Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Business

Trump’s dismantling of USAID is his biggest blow against the Deep State yet

Published

10 months ago

8 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Frank Wright

Elon Musk’s DOGE has shut down USAID, immediately ceasing U.S. government funding of NGOs backing digital tyranny, mass migration, the ‘LGBTQ’ agenda, abortion – and a host of ‘regime change’ operations.

Donald Trump’s new administration has begun to dismantle globalist network funding of the policies of social revolution across the West – and beyond. With the revelations on the shuttering of USAID, Americans now know whose money is behind the Deep State: theirs. 

Trump’s war on the Deep State has shocked the establishment. Elon Musk’s DOGE has shut down  USAID, immediately ceasing U.S. government funding of NGOs backing digital tyranny, mass migration, the “LGBTQ” agenda, abortion – and a host of “regime change” operations including the funding of the origins of COVID-19 and the impeachment of Donald Trump himself.  

These projects, and many more, were all paid for with U.S. taxpayer’s money through USAID. 

This Deep State network of finance, influence and the subversion of democracy in the U.S., Britain, Europe and beyond remained unchanged in every election – until this one.  

USAID, The U.S. Agency for International Development, “disbursed over 72 billion dollars last year,” according to a Newsweek report in October 2024, which described the now-defunct agency as “by far the world’s largest provider of humanitarian aid.” 

So where is this “aid” going? 

 

… and what sort of “humanitarian” projects has it been aiding? 

“USAID is notorious for funding the most horrifying projects known to mankind,” as Mike Benz explains.   

USAID’s “humanitarian” work included funding and directing the template for global digital governance in Ukraine, with its DIIA app, and funding the World Economic Forum which promotes the same agenda:  

Its humanitarian efforts extended to sponsoring anti-Catholic propaganda in Ireland: 

 

As Glenn Beck has pointed out, USAID was a major sponsor of abortion:  

Here is a picture of ISIS terrorists in Syria in a USAID tent:

USAID was also funding “globalist propaganda” on the U.K.’s state broadcaster:

Independent journalist Michael Shellenberger reported, “From 2004-2022, USAID was the largest U.S. government funder of EcoHealth Alliance, the group that funded the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), which likely started the COVID pandemic.” 

 

USAID sought to undermine and overthrow traditional and conservative national governments in Eastern Europe – and replace them with liberal-globalist ones:  

 

Dmitry Arestovich, the former right-hand man to Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky, now says USAID pressured the Ukrainian President into the war: 

 

USAID funded “sterilization projects” in Peru: 

 

And as LifeSiteNews reported in December 2024, USAID pressured African nations to change pro-life laws and promote mass abortions, but that did not stop Fr. James Martin from bewailing its demise. 

 

USAID also paid “race rioters” to engage in violent protests in Africa: 

 

At home, USAID sponsored the prosecution of U.S. citizens by “Soros-funded prosecutors”:

 

…and, as former Trump State Department staffer Mike Benz also asks, “Why did USAID pay $20 million to hit piece journalists to dig up dirt on Rudy Giuliani and use that dirt as the basis to impeach the sitting U.S. President in 2019?” 

 

USAID was also giving “millions of dollars to Bill Kristol,” arch-neocon and founder of the permanent war “Project for a New American Century.”

 

The populist leader of El Salvador Nayib Bukele summed up the happy ending for the world that is the end of USAID.  

“Most governments don’t want USAID funds flowing into their countries because they understand where much of that money actually ends up. While marketed as support for development, democracy, and human rights, the majority of these funds are funneled into opposition groups, NGOs with political agendas, and destabilizing movements.” 

He explained how only “maybe 10% of the money reaches real projects that help people in need,” adding that “there are such cases” – but the remaining ninety percent, he says, “It is used to fuel dissent, finance protests, and undermine administrations that refuse to align with the globalist agenda. Cutting this so-called aid isn’t just beneficial for the United States; it’s also a big win for the rest of the world.” 

Donald Trump’s war on the Deep State has just begun. It is not merely concerned with saving America, but his “common sense revolution” is a cure for a world made sick by a global network of death, deception and digital tyranny. He is uprooting the hidden international system which has promoted “LGBT, open borders and war” – as Hungary’s Viktor Orbán defined the values of the former regime. 

This has been described as a “counter-revolution” by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, who says these are serious moves against the “Deep State… and its mirror image, the Deep Church.”

With a serious campaign underway to destroy the business model of the globalist system it is hard to see how the rainbow “church” of Fr. James Martin can survive its isolation in a world without the patronage, propaganda and power of a corrupt Deep State and its globalist networks. 

And the revolution does not stop with USAID. With moves to “purge” the FBI, audit the U.S. Treasury and all the agencies of the U.S. government, Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency is set to undertake a thorough cleanup of the White House and all it commands.  

You might say the swamp is being drained. 

However you frame it, what is happening here has never been seen in our lifetimes.  

The secret state which directed politics and policy in the West despite elections is being exposed, defunded and shut down. We may not only have meaningful elections in future, but a Western society free of the propaganda of social revolution whose toxic “new values” had one thing in mind: the replacement of Christian civilization with a global government no one could ever escape.  

Finally, after decades of destruction by design, things have really changed. For good. 

Before Post

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
COVID-19 / 1 hour ago

Covid Cover-Ups: Excess Deaths, Vaccine Harms, and Coordinated Censorship

Energy / 4 hours ago

Here’s what they don’t tell you about BC’s tanker ban

Daily Caller / 4 hours ago

BREAKING: Globalist Climate Conference Bursts Into Flames

Business

Canada is failing dismally at our climate goals. We’re also ruining our economy.

Published on November 20, 2025

By

From the Fraser Institute

By Annika Segelhorst and Elmira Aliakbari

Short-term climate pledges simply chase deadlines, not results

The annual meeting of the United Nations Conference of the Parties, or COP, which is dedicated to implementing international action on climate change, is now underway in Brazil. Like other signatories to the Paris Agreement, Canada is required to provide a progress update on our pledge to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 40 to 45 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. After decades of massive government spending and heavy-handed regulations aimed at decarbonizing our economy, we’re far from achieving that goal. It’s time for Canada to move past arbitrary short-term goals and deadlines, and instead focus on more effective ways to support climate objectives.

Since signing the Paris Agreement in 2015, the federal government has introduced dozens of measures intended to reduce Canada’s carbon emissions, including more than $150 billion in “green economy” spending, the national carbon tax, the arbitrary cap on emissions imposed exclusively on the oil and gas sector, stronger energy efficiency requirements for buildings and automobiles, electric vehicle mandates, and stricter methane regulations for the oil and gas industry.

Recent estimates show that achieving the federal government’s target will impose significant costs on Canadians, including 164,000 job losses and a reduction in economic output of 6.2 per cent by 2030 (compared to a scenario where we don’t have these measures in place). For Canadian workers, this means losing $6,700 (each, on average) annually by 2030.

Yet even with all these costly measures, Canada will only achieve 57 per cent of its goal for emissions reductions. Several studies have already confirmed that Canada, despite massive green spending and heavy-handed regulations to decarbonize the economy over the past decade, remains off track to meet its 2030 emission reduction target.

And even if Canada somehow met its costly and stringent emission reduction target, the impact on the Earth’s climate would be minimal. Canada accounts for less than 2 per cent of global emissions, and that share is projected to fall as developing countries consume increasing quantities of energy to support rising living standards. In 2025, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA), emerging and developing economies are driving 80 per cent of the growth in global energy demand. Further, IEA projects that fossil fuels will remain foundational to the global energy mix for decades, especially in developing economies. This means that even if Canada were to aggressively pursue short-term emission reductions and all the economic costs it would imposes on Canadians, the overall climate results would be negligible.

Rather than focusing on arbitrary deadline-contingent pledges to reduce Canadian emissions, we should shift our focus to think about how we can lower global GHG emissions. A recent study showed that doubling Canada’s production of liquefied natural gas and exporting to Asia to displace an equivalent amount of coal could lower global GHG emissions by about 1.7 per cent or about 630 million tonnes of GHG emissions. For reference, that’s the equivalent to nearly 90 per cent of Canada’s annual GHG emissions. This type of approach reflects Canada’s existing strength as an energy producer and would address the fastest-growing sources of emissions, namely developing countries.

As the 2030 deadline grows closer, even top climate advocates are starting to emphasize a more pragmatic approach to climate action. In a recent memo, Bill Gates warned that unfounded climate pessimism “is causing much of the climate community to focus too much on near-term emissions goals, and it’s diverting resources from the most effective things we should be doing to improve life in a warming world.” Even within the federal ministry of Environment and Climate Change, the tone is shifting. Despite the 2030 emissions goal having been a hallmark of Canadian climate policy in recent years, in a recent interview, Minister Julie Dabrusin declined to affirm that the 2030 targets remain feasible.

Instead of scrambling to satisfy short-term national emissions limits, governments in Canada should prioritize strategies that will reduce global emissions where they’re growing the fastest.

Annika Segelhorst

Junior Economist

Elmira Aliakbari

Elmira Aliakbari

Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Artificial Intelligence

Lawsuit Claims Google Secretly Used Gemini AI to Scan Private Gmail and Chat Data

Published on November 19, 2025

By

logo

By Ken Macon

Whether the claims are true or not, privacy in Google’s universe has long been less a right than a nostalgic illusion.

When Google flipped a digital switch in October 2025, few users noticed anything unusual.
Gmail loaded as usual, Chat messages zipped across screens, and Meet calls continued without interruption.
Yet, according to a new class action lawsuit, something significant had changed beneath the surface.
We obtained a copy of the lawsuit for you here.
Plaintiffs claim that Google silently activated its artificial intelligence system, Gemini, across its communication platforms, turning private conversations into raw material for machine analysis.
The lawsuit, filed by Thomas Thele and Melo Porter, describes a scenario that reads like a breach of trust.
It accuses Google of enabling Gemini to “access and exploit the entire recorded history of its users’ private communications, including literally every email and attachment sent and received.”
The filing argues that the company’s conduct “violates its users’ reasonable expectations of privacy.”
Until early October, Gemini’s data processing was supposedly available only to those who opted in.
Then, the plaintiffs claim, Google “turned it on for everyone by default,” allowing the system to mine the contents of emails, attachments, and conversations across Gmail, Chat, and Meet.
The complaint points to a particular line in Google’s settings, “When you turn this setting on, you agree,” as misleading, since the feature “had already been switched on.”
This, according to the filing, represents a deliberate misdirection designed to create the illusion of consent where none existed.
There is a certain irony woven through the outrage. For all the noise about privacy, most users long ago accepted the quiet trade that powers Google’s empire.
They search, share, and store their digital lives inside Google’s ecosystem, knowing the company thrives on data.
The lawsuit may sound shocking, but for many, it simply exposes what has been implicit all along: if you live in Google’s world, privacy has already been priced into the convenience.
Thele warns that Gemini’s access could expose “financial information and records, employment information and records, religious affiliations and activities, political affiliations and activities, medical care and records, the identities of his family, friends, and other contacts, social habits and activities, eating habits, shopping habits, exercise habits, [and] the extent to which he is involved in the activities of his children.”
In other words, the system’s reach, if the allegations prove true, could extend into nearly every aspect of a user’s personal life.
The plaintiffs argue that Gemini’s analytical capabilities allow Google to “cross-reference and conduct unlimited analysis toward unmerited, improper, and monetizable insights” about users’ private relationships and behaviors.
The complaint brands the company’s actions as “deceptive and unethical,” claiming Google “surreptitiously turned on this AI tracking ‘feature’ without informing or obtaining the consent of Plaintiffs and Class Members.” Such conduct, it says, is “highly offensive” and “defies social norms.”
The case invokes a formidable set of statutes, including the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, the Stored Communications Act, and California’s constitutional right to privacy.
Google is yet to comment on the filing.
Reclaim The Net is reader-supported. Consider becoming a paid subscriber.
Continue Reading

Trending

X