identified a contractor that it claimed was distributing condoms in Gaza, but the organization says no U.S. money is involved.
Leavitt earns Four Pinocchios. Not an auspicious debut.
Our research finds that conditions were placed on $12 million in Katrina aid, out of nearly $122 billion.
Analysis by Glenn Kessler
“If there is culpability for what happened, there really need to be conditions that follow that aid. It’s not unprecedented, by the way. After Katrina, in my state, there were conditions placed upon the funds. It happened after Hurricane Sandy, up in the northeast. There’s a tradition of doing this.”
— House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana), remarks on “The Sean Hannity Show,” Jan. 21
Johnson signaled that Congress will impose conditions on aid to California after recent fires destroyed thousands of structures in Los Angeles. He accused Democrats in the state for making “decisions that made that disaster exponentially worse” and said Congress had a responsibility to ensure “they follow common sense in California” when aid is provided.
“What we are talking about here is restoring common sense, even in the state of California,” he said.
He sidestepped a question from Fox News host Sean Hannity about whether the conditions would include unrelated issues such as scrapping no-bail laws. Some Republican lawmakers have suggested refusing aid unless Democrats agree to hike the debt limit. President Donald Trump, in a visit to California, said he wanted to require the state to impose a voter ID law before he signed a bill providing aid. (Without evidence, Trump has claimed he would have won the state if it had laws requiring voters to show an ID before casting a ballot.)
For the purposes of this fact check, we’re interested in Johnson’s claim that conditions were placed on aid provided after Hurricane Katrina struck Louisiana, his home state, in 2005 and after Hurricane Sandy in 2012.
The Facts
Trump, when he visited North Carolina last week, said he wanted to get rid of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and simply have states submit a bill for reimbursement from the federal government. But that’s already largely how the system works, with FEMA repaying states for most of their expenses during a natural disaster.
Congress then provides additional aid to help rebuild devastated areas and to fund improvements. Katrina and other hurricanes in 2005 caused such devastation in Louisiana and neighboring states — insured losses were estimated by insurance companies to total $57 billion — that 11 federal departments and four federal agencies provided nearly $122 billion in federal assistance to the Gulf Coast states, according to the Congressional Research Service.
As a matter of course, congressional appropriations for disaster relief have conditions that determine eligibility, but that’s clearly not what Johnson is talking about. Such bills also include demands for regular reports from agencies handling the funding.
Congressional appropriations often contain clauses that might withhold some funding unless certain parameters are met. We found that one Katrina bill authorized $12 million for a Louisiana hurricane protection study but stipulated the money would not be provided “until the State of Louisiana establishes a single state or quasistate entity to act as local sponsor for construction, operation and maintenance of all of the hurricane, storm damage reduction and flood control projects in the greater New Orleans and southeast Louisiana area.”
But this was a relatively minor condition regarding a small amount of money, given the overall size of the rescue package. We can find virtually no news coverage of this condition by Congress — and there was wide agreement the previous system did not work. Previously, five different levee districts operated as separate local sponsors for federally built flood protection. The state in 2006 established the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority to oversee the levee districts. Congress eventually provided $14.5 billion to the Army Corps of Engineers to build a flood protection system that held firm in 2021 against Hurricane Ida.
As for the Sandy legislation, Republicans in 2013 sought to amend $17 billion in relief to require a reduction in unrelated domestic spending — but that amendment was defeated.
In defense of Johnson’s statement, his office pointed to the $12 million appropriation we had identified — which was rather minor in the context of almost $122 billion in aid. The office could not point to conditions on Sandy aid, and we couldn’t find any either.
His office also highlighted some bills that over time have added broad conditions to aid, such as the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, which required states and others to develop and update hazard mitigation plans as a condition to receive certain types of FEMA assistance, and the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006, which required states to include a catastrophic incident annex in state emergency preparedness plans that are required as a condition for assistance. The office also noted that Congress has placed conditions on community development block grants, required cost-sharing by states and demanded oversight of spending.
But these are all general — not specific to a particular disaster such as the California wildfires.
The Pinocchio Test
Johnson suggested that congressional conditions imposed on aid after a disaster is “not unprecedented” and part of “a tradition.” As examples, he pointed to aid provided after Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy. But that’s greatly overstating the case. In Katrina, the only item we could find placed conditions on just $12 million in aid — out of tens of billions. We turned up nothing on Sandy.
In reality, the tradition is that, after a disaster, virtually no conditions are placed on aid that would require a state to make policy changes. What would be unprecedented would be tying the aid to policy adjustments that have nothing to do with the disaster, such as mandating voter ID.
Diễn Đàn Người Việt Hải Ngoại. Tự do ngôn luận, an toàn và uy tín. Vì một tương lai tươi đẹp cho các thế hệ Việt Nam hãy ghé thăm chúng tôi, hãy tâm sự với chúng tôi mỗi ngày, mỗi giờ và mỗi giây phút có thể. VietBF.Com Xin cám ơn các bạn, chúc tất cả các bạn vui vẻ và gặp nhiều may mắn.
Welcome to Vietnamese American Community, Vietnamese European, Canadian, Australian Forum, Vietnamese Overseas Forum. Freedom of speech, safety and prestige. For a beautiful future for Vietnamese generations, please visit us, talk to us every day, every hour and every moment possible. VietBF.Com Thank you all and good luck.
