Does USAID Explain the Collapse of Left Wing Causes?

So, I saw an interesting post on Instagram the other day, and it was from a uh a page called Daniel Saint, and he basically posted something suggesting that there was a number of things on the left, a number of left-wing objectives that were no longer being successful as a result of cuts to US aid funding. And I mean, it was a it was a bizarre and very diverse list of things. I mean everything from elections in South Africa to Billboard charts with respect to hip-hop music. And the claim was is that cuts to US aid funding is what contributed to again these various election results, hiphop, a lack of funding to pride events during June, um migrant caravans suddenly disappearing, net migration numbers, all of it, all of it directly tied to cuts in US a funding. And as I saw this, I thought, ah, this is interesting, but is it true? And so that's what I want to explore today. We're going to go through each one of these nine claims and we're going to analyze whether or not the claim that US cuts to US aid funding directly impacted the various results that are claimed. Right? So that's what we're going to discuss today. We're going to go through, we're going to analyze it. We're going to determine whether or not we think the claim is justified. And here's what I can already tell you. Uh the results were not exactly what I was expecting, but they're very interesting. Very interesting.

So, let's go ahead and take a look at the very first claim that was made as a result of this. So, I'm going to take you directly to the post itself so you can see what I'm talking about. And here we go. So, bizarre things that happened since Doge cut funding to US. Right? So, that is the initial claim that we're talking about. Doge cutting funding to USA. Now, right off the bat, we need to explain something. Doge, the Department of Government Efficiency, did not have the authority to cut anything. Doge merely had the authority to go in and actually conduct analysis. And the reason for that analysis was to identify fraud, waste, debut, abuse, or other inappropriate use of taxpayer dollars. So that's what Doge had the authority to do. they had the authority to go in and actually gather information, analyze and present their findings to which then Congress had to be the one to actually cut things. So, right off the bat, let's be clear about what Doge had the authority to do, what they didn't have the authority to do. All right?

And um the first claim they made and this thing is migrant caravans disappeared. So, here's what it says. Illegal border crossings along the US Mexico border have fallen sharply from the record highs seen in recent years. That's true. A development supporters of stricter immigration enforcement view as evidence that stronger border policies can deter unlawful entry. Advocates argue that reducing illegal crossing helps restore confidence in the immigration system, eases pressure on border communities and public services, and allows law enforcement agencies to focus on re focus resources on criminal activity, human trafficking, and drug smuggling rather than processing large numbers of migrants. They contend that a secure border is a prerequisite for any successful immigration policy and that declining crossing numbers demonstrate that enforcement measures can influence migration patterns while encouraging the use of legal immigration pathways. Okay, all good. But again, the claim at the beginning of this post is is have the migrant caravans disappeared because of Doge recommendations to cut USA? Well, let's go ahead and take a look at uh this report. This comes from Fox News and it talks about uh back in 2024 $380 million from DHS to be given to states and NOS's in support of migrants. And then it says the Biden administration announced last week, this was obviously in 2024, that it's providing 380 million to nonprofits and local governments to cover some of the costs associated with taking care of migrants once they've been released by the Department of Homeland Security at the southern border. The huge shum is being awarded by DHS via via its shelter and services program, which aims to provide critical support for migrants by way of offering them food, shelter, clothing, acute medical care, and transportation while they await their immigration court proceedings.

Okay, but here's the rub, right? When you look at this, these caravans didn't organize themselves. like all these massive migrant caravans that were coming in the United States. A man named Pablo Sanfras was the primary organizer of the 2018, 2019 and 2022 caravans and he was funded downstream of federal grants. Oxfam, a long-standing US aid partner, publicly supported caravans stranded in Guatemala Guatemala. The Biden Harris uh standing US a partner publicly supported caravans uh excuse me the Biden Harris root cause strategy pledged 4.2 billion to Central American NOS. Department of Homeland Security under Biden Harris gave 380 million to states and NOS's explicitly to support migrants and the State Department added 376 million in Western Hemisphere humanitarian assistance. All that money got cut by the Trump administration. So here's the question. We all asked the question of how do these how do these massive migrant caravans suddenly materialize? And and you might have remember that famous thing where uh Joe Biden said don't come and then then Kamala Harris got on there and said don't come. That's our message. Don't come to the United States. And while they were saying all this they were flooding various NOS with assistance for migrants. Now they can claim all day long that that was about dealing with root causes in the countries. Essentially what they were saying is well if we improve conditions in the countries that people are coming from maybe they won't come to the United States. But what were they doing it through? NOS's. So the NOS's right were getting this money ostensibly to spend it on whatever the objectives were to keep people from crossing the border. Does that mean we had proper oversight to make sure that that's what they were spending the money on? No. And if they were actually actively going in and helping the caravans, even if you say, "Well, no, no, Nick. That wasn't about helping them come to the United States. That was just providing people that were stranded with food and shelter." Okay. Well, maybe there's some noble humanitarian intent there. But if you're making it easier for the caravans to exist, if you're providing support, if you're providing aid and comfort to the caravans, does that cause the caravans to dissipate? Does that cause the caravans to stop or are you actually providing financial aid to the very people that are facilitating these caravans? Right?

So, here's what needs to be understood. the result of all this money being cut because that's what the Trump administration did and and again it's important to understand that all not all this was delivered directly by US aid but again through in some part through US aid to their various partners right the result is border crossings are down 93% year-over-year customs and border patrol recorded a record low of 30,367 encounters in November of 2025 Pew Research confirmed 23 37,538 total encounters in fiscal year 2025 the lowest in more than 50 years. So was USA dollars was your were your taxpayer dollars being used by US A to go to various NOS's that were facilitating these caravans? Well, regardless of what the intention was, it seems somewhat obvious that a combination of border control and the US government ceasing to send our taxpayer dollars to NOS's that were assisting caravans have resulted in a drastic reduction and the the complete collapse of the caravans themselves. This doesn't mean that people aren't still trying to come into the United States illegally from our southern border. But the caravans that we all witnessed through 2018, 2019, 2022, they're not there anymore. Golly G willilickers, how did that happen? So claim number one that cutting us a funding or maybe cutting general federal funding that was going to these NOS's in Central and South America, did that actually help reduce, decrease or just eliminate these massive caravan operations? Well, it appears to be related in some way. In some way, I'm not saying it's it's a total causation correlation, but again, when when you look at this right here from Pew Research, migrant encounters at the US Mexico border at the lowest level in more than 50 years. I I'm I'm willing to say that I think this first claim has a great deal of merit. A great deal of merit.

All right, let's look at this second one. The USA has negative immigration. Supporters of lower immigration view negative net immigration as an opportunity to strengthen the economic position of existing American workers. With fewer new workers entering the labor market, employers may face greater pressure to raise wages, improve minimums, and invest in training and automation rather than relying on growing labor supply. There's there's some truth to this. There's also some negative aspects of that from an economic standpoint. But again, we're just we're just looking at the claim on whether or not cuts with respect to US aid funding directly impacted this. It goes on to say, advocates also argue argue that slower population growth can ease demand on housing, schools, transportation systems, and other public services, helping communities catch up with years of rapid growth. Obviously, when you look at everything within the economy, it's rooted in supply and demand. So if you have increased demand but supply is not caught up with it, well then obviously you're going to get higher prices as a result and you're going to have greater stresses on the economy. It goes on to say from this perspective, negative immigration numbers can be seen as a chance to focus on increasing productivity, supporting family formation, and improving opportunities for citizens already living in the country rather than depending on continuous population expansion to fuel economic growth. Again, I I would say that there's some there's some truth to this. Um, I'm I'm a little bit more skeptical of some of the overall economic claims even though I agree with the supply and demand issue. Again, anytime you rapidly increase demand without allowing supply to adequately catch up, prices are going to increase and that's going to cause some problems. The other thing that I would say with respect to negative immigration at this point is because we have had so much massive illegal immigration, especially from countries and from places where people are not as willing to assimilate as a result of cultural conditions, theological positions, whatever it might be, there does come a point where you want to slow immigration in order to allow for effective assimilation. Because again, if you allow too many people from a particular place to come to the United States, there's a tendency for them to just create their own communities as opposed to assimilating into the United States. And that's generally not a good immigration strategy, especially when you're allowing people to come from countries with culture with with social, economic, theological, and political institutions which are not only vastly different from those in the United States, but in some cases diametrically opposed.

But again, let's get to the core claim here. The core claim is, has this actually has this actually been a result of the fact that US aid funding has been cut. Okay, so if we're if we're using that as the metric, um, let's go ahead and look at some of the numbers. Okay, I would say on this one, if the first claim there was the strong correlation, this one is a little bit more of a moderate correl correlation. So for the first time since the 1960s, the US foreignb born population is shrinking. Brookings Institute which is more of a left of center group has confirmed net migration was likely zero or negative in 2025. ABC News reported that the US lost an estimated 1 million foreignb born workers since the uh enforcement shift began. And then they go to the economic argument and everything else. Uh the the real question here though is has US aid has cuts to US aid funding or other government programs and NGOs's contributed to this? I think it's fair to say that if you had things like massive caravans, if you had things like government programs under Biden where they were creating apps and things like that that essentially assisted people coming into the country to manipulate the refugee program and those that funding has now gone away, then I I think it's fair to say that that has actually contributed to the, you know, again, negative immigration that we see taking place. I I'm a little bit more skeptical on whether or not this is directly tied to US aid funding or if it's just tied more to increased border security under the Trump administration as well as ICE deportations. I think that significantly contributes to it. Also, the increased crackdown has led to a lot of people in the country illegally choosing to selfport. So, this one I'm going to say I I don't know if the claim is as strong as the first one, right? That's not to say that there haven't been significant changes. I just think it's probably attributed to other things that the federal government is doing under the Trump administration as opposed to US aid cuts specifically.

All right. So again, I I hope I hope that makes sense. Now, before we move on to our next one, I want to thank our partners over at Good Ranchers because July is National Grilling Month, not to mention the 250th anniversary of the United States. And this is the perfect time for great meals with family and friends. And Good Ranchers is all about families coming together with friends, breaking bread together. Good Ranchers delivers 100% American meat sourced directly from local farms and ranches, so you know where your food is actually coming from. Most grass-fed beef in grocery stores is imported. With good ranchers, you're supporting American ranchers and getting truly local meat. As a subscriber myself, the quality and convenience have made a real difference for my family's meals. I will tell you right now, we eat Good Ranchers a whole lot um because it is delicious and because it is incredibly convenient. Now, if you would like to order some Good Ranchers, go to goodranchers.com/discount. Make sure you put that in there. And then when you check out, use code nick to get $50 off your first order and free meat for life when you start a plan. That's right. If you want to go into one of the subscriptions, Good Ranchers offers you some options, right? You can do a one-time order. You can do a subscription. If you're going to do a onetime order, great. Get $50 off your first order. If you're going to do a subscription though, you're going to get free meat for life, which means Good Ranchers is going to give you free meat on top of what you've already ordered. Right? That's good.com/discountnick. Use code nick for the $50 off and free meat in every box. Goodranchers.com. American meat delivered.

Okay, let's go to the next claim here. So the next claim is that South America rejects socialism. This is a bold one, right? Across much of Latin America, voters have been shifting towards center-right and conservative candidates after years of frustration with crime, inflation, corruption, and slug sluggish economic growth. Countries such as Argentina elected Javier Malay on a platform of free market reforms and shrinking government while conservative and centeright movements have gained strength in countries including Chile, Ecuador, and Paraguay. The trend reflects a growing demand for public safety, economic opportunity, and accountability rather than ideological promises from corrupt far-left leaders. And it goes on to finish, while Latin American policies remain highly uh cyclical and country specific, many voters appear increasingly willing to back candidates who emphasize law and order, private sector growth, and reducing the role of government in everyday life. Okay, that's all great. I'm happy about that. Is that in fact happening? Well, the Wall Street Journal actually reported on South America is turning more right-wing and getting Trumpier. And it talks about how voters angry about crime, immigration, and the economy are backing conservative politicians who want closer ties with the United States. Now, the real question though, is this a direct result of funding, right? Is this a direct result of US aid cuts? Okay. Well, let's go ahead and look at the data here real quick. Now, the left wants you to believe that socialism is the direction of history. And Latin America is running the experiment in real time and voting accordingly. The Washington Post, which is not a conservative outlet, right, ran a piece on June 21st, 2026 headlined, "Right-wing proTrump candidates have defeated leftists across Latin America. Argentina's Malay, Ecuador, Paraguay, Chile, Colombia, all of them are now electing right-wing governments." Now, where does US aid come in? The US aid angle that never gets reported is that NE and US A provided $70 million to opposition movements in Bolivia alone between 2013 and 2018. The NE spent decades funding civil society organizations across Venezuela, Colombia, and Bolivia. Organizations that in many cases legitimize left-wing government internationally. You cut bad funding and the international support structure for those regimes weakens and the voters of Latin America called it in an election. I think it's important to understand when you look at Argentina at the at the beginning of the 20th century, Argentina was I think in the top 20 most wealthiest countries in the world. It was it was close to being on parody with the United States and was far wealthier than many European countries. And then what did it do? Well, it adopted the, you know, various forms of kind of like quasi fascist and socialist governments under the Peronis and that pretty much dominated Argentina. You saw similar things across all of South America and Central America where more and more left-wing governments were basically, you know, coming into power. And now all of a sudden across South America and across parts of Central America, you're seeing increasingly right-wing governments come into play. Now, let's be honest. Some of these trends started before the cuts to US aid, but some of them happened afterwards. And there was significant funding going from US tax dollars to just bizarre projects in places like Colombia where we were funding trans operas. You saw a bunch of spending on LGBTQ. You saw a bunch of supports for democracy which really only found its way into left-leaning NOS's that were supporting left-leaning governments. All of a sudden, you cut off that funding and you're seeing right-wing you're seeing right-wing victories not just in Chile where you might have said, "Okay, but they they had more of a right-wing tradition." You're seeing it in Colombia. You're seeing in Bolivia. You're seeing in Peru, Argentina. Javier Malay is one of the best chief executives in the world when it comes to free markets, individual liberty, and reducing the size of government.

So this is another one while I will where I will say that while cutting us a funding or cutting funding to things like NE and other government programs, this is having an impact. It doesn't explain everything that's going on in South America. Okay. But but is there a good claim to be made that cutting our US tax dollars going down to fund left-wing projects in Central and South America has had some sort of significant um impact on their elections? I would say yes. I'm I'm not going to go full boore this explains everything, but I definitely think that that it's had a positive impact. So again, not only is this beneficial to Americans in the sense that our money is no longer being taken from us to be sent to support left-wing ideological projects, but it's also creating an environment in Central and South America where they're not just getting right-wing candidates, they're getting right-wing candidates that want a closer relationship with the United States. And when you look at the untapped potential of Central and South America and the sort of trading partners they could be, you you could very well be on the cusp of a reorientation of American foreign policy from Europe and the Middle East to Central and South America, places in our own hemisphere where again you you could see the fostering of very very positive u political relationships as well as economic uh relationships and greater trade. So, this is a positive development not only for the American taxpayer, but it's a a positive development for the American worker. I think it's a positive development for the American consumer. We'll have to see what happens, right? Not, you know, you can't look at just a couple elections and say that explains the whole trajectory or everything's going to be fine now. But there's definitely positive developments and they do seem to correlate at least in part with Democrats no longer stealing our money to give it to left-wing candidates in foreign countries. Right. So, I think that's positive.

Let's go ahead and look at the next one. Cuba ships to a free market. This is this is bizarre. US A has funded a variety of programs related to Cuba, primarily focused on supporting civil society, independent media, internet access, human rights advocacy, and democracy promotion efforts rather than providing direct aid to the Cuban government. Over the years, grants have supported independent journalists, civic organizations, training programs for activists, technology initiatives designed to expand access to uncensored information and assistance for political prisoners and their family, right? So, these would all seem like good projects by US A. The funding has been part of a long-standing US policy aimed at encouraging political and economic reforms on the island through support for NOS's rather than through direct government to government assistance. But once funding stopped, the Cuban regime released political prisoners and opened up free markets, allowing people the freedom these programs claim to fight for. So understand the argument that's being made here is that ostensibly all this money was going through USA to these NOS's in order to promote freedom of expression, access to the internet, support for the Cuban people, right? So theoretically that funding should have been undermining the communist government in Cuba. And yet it didn't seem to be achieving any of those sort of results. Okay? But now all of a sudden we see Cuba passing sweeping free market reforms in the biggest economic shift since the revolution. Right? And so that's that's interesting. Now here's what I'm going to say. Is this entirely a result is this entirely a result um of funding being cut from USA and other organizations? I think there's a good argument to be made that um it is in part. Now I also think the fact that the US went over and took out Maduro, Cuba was so dependent on Venezuelan oil that its economy effectively can't function without it. And when Mexico tried to stand in the gap because Mexico has a government right now that is very socialist, um Trump basically threatened him with tariffs and then Mexico backed down too. So there's no question that things other than US aid funding or other US federal funding nos is significantly impacting what's going on right now. However, let me read this off. Right. On June 18th and 19th, Cuban lawmakers voted to approve 176 sweeping free market reforms, the biggest economic overhaul since the Cuban revolution. Private real estate development, imports and exports without state intermediation, free hiring of personnel, rooters and PBS News have both confirmed it. The GAO documented exactly how the US ran Cuba democracy assistance to the US aid. The State Department and the NE, there's the NED again. The Andy data alone managed Cuban media projects worth 15.5 million, 162% of the total democracy assistance budget. Then the Trump administration froze Ned funding. Right. NE sued the government in March 2025. And in April 2026, Cuba freed 2010 political prisoners. In June 2026, 10 days ago, 176 free market reforms. Right? So the US aid NED apparatus was not liberating Cuba. It was giving the regime a convenient external enemy to unify against. Remove the American interference narrative and the regime had to negotiate with its own people. The programs claimed to be fighting for Cuban freedom. The moment they stopped, Cuba started producing actual freedom.

Now again, I think this I think this claim is a little bit bold. A little bit bold. Um, but it does beg the question if if all of these soft power approaches that the left love loves, if all of this giving money to NOS's was was supposed to have a significant impact on on Cuba and the people, then why didn't it why didn't any of it have the impact that it was supposed to have? Could it be that a lot of these organizations that we were giving money to were not actually providing any sort of real assistance to the Cuban people, but in fact was to the extent that it did anything uh creating a narrative that the Cuban government could manipulate, right, in in order to gain greater solidarity against the United States rather than moving in a direction toward greater freedom. So here's what I'm going to say. I think when it comes to this claim, I don't necessarily buy that cutting off US aid funding is what has now created an environment where the Cuban government is freeing political prisoners and doing free market reforms. I think that has more to do with the fact that cutting off uh the oil supply from Venezuela and then not allowing Mexico to send the oil has essentially put the communist government in a position where it's untenable. They're going to have to make concessions. I think the other thing that factors into this more than the cutting of of NED and US A funding is the fact that when they took out Maduro, the Cuban government realized that if we wanted to take them out, too. If we wanted to take out the remaining Castros, we could. We could and this administration might actually do it. So, I think that is what has brought them to the negotiation table. It's a fear of their own people with respect to the the communist government not being able to maintain services. Um, and it's the fact that they actually believe that Trump will deliver on his threats. Does cutting this other funding potentially impact that as well? Yes, it very well could. I I'm not sure. Again, I'm fairly convinced that it's those other factors that have led to Cuban making the decisions that they have recently. Um, but I still support the fact that Donald Trump cut that funding because again I think what most of these NOS's have have proven to us, most not all, is that they are far more concerned with pushing left-wing political ideology than they are actually achieving the sort of objectives that these NOS were set up to do in the first place and that the fun specifically the funding allocated to those NOS's was meant to actually support.

Okay, here's the next one and this is the claim that no one died. Right? So despite predictions of widespread disruption following cuts to US aid, there has been no immediate measurable impact on overall global population growth. The world's population continues to increase, driven primarily by birth rates, economic development, and demographic trends in large countries across Africa and Asia. Supporters of the cuts argue that while individual aid programs may affect specific communities, the reduction in US foreign assistance has not altered the broader trajectory of global population growth and has allowed policymakers to reassess whether American taxpayers should continue funding programs that many believe should increasingly be supported by recipient nations and private organizations. Now, and it goes on to say, "Of course, facts don't matter to those impacted by a lack of NGO funding with Roana recently claiming 4.5 million children have died due to cuts." Now, here here's what I'll say on this. I think Rocon is full of crap. That this whole idea that millions are dying across the globe and specifically in Africa because of US aid cuts. There's a couple things that I would ask here. Why is it that the United States and Europe are responsible for giving billions upon billions upon billions of dollars of aid to Africa? At what point does all that aid actually translate into infrastructure and stable governments where these countries can actually provide for themselves? Because there are countries in Africa that have actually managed to do this to varying degrees. Batswana is a pretty good example of a country that's been able to stand on its own two feet significantly for some time. Why? Well, they haven't given in tribal fighting. They haven't given into Marxism. They still respect property rights. They've actually had pretty good economic development. They've managed to do things that actually provides a a decent level of security and economic development for their nation. And they've managed to do it without being wholly dependent upon US foreign aid. So again, the question is this. the same Democrats that are constantly screaming about why aren't we doing more, you know, they'll say one minute, why aren't we doing more for American workers? Why aren't we doing more in this country? But then they want to give billions of dollars to foreign countries to deal with problems that at some point American taxpayers should be able to say, "Look, we've helped. Why can't you do this yourself at this point?" To which the left just continually responds, "Oh, well, you're a racist. You're a sexist. You're this. You're that." Keep in mind that a lot of the figures that people like Ro Con Kana have been doing, these are projections. And and and keep in mind it's coming from the same political ideology that is constantly projecting things like, "Oh my gosh, if we don't give the government complete control over our economy, the glaciers are all going to melt. The polar bells will will go extinct. Florida will be underwater by 2010." Right? These are the same people that are always making catastrophic predictions. Why? Because they use it in order to justify consolidating increasing and consolidating power in the hands of the state and more specifically in their hands. And when the predictions don't actually materialize, do they ever come back and say, "Oh gosh, we were sorry. Maybe we were wrong. Maybe we should re-evaluate." You know, keep in mind the United Nations has come under severe scrutiny for fraud, waste, abuse, corruption, complicity within human traction. uh human trafficking and other civil rights abuses. They they came out and said that, well, for the price that Elon Musk bought Twitter, he could have solved world hunger. And Elon Musk said, okay, fine. Show me a transparent process on how you would actually do it. And what they came up with was absolute garbage. You didn't have to be an international aid expert to know that they were full of crap. The United Nations and all these countries have already spent hundreds of billions of dollars on redistributive policies into Africa and other third world countries. And yet those countries still can't seem to stand on their own two feet. And they'll say, "Oh, it's colonialism." Okay, really? You know who is also a colony? Singapore. And today it's one of the wealthiest countries in the world. Why? I don't know. free market economics, stability, peace and security, private property rights, right? Instead of instead of adopting Marxist political philosophy, which is repeatedly caused African countries to drift farther and farther into poverty, the countries which actually adopted free market principles and private property rights have managed to flourish. I will remind everyone that when the Korean war was over and North Korea went communist and South Korea went capitalist, North Korea was the richer country. It was actually the richer country with respect to resources, with respect to to money and supplies. It had with respect that it had support from other countries. And yet now when you look at a satellite picture of North and South Korea, one looks completely dark at night and the other is completely alive because it is electricity and a flourishing economy. All right. Africa has wasted hundreds of billions of dollars. There's a reason why there's a quip that foreign aid is a transfer of money from poor people and rich countries to rich people in poor countries. Many of these warlords in Africa have actually used aid in order to control their populations. Now, does this mean that there's been no US aid programs that have actually provided important and lifesaving technology, medical, access to water? No, I'm not saying that. What I am questioning is why can't all of that been be done through the private sector? Why can there be no expectation from Western taxpayers that the countries that they've been supporting for decades now actually be able to stand on their own two feet when it comes to doing things like growing crops or digging wells? or providing basic standards of medical care. So I I'm sorry, but you don't get to do the same wild predict predictions that you do from everything else, whether it's famines, whether it is um climate change, you don't get to do this as a constant justification to milk taxpayers in the United States. So one, I don't believe your projections. Two, it is totally fair for US taxpayers to ask the question, at what point are we no longer responsible for everybody else's problems?

All right, let's go into the next claim. But before we do that, I want to talk about our friends over at Lear Capital because here's the deal. Central banks are buying gold at near record pace. Goldman Sachs says demand is running higher than expected through 2026. The big institutions are quietly accumulating gold and precious metals. Persistent inflation, runaway deficits, endless money printing. The case for owning something real hasn't gone anywhere except for more people are realizing why it's important because while the governments can print more fiat currency and paper money, they cannot print more gold or silver. So, this is why I keep telling you at least get informed on this, right? Lear makes it easy with a free info kit. No cost, no obligation. I've worked with Lear and I trust how they handle it. Right? Get the free kit today and they'll walk you through your options. All you got to do in order to get this kit is text to 43343. That's the word Nick Nic to 43343. Text Nick to 43343. Get your free info kit. It cost you nothing to actually learn what is the process for buying and owning gold and silver. If you want to know, text them that number or text them NICK and find out what you can.

All right, here we go. Let's go with the next claim. And that is the claim that all of a sudden because of a drop in US aid funding, uh, Democrats seem to be broke. The Democrat National Committee is facing one of its toughest fundraising environments in years, entering the 2026 cycle with significantly less cash on hand than its Republican counterpart and carrying substantial debt. Ladies and gentlemen, can I tell you this? As an elected Republican, this is mind-boggling to me. Democrats have always seemed to crush us when it comes to fundraising. says recent filings showed the DNC with roughly 14 million in cash while carrying more than 17 million in debt compared with the Republican National Committee's much larger cash reserves. Even after Democratic victories in several elections, major donors have been slow to reopen their wallets, forcing party leaders to scale back some plan initiatives and sparking concerns about donor confidence and the party's direction. So, here's the question. Okay, first of all, is this true? Uh, yeah, it is. Here's a report by CNN. The RNC has nearly a seven to one money advantage over the DNC, which has more debt than cash on hand. Again, I can't I can't emphasize this enough. This is bizarre. I don't think I've ever seen this before. I don't see that I've ever seen this before. So, the real question is is what does it have to do if anything, all right, with this idea that, you know, US aid was was stopped. Okay. So, here here it is. US aid and government connection uh to this I would say is is a fairly strong I don't again like everything else it doesn't explain everything but it does explain some things the DNC entered the 2026 cycle again with more debt than they have actually cash on hand but here's the story beneath that right on June 4th 2025 the House Oversight Committee held a formal hearing taxpayer funded NGO slush funds advancing radical agendas must be shut down right that was the title of it the hearing documented said that Democrats funneled billions in taxpayer dollars through US aid, HHS and DHS to NOS that in turn donated to Democratic campaigns, hired Democratic operatives and advanced democratic policy objectives. Okay, so the pipeline was this taxpayer money goes to US AHS, DHS grants, NOS's and then Democratic donors. So you cut that taxpayer funding and all of a sudden the downstream donor machine dries up. This is not theory. It is now a part of congressional record. So is it true that funding cuts not just to US aid but all these other different government entities and programs that were handing money out to NOS in the form of grants. Is it true that that has significantly contributed to a decrease in the amount of money that the Democratic National Committee has on hand for elections? Yes. Yes. Once again, this is proof for all of you that thought, "My gosh, why does the DNC always raise so much money? Why does it seem like there's always so much spending for all these left-wing political ideologies? Why does it just seem so pervasive and ubiquitous that it's like we can't keep up? H how is it that they keep getting all this money?" Well, it was simple. They got it from us in the form of taxes. Now, I want to point out something else. This is not just about money that goes to Somali daycare centers and the recipients of that money as they're defrauding the government give money to campaign contributions. That's a part of it. It's also things like Planned Parenthood. Plan inherited Planned Parenthood gets hundreds of millions of dollars from state and uh federal government the state governments and the federal government and then they give tens of millions of dollars to Democrat candidates. Well, all of a sudden, if you stop the money to Planned Parenthood, if you no longer steal our tax dollars to give it to Planned Parenthood, they can't give as much money to Democrats because Democrats would say, "Oh, well, it's you're not giving money to Planned Parenthood to give it to us." No, no, no. It's giving it to these essential services. Money is fungeable. If they get a bunch of money from the government, they can take money they got from other places and now give it to the political candidates. They're going to make sure they keep getting taxpayer dollars. So, as soon as this started to be shut off, not just with US A, but a variety of other government agencies, all of a sudden, Democrats don't have as much money in their political coffers. Golly g whiz. So, I think this tr I think this claim is absolutely true. It doesn't explain everything, but I do think it explains some very, very substantive things. And again, I think that's super interesting, right? Super interesting.

Here's another one. The KKK was defunded. The Southern Poverty Law Center is currently facing one of the most significant controversies in history after a federal grand jury indicted the organization on fraud, conspiracy, and moneyaundering changes related to past use of paid informants inside white supremacists and extremist groups. Federal prosecutors alleged that between 2014 and 2023, the SPLC directed more than three million to confidential sources embedded in organizations that publicly opposed while failing to disclose those payments to donors. Now, again, the argument that they're going to make is that well, yeah, we we couldn't we couldn't expose this to donors. We were conducting very very sensitive and very very important operations to gain insider information. Okay. Well, part of congressional uh testimony came from a gentleman that wrote the article, Making Hate Pay, why it makes sense the SPLC was funding the very hate uh it claims to it it it claims exist to oppose. And then it says, "My years of research and reporting on the SPLC have led me to suspect uh because it matches the LPC's modus operendi of exaggerating hate to scare donors into pwning up cash. To be clear, the SPLC has not denied the payments in question. The group merely claims that it bankrolled clan members as part of an informant program to learn about potential threats ahead of time and prevent them. The SPLC has highlighted two federal prosecutions that claims resulted from the SPLC informant program. The indictment suggests these field sources weren't just informants, however, and the SPLC's recent history leads credence to the idea that these payments may have helped the group exaggerate hate to raise money. Once again, we find ourselves in a situation where the supply of racism couldn't make up with the demand. The SPLC doesn't benefit if racism is sold. The SPLC doesn't benefit if all of a sudden we find ourselves in a situation where the vast majority of Americans abhore racism. the SPLC benefits when they can constantly claim things like, "Oh, hands up, don't shoot." And Dr. Carson is a voice of white supremacy. Like, I saw firsthand as the SPLC was using their various lists in order to try to dedicate uh different groups, people, and engage in character assassination. But the real question here is, does cutting to US aid funding actually explain this? And I'm going to say once again that I think some of the claims here have a lot of merit. Okay? For 12 years, the SPLC was not just a nonprofit. It was functionally embedded in the federal government. Its hate group designations were used in Department of Defense training materials, army manuals, and DHC resource guides. Not to mention the fact that in Virginia, when the Democrats took over, they were actually encouraging teachers as a condition of their lure or renewing of their lure to take courses from a variety of sources. The Southern Poverty Law Center being one of them. On April 21st in 2026, the DOJ and FBI announced 11 11 federal counts against the SPLC to include wire fraud, bank fraud, and conspiracy to commit money. The allegation between 2014 and 2023, the S uh PLC directed more than 3 million to paid informants embedded inside white supremacist organizations without disclosing these payments to donors. On May 20th, 2026, the House Judiciary Committee took formal testimony and then again listened to things like why it makes sense the SPLC was funding the very hated claims uh to oppose. So the important thing to understand is under Obama and Biden, DOJ treated the SPLC as if it was an ally to them, right? So it had significant impact not only with respect to policy but various federal agencies were instructed to work or cooperate with the SPLC. Not to mention the fact like I already said various state governments also work with the SPLC to include pushing it to within our educational institutions. And I'm not just talking about higher education. I'm talking it being included in recommended courses for teachers of elementary school, middle school, high school, right? all this stuff. Now, does cuts to US aid funding explain why all of a sudden the SPLC and other groups like the like the KKK why they're actually losing money? Again, I will say to a point, but it's primarily as a result of the institutional protection that they had been given from organizations like the DOJ, the DoD, and the FBI under Biden and Obama. So, I don't think this one you can chalk up to US aid funding. Now you probably could point to various grants that were awarded to organizations like the SPLC. You might be able to point toward uh you know again these institutions within the government working in conjunction with them. But I don't think you can claim US aid funding. So, even though I think this is interesting, and even though I think there's a point to be made about how uh the Trump administration basically caused for the defunding of white supremacist groups by no longer supporting organizations like the SPLC, I don't know that you can tie it directly to USA. So, again, I'm trying to be fair about this. That's my honest analysis. So again, I I may agree in principle that um removing US federal government support from this organization has definitely created uh conditions where they can now be properly investigated for shady activities, but I don't think it's US aid funding necessarily.

All right, two more. Pride went broke, right? This is the claim because the US aid funding going away. Pride went broke. For years, Pride Parades benefited from millions of dollars in corporate sponsorships, government grants, and DEI budgets. Now, many of those funding sources are drying up. Major companies including Mastercard, City, Pepsico, Nissan, Annheiser, Bush, and others have reduced or ended sponsorship for Pride events in cities such as New York, San Francisco, St. Louis, Washington DC. Critics argue that the pullback reflects growing consumer fatigue with corporate activism and a desire by businesses to focus on their core mission rather than political and cultural causes. Supporters of Pride events see the funding decline as a result of political pressure and corporate caution. Either way, the era of automatic NGO backing appears to be ending, forcing many pride organizations to return to grassroots fundraising rather than relying on taxpayer funding, right? And you do see this. The Wall Street Journal actually talks about big marketers like Mastercard, PepsiCo, etc. are rethinking pride marketing. And there was there was a huge backlash here, but again, there's been backlashes before. It's not like the United States was ever like, "Oh, great. Yeah, we just gay is our favorite thing ever." And yet for some reason all these organizations seem like just adamant. So where is the correlation? Okay, here's what it is. Pride didn't go broke because these these corporations decided that they want to side with Christians, right? What what really happened is four government subsidy streams were cut simultaneously. So HHS, which is Health and Human Services, $122 million. RFK Jr. cancelled 122 million in LGBTQ and diversity grants in August of 2025. Then there was DEI executive orders dismantled the compliance incentive driving Mastercard, Pepsico, Nissan, Antiser Bush, and others. Uh plus budget shortfalls of hundreds of thousands to nearly 1 million hit New York, San Francisco, St. Louis, and DC. So keep in mind, because the federal government is no longer pressuring these companies to expand DEI and LGBTQ programs, they stopped doing it.

So it's not as if these companies wanted to do it because they thought it was great for them. They were doing it in part because they felt pressure from the federal government to do it or they felt pressure from organizations which had a lot of pull with Barack Obama or Joe Biden to do it.

Now that that poll is no longer there, these companies are saying, "Yeah, we don't want to get involved in all these fights. We just want to sell products and services."

Then there was the NEA, right? In February 2025, it eliminated its underserved communities grant program. The Guardian confirmed it most affected nonprofits centering black, brown, and LGBTQ plus communities. Right? So, the National Endowment for the Arts was no longer allowed to take millions of dollars from American taxpayers and push it into LGBTQ plus programs. Well, if these LGBTQ plus programs can't actually take in money by people voluntarily giving it to them, if they're completely dependent or mostly dependent on the government confiscating money through taxation and giving it to them, well, it makes sense that now the government is no longer doing that. They find themselves in a lot of trouble.

Then you have the CSBG $770 million zeroed out. White House fiscal year 2026 budget eliminated the community services block grant entirely. Right. And again, a lot of this was once again this this was these grants theoretically were there to go, you know, help communities or help rebuild or help whatever. And in reality, what it was doing was it was just money being funneled to left-wing NOS's that were run, staffed, and and managed by Democrat political operatives who had served in Congress or served on staffs of members of Congress. And it was way for them to get basically in on the grift. So their Democrat buddies would allocate funds. It would go to these NGO grant programs which might have nice sounding names, but then it all got funneled predominantly into left-wing non-government organizations that would then use that money to enrich themselves, push left-wing political ideology, and oh by the way, push money to Democrat candidates, right? That money goes away and all of a sudden people aren't as interested in pushing this stuff. So once again, when the subsidy disappears, you find out what something is actually worth to the people who attend it. This is this is just a good free market lesson. But it turns out that none of this LGBTQ stuff was ever as popular as people wanted you to believe it was. It only had the kind of backing it did because they were relying on our tax dollars in order to fund it.

Okay, we are down to our last one and that is this is the most bizarre one. Rap leaves the top 40. Right? Like what could this possibly have to do with USA? All right. For the first time in decades, hip-hop's dominance of the charts appears to be fading as country music stages a major comeback. While rap remains one of America's most influential genres, fewer rap songs are consistently occupying the top spots in the charts, replaced by a surge of country artists attracting mainstream audiences. Now, here's the question, right? Because again, is this true? Yeah, it's true. Like, it's actually it's actually happening. And uh you see this article right here from graphsabouts songs.com. It said no hip-hop did not die in 2025, but it did lose its dominance on streaming in 2022. So once again, we're seeing this resurgence. Does this have anything to do with potential funding ties? And here's the answer I'm going to say on this one. I think this has the weakest argument, right? Is the government directly responsible for RAP leaving the top 40? No, I I don't think so. Um, what is what is a fact though is that the government subsidized hip hop's institutional ecosystem for 50 years through National Endowment of the Arts grants to urban arts organizations, DEIdriven corporate mandates that created an artificial commercial premium on hiphop content and title one funded culturally responsive hiphop curriculum urban schools. Those subsidy streams are contracting. They haven't been totally eliminated, but they've been reduced. Okay. But I think the market shift is primarily a market and value story. And it is and and and again, I think what this comes down to is can you suggest can you suggest that maybe reductions in some government subsidies that were pushing this um had an overall impact? Yeah, I maybe. Um, but was it really that or was it just a shift in what people wanted to listen to? This is why I say out of out of all the claims that we've heard so far, I think this one is is the most difficult to prove. And and I I see the least amount of evidence to suggest that it was direct government funding that impacted this. Now you you could say that uh the push back up against kind of the the overall DEI um the DEI agenda or or you could say that more and more consumers may be just you know liking something else. Okay, maybe these had some impacts. So but I'm going to say h again I'm not I'm not fully convinced. I'm not fully convinced.

So what does all of this mean? Well, I think the thing that we can be encouraged by is the fact that Doge identified how our taxpayer dollars were being used on things that people didn't specifically vote for. Right? Congress was allocating funds to executive branch agencies. These executive branch agencies full of mid-level leftist Democrats and and career bureaucrats were funneling money over to their buddies in the Democrat NGO world. And that money was finding its way into Democratic campaigns and it was also finding its way into pushing left-wing ideology through government bureaucracies which should not have been engaged in that kind of partisan politics. And that money drying up has significantly impacted left-wing political organizations, NOS's, uh, 501c3s, and it's also impacted the Democratic National Committee itself. And this is very encouraging because it means two things. One, it means this behemoth of woke progressivism that so many people thought woke up one day and figured, why is this so popular all of a sudden? Why does this seem to be just everywhere all at once? Well, it wasn't organic. It just wasn't. It was supported by our tax dollars. The second thing in it means is we actually did elect people that were willing to shut off the spigot. Maybe not to the degree we would have liked, but certainly enough to actually have significant impact. And so I I think that's positive and I think that deserves to be considered a win. I want to see a whole lot more. Um I want to see more of these bureaucrats that that facilitated this to be fired. I think the recent slaughter decision by the Supreme Court has actually set the groundwork where that can begin to happen and it can't happen fast enough in my opinion. But on the end, once again, let's take wins when we get them. Let's actually be encouraged by these things so that we can support the people that made it happen, that allowed it to take place. And let's also punish the Republicans that are constantly crying and screaming about, well, you know, we can't cut all these programs because people will get mad. No, we actually can't. We actually can because this isn't the government's money. It's our money. And if they would have let us have it, would we have spent it on the same things? Would Americans have have just voluntarily supported trans operas in Colombia? Would they have continually tried to prop up left-wing organizations that that hate our values? Would would we have actually spent the money that way? No, I don't think we would have. I think we would have spent the money on things that were good for us, good for our family, and by extension, good for the economy, and good for the country. So, this is great. This is wonderful news. I'm so glad to find out that Democrats are apparently having a hard time conducting fundraising operations when they can't engage in direct confiscation of their political opponents money. I also find it encouraging that we still can raise money based off of the merits of our arguments, not our ability to steal from our fellow Americans. Once again, thank you for joining us. Hope you found this episode useful and informative. And if you did, consider liking and subscribing. Once again, thank you very much and we'll see you next.