Business
Liberals, globalists flip out after Trump orders USAID freeze

From LifeSiteNews
By Stephen Kokx
The foreign aid agency USAID has morphed into a slush fund for the Deep State to spread wokeism and to spark revolutions in countries that resist its tyrannical decrees. President Trump has had enough of this, and his administration is moving to dismantle the program.
How many Americans even knew what USAID was until this week? I’m guessing less than one percent.
For the uninformed: USAID was started by President John F. Kennedy in 1961. Officially named the United States Agency for International Development, it spends over $40 billion in taxpayer dollars every year on various initiatives overseas; most of which are a complete waste of money, as Elon Musk and others have pointed out in recent days. See here:
Whatever good intentions Kennedy may have had for the program, it has morphed into a slush fund for the Deep State to spread wokeism and to spark revolutions in countries that resist its tyrannical decrees. All of this is done in the name of “defending democracy” mind you.
Under Joe Biden, USAID was run by World Economic Forum functionary Samantha Powers, who weaponized the agency to funnel boatloads of cash to Ukraine, among other futile projects.
That fact was pointed out by Balázs Orbán, the son of Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, on X this week.
A CIA front group that promotes LGBT ideology overseas
President Trump has had enough of this. In his continued effort to drain the swamp, he signed an executive order empowering the newly created Department of Governmental Efficiency to dismantle USAID.
“I love the concept, but they turned out to be radical left lunatics,” he said about the agency in the Oval Office on Monday.
USAID’s website has already been shut down, and many of its liberal employees have been fired or barred from entering its headquarters in D.C., causing Democrats to hold a rally outside of it; because nothing shows the American people that you care about them more than defending a program designed to spend their money in foreign lands. Talk about being out of touch.
Oddly enough, left-wing Jesuit priest James Martin also defended the agency by claiming that Jesus would support it as well. He was rightly called out by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò on X.
Trump’s Secretary of State Marco Rubio has been named USAID’s interim director. He told the media this week that its rogue behavior has come to an end.
“USAID has a history of ignoring [the national interest of the United States] and deciding that they’re a global charity. These are not donor dollars, these are taxpayer dollars,” he said.
Other lawmakers and mainstream pundits have jumped on the bandwagon as well.
“To my friends who are upset, call somebody who cares. You better get used to this. It’s USAID today, it’s gonna be Department of Education tomorrow,” GOP Senator John Kennedy said.
“It’s not foreign aid — it’s a foreign slush fund,” Fox News’ Laura Ingraham has argued, as has Glenn Beck.
Trump’s “Rapid Response” X account joined in on the fun by highlighting some of the many ways the agency has wasted your and my money on LGBT and DEI causes abroad.
Democrats melt down as Trump takes aim
Liberals have been unable to control themselves. News that fewer tax dollars will be spent promoting their woke religion has left them apoplectic.
This is a “coup,” thundered an emotional Joy Reid on MSNBC.
Fellow MSNBC anchor Jen Psaki ludicrously claimed that the agency helps with “humanitarian” causes and “works to combat corruption.”
Van Jones said on CNN the rolling back of funding is Trump telling the world to “go die.”
Total nonsense.
Like Freemasonry, USAID may feed the poor and help some impoverished people, but that is just cover to hide its true aim, which is to sow discord in countries that reject the NATO and U.S. empire.
USAID has done this for decades, primarily by funding non-governmental organizations (and even extremists) that cause headaches for leaders who refuse to be slaves to the West. This has been the case in the nation of Georgia over the past several years. See here:
CNN’s Scott Jennings, a Republican, made a comment about how USAID has been appropriated by liberals that really hits the nail on the head with what has gone wrong with it.
“There is a difference between soft power and soft stupidity. So whether you’re funding DEI musicals in some country or transgender surgery somewhere or whatever, that is not what most Americans would say is an effective part of U.S. foreign policy.”
USAID funded the Wuhan lab in China
Perhaps the most attention-grabbing headline that has emerged with the USAID story is the revelation that the agency funneled $40 million to a lab in Wuhan, China, to study bat coronaviruses.
“Records prove that Ben Hu — COVID’s likely ‘Patient Zero’ — is a Wuhan white coat funded directly by Fauci, NIT & USAID to conduct dangerous coronavirus gain of function experiments on animals!” watchdog group White Coat Waste Project posted on X today.
Fauci has long denied being involved in such measures, but GOP Senator Ran Paul has never backed down from disputing his claims. He likewise challenged Samantha Powers about USAID money going to Wuhan as well.
Last week, Paul announced his intention to continue digging into the matter, given Biden’s preemptive pardoning of Fauci.
Today, Paul re-shared an X post from political activist Matt Kibbe that suggested he is on the cusp of blowing the whole thing wide open.
“NIAID and USAID were money-laundering puppets for agencies prohibited from doing dangerous gain-of-function bioterrorism research. Now, Rand Paul and Elon Musk are poised to expose the whole scheme,” Kibbe said.
USAID has misspent taxpayer money in countless other ways as well. Many of the downright bizarre programs are being shared on X. Here are a few of them:
It should be noted that Rand Paul’s father, former Congressman Ron Paul, has been a critic of the Deep State for decades. In a recent video message, he called on the government to audit USAID and then shut it down. Elon Musk re-shared the video, calling it an “interesting” proposal.
That’s good advice. I hope Elon and Trump will take it and follow through on it. Ending USAID is long overdue.
Business
103 Conflicts and Counting Unprecedented Ethics Web of Prime Minister Mark Carney

Dan Knight
Brookfield. The PMO. Eurasia Group. One Green Agenda, Billions in Conflicts.
Well, it finally happened. After months of dodging questions and hiding behind vague platitudes about “climate leadership,” Prime Minister Mark Carney’s official conflict-of-interest screen has been released by the Ethics Commissioner—and what it reveals is nothing short of staggering. Not five entities. Not a dozen. One hundred and three. That’s how many corporate and financial interests Carney has quietly acknowledged are too conflicted for him to touch.
At the center of this web? Brookfield Asset Management, the $1 trillion global investment firm where Carney was Vice-Chair before walking straight into Canada’s top political office. The very same Brookfield that owns energy projects, pipelines, nuclear companies, real estate empires, carbon offset schemes you name it, they’ve got a piece of it. And now, they’ve got a former executive running the country.
We’re told it’s all perfectly legal. We’re told Carney has “recused himself.” But what this disclosure actually shows is something much bigger: a government captured by finance, a prime minister with deep, ongoing entanglements in the very sectors his policies now enrich, and a climate agenda that’s beginning to look a whole lot like a money-printing operation for the global elite.
The deeper one digs into Prime Minister Mark Carney’s ethics disclosure, the clearer the picture becomes: what’s been framed as a climate leadership story is, in reality, a tightly wound web of commercial interest wrapped in green rhetoric. The 103-entity conflict-of-interest screen, ostensibly a shield against impropriety, instead serves as a road map of how thoroughly Canada’s top political office is entangled in the global green finance complex centered around Brookfield Asset Management.
As of Q1 2025, Brookfield reports $125 billion in assets under management (AUM) in its Renewable Power & Transition segment, a figure representing 12.5% of its overall $1 trillion portfolio. This segment alone encompasses most of the entities on Carney’s ethics screen: nearly 60 out of 103, even after accounting for duplicates. These aren’t passive holdings they’re the very projects, technologies, and subsidy-eligible vehicles Carney once oversaw directly as vice-chair of Brookfield and as co-lead of its $15 billion Global Transition Fund.
Brookfield’s renewables portfolio is vast: over 41.8 GW in installed capacity globally across wind, solar, hydro, and storage, with a 200+ GW development pipeline. A significant portion of this is owned or operated through the same SPVs and subsidiaries now appearing on the conflict list. Notable entries include Scout Clean Energy ($1B), Urban Grid ($650M), and Standard Solar ($540M). These acquisitions were all completed while Carney was at Brookfield, and they continue to generate revenue from U.S. and Canadian subsidy frameworks programs now shaped by the very government he leads.
Brookfield Renewable Partners L.P., the sector flagship, holds approximately $95 billion in total assets and generated $315 million in funds from operations in Q1 2025 alone. The firm is planning to add another 8 GW in capacity this year expansion that is, in part, subsidized through the same green transition policies Carney has promoted both in office and as a climate finance advocate.
The line between public and private interest blurs even further when examining the entities categorized under the “energy transition” banner; nuclear, CCS (carbon capture and storage), and so-called e-fuels. Carney’s screen includes Brookfield’s recent $8 billion acquisition of Westinghouse Electric Company, a nuclear power behemoth now positioned to benefit from Canada’s federal nuclear incentives and SMR (small modular reactor) program. Other flagged investments like Entropy and Carbon TerraVault fall directly into carbon credit and offset schemes—markets heavily influenced by federal regulation and incentive design.
Let’s stop pretending. What we’re witnessing here isn’t just conflict of interest, it’s a complete merger of state power and corporate ambition, all dressed up in the language of moral urgency. The Ethics Commissioner’s so-called “screen” for Mark Carney? It’s a joke. A checklist. A bureaucratic fig leaf meant to reassure you that everything’s above board. But it’s not.
Because here’s the truth: Carney is policing himself. He’s supposed to recuse himself from decisions that benefit the 103 entities he’s tied to many of which he helped create or oversee as Vice-Chair of Brookfield Asset Management. But who decides if he’s in conflict? He does. Or more accurately, the PMO does. The same PMO now drafting Dominion Barton-style focus groups to figure out how best to sell you the green grift. There’s no third-party oversight, no transparency on what’s actually in his so-called blind trust, and no disclosure of the carried interest he may still be entitled to from Brookfield’s billions in funds.
Meanwhile, the policy levers of government are being pulled in exactly the direction Brookfield bet on. Wind, solar, carbon capture, nuclear, every so-called “transition” sector that Brookfield spent years buying into is now flush with green subsidies, ESG guarantees, and taxpayer-backed investment shields. This isn’t the free market at work, it’s a strategic payoff, engineered by someone who’s now running one of the most powerful G7 economies.
And again, none of it is illegal. That’s the most damning part. Because legality isn’t the standard here. The standard is integrity, and that’s nowhere to be found. The scale of this overlap isn’t just large. It’s systemic. It’s built into the very foundation of the Carney government’s climate policy. The same man who structured these funds is now the man signing off on the policies that make them profitable.
Diana Fox Carney’s Quiet Role in the Climate Cash Machine
And just when you thought the web of influence stopped at the Prime Minister himself, along comes Diana Fox Carney, economist, climate consultant, and spouse of the most well-connected man in Canadian politics. While Mark Carney’s direct financial entanglements with Brookfield Asset Management are now public record, his wife’s career trajectory paints an equally troubling picture of how the same elite networks driving Canada’s green spending are profiting in parallel, behind the curtain.
Diana Fox Carney currently holds a senior advisory role at Eurasia Group, the New York-based geopolitical risk consultancy that’s become a quiet powerhouse in shaping global ESG narratives. It’s also the same firm where Gerald Butts—Trudeau’s longtime fixer and architect of the federal climate playbook—now serves as vice chair. Add in former journalist Evan Solomon and even Conservative stalwart John Baird, and you’ve got a bipartisan consultancy stacked with Canadian political operators. Convenient? Maybe. Coordinated? You decide.
And what has this firm staffed with Liberal-era insiders received in return? Millions in untendered government contracts, including a $446,210 deal from Natural Resources Canada in 2024 for vaguely defined “geopolitical research.” That’s nearly half a million dollars in taxpayer money handed out without competition, to a firm employing the sitting Prime Minister’s wife—and his former colleagues. Just coincidence, right?
But Eurasia Group is only the start. Diana’s reach extends far beyond advisory calls. She’s connected to:
- BeyondNetZero, a climate equity fund backed by U.S. private capital giant General Atlantic.
- Helios CLEAR, investing in African climate “resilience.”
- ClientEarth U.S. and the Shell Foundation, both pushing aggressive environmental litigation and policy influence.
- Canada 2020, a Trudeau-aligned think tank that’s pocketed over $1 million in federal grants.
Throw in indirect ties to Gates Foundation funding, Save the Children, and research networks influencing African agriculture, and you’re looking at a network of transnational climate consultants with deep, ongoing influence over the exact climate policies the federal government is now implementing under her husband’s leadership.
Now, legally, Diana is in the clear. She’s not a public office holder. But that’s the point. The rules weren’t designed for this new class of political operator—the dual-career globalist power couple, where one side signs the climate cheques while the other cashes them. No formal disclosure is required. No recusals. No transparency. Yet the influence is there. The access is there. The money is flowing.
Opposition Reaction: Pierre Poilievre Slams Carney’s Hidden Conflicts, Demands Real Transparency
Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre wasted no time responding to the bombshell ethics screen showing Prime Minister Mark Carney is recusing himself from dealings with over 100 companies, many tied to his former employer, Brookfield Asset Management. In a pair of direct and widely shared posts, Poilievre accused Carney of concealing critical financial entanglements from voters during the 2025 election, and warned that the Liberal leader is now either positioned to profit from federal decisions or paralyzed from making them.
“Mark Carney must explain why he kept these conflicts secret from voters until after the election,” Poilievre wrote. “Now he will be in a position to profit from big decisions or will be forced to sit out those decisions altogether. Either way, Canadians will pay the price.”
In a second post earlier that morning, Poilievre challenged the credibility of Carney’s so-called blind trust, urging the Prime Minister to liquidate his holdings entirely and hand the cash to a trustee who can invest it without Carney’s knowledge or influence:
“Otherwise, he will always know how political decisions can affect his personal wealth.”
These statements mark the strongest opposition rebuke yet of the Carney government’s financial entanglements. Poilievre’s message echoes growing public criticism that the ethics screen is little more than window dressing, lacking third-party oversight, and that it fails to address indirect benefit through carried interest, deferred compensation, or spousal affiliations.
While Carney has claimed he is in full compliance with federal ethics laws, the fact that the disclosures were released only after the election is fueling outrage—not just among Conservatives but from broader accountability watchdogs. With over 100 entities flagged, many of them tied to green energy, infrastructure, and climate finance—the same sectors receiving billions in federal spending—the Conservative leader has positioned himself as the voice of those demanding a full forensic audit of the Prime Minister’s interests.
The message from the opposition is clear: if this were a Conservative leader, the media would be calling it a scandal. But because it’s Carney—the global banker, the climate envoy, the Liberal savior—the establishment is looking the other way. Poilievre’s Conservatives aren’t. And they’re turning this into a defining issue of integrity and accountability in Canadian politics.
Let’s Call This What It Is
This isn’t subtle. This isn’t nuanced. This is what a grift looks like—on paper, in public, in black and white. Over one hundred conflicts of interest tied directly to Mark Carney. Entire portfolios of foreign and domestic holdings, billions in green investments, shell companies in Bermuda—and that’s before we even get to his wife’s global consultancy work, advising firms that quietly gobble up federal contracts without a single public tender.
And here’s the thing: we weren’t told any of this during the election. There was no press conference, no headline, no public vetting of the sprawling web of corporate and climate interests now tied to the highest office in the country. Why? Because it would have compromised the Liberal grip on power. Because the last thing this party wanted Canadians to know was that their new leader wasn’t just a banker—but a banker with a boardroom’s worth of financial strings still attached.
Now imagine—just for a moment—if it had been Pierre Poilievre. Or Andrew Scheer. Or any Conservative leader with over a hundred screened entities, global finance ties, offshore SPVs, and a spouse employed by a company collecting millions in government money. The press would be in a frenzy. The CBC would be running specials. They’d be calling him compromised, unfit, a foreign agent.
But because it’s their guy—because it’s the Liberal elite’s banker-in-chief—we’re told it’s fine. It’s all above board. Move along, nothing to see here.
Nonsense. Absolute nonsense.
This is not leadership. This is ideological grifting at the highest level. The Liberal Party, once the party of national unity and democratic accountability, has become a hollowed-out machine for elite interests. They’re not liberals. They’re grifters—grifting for green subsidies, globalist contracts, and personal access to power. They have no principle left. Just consultants, contracts, and a taxpayer-funded narrative to keep the game going.
Enough. Canadians didn’t vote for this. They weren’t told the truth. And now the entire climate agenda, the whole “just transition,” looks more like a get-rich scheme for the political class than any serious public mission.
It’s time for an election. Time to clear house. Time to drain this toxic, green-glossed swamp once and for all.
Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight
Invite your friends and earn rewards
Business
Most Canadians say retaliatory tariffs on American goods contribute to raising the price of essential goods at home

- 77 per cent say Canada’s tariffs on U.S. products increase the price of consumer goods
- 72 per cent say that their current tax bill hurts their standard of living
A new MEI-Ipsos poll published this morning reveals a clear disconnect between Ottawa’s high-tax, high-spending approach and Canadians’ level of satisfaction.
“Canadians are not on board with Ottawa’s fiscal path,” says Samantha Dagres, communications manager at the MEI. “From housing to trade policy, Canadians feel they’re being squeezed by a government that is increasingly an impediment to their standard of living.”
More than half of Canadians (54 per cent) say Ottawa is spending too much, while only six per cent think it is spending too little.
A majority (54 per cent) also do not believe federal dollars are being effectively allocated to address Canada’s most important issues, and a similar proportion (55 per cent) are dissatisfied with the transparency and accountability in the government’s spending practices.
As for their own tax bills, Canadians are equally skeptical. Two-thirds (67 per cent) say they pay too much income tax, and about half say they do not receive good value in return.
Provincial governments fared even worse. A majority of Canadians say they receive poor value for the taxes they pay provincially. In Quebec, nearly two-thirds (64 per cent) of respondents say they are not getting their money’s worth from the provincial government.
Not coincidentally, Quebecers face the highest marginal tax rates in North America.
On the question of Canada’s response to the U.S. trade dispute, nearly eight in 10 Canadians (77 per cent) agree that Ottawa’s retaliatory tariffs on American products are driving up the cost of everyday goods.
“Canadians understand that tariffs are just another form of taxation, and that they are the ones footing the bill for any political posturing,” adds Ms. Dagres. “Ottawa should favour unilateral tariff reduction and increased trade with other nations, as opposed to retaliatory tariffs that heap more costs onto Canadian consumers and businesses.”
On the issue of housing, 74 per cent of respondents believe that taxes on new construction contribute directly to unaffordability.
All of this dissatisfaction culminates in 72 per cent of Canadians saying their overall tax burden is reducing their standard of living.
“Taxpayers are not just ATMs for government – and if they are going to pay such exorbitant taxes, you’d think the least they could expect is good service in return,” says Ms. Dagres. “Canadians are increasingly distrustful of a government that believes every problem can be solved with higher taxes.”
A sample of 1,020 Canadians 18 years of age and older was polled between June 17 and 23, 2025. The results are accurate to within ± 3.8 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
The results of the MEI-Ipsos poll are available here.
* * *
The MEI is an independent public policy think tank with offices in Montreal, Ottawa, and Calgary. Through its publications, media appearances, and advisory services to policymakers, the MEI stimulates public policy debate and reforms based on sound economics and entrepreneurship.
-
COVID-199 hours ago
FDA requires new warning on mRNA COVID shots due to heart damage in young men
-
Business7 hours ago
Carney’s new agenda faces old Canadian problems
-
Indigenous8 hours ago
Internal emails show Canadian gov’t doubted ‘mass graves’ narrative but went along with it
-
Daily Caller4 hours ago
Blackouts Coming If America Continues With Biden-Era Green Frenzy, Trump Admin Warns
-
Bruce Dowbiggin10 hours ago
Eau Canada! Join Us In An Inclusive New National Anthem
-
Alberta2 days ago
Fourteen regional advisory councils will shape health care planning and delivery in Alberta
-
Alberta2 days ago
Alberta school boards required to meet new standards for school library materials with regard to sexual content
-
Business2 days ago
UN’s ‘Plastics Treaty’ Sports A Junk Science Wrapper