Opinion| USAID FUNDING & The Hypocrisy of Selective Outrage

A recent disclosure revealing federal taxpayer dollars flowing into private institutions—nonprofits, media organizations, and even individual journalists—has ignited widespread discussion. However, the response to this revelation exposes a glaring inconsistency: when individuals or organizations deemed “favorable” receive this funding, their supporters rationalize or excuse it. Yet, when the same financial entanglements involve recipients they dislike, they quickly label it as corruption or undue influence. This selective outrage is not just a matter of bias—it highlights a deeper structural issue that demands consistency, not convenience.

Eight years ago, I set out to build relationship data models between individuals, influencers, media outlets, corporations, and nonprofits across both the political left and right that I have showcased throughout the years. My work was rooted in data—indisputable facts connecting financial flows and influence networks. The accuracy of this data was so impactful that it led to a deliberate effort by The New York Times to silence me on Twitch—an incident that many now conveniently pretend never happened. The reason for this suppression is apparent: the data doesn’t lie. Those in power feared transparency because it exposed uncomfortable truths about how money moves through the system.

Data Republican (@DataRepublican) also had a great idea and was able to bring to fruition what I had pioneered eight years ago, but I could not deliver in the incredible way they have. They expanded it into an advanced search tool that enables the public to trace these financial connections with unprecedented clarity. Yet, despite these hard facts, many still attempt to justify specific funding streams while condemning others. This is the very definition of hypocrisy.

The reality is this: money laundering doesn’t cease to be laundering simply because the final recipient aligns with your values. The idea that federal dollars become “clean” merely because they’ve passed through multiple intermediaries is a financial sleight of hand that obscures the true nature of influence. If one entity accepting these funds is deemed compromised, all entities receiving them are equally compromised. The standard must be applied universally, not selectively based on political or ideological preference.

This pattern of excuse-making is nothing new. We saw it during the COVID-19 pandemic when the establishment aggressively silenced dissenting voices while propping up narratives that later proved flawed. Those questioning the official story were ridiculed, while those toeing the line were praised—until the facts could no longer be ignored. Now, the same pattern is repeating itself in discussions of financial influence. When the data exposes uncomfortable truths, the response is not to confront the reality but to dismiss, discredit, or justify it based on convenience.

Facts don’t change based on who they implicate. Either financial entanglements are problematic, or they aren’t. But if we only apply scrutiny when it serves our interests and dismiss it when it doesn’t, we no longer engage in honest discourse—we are engaging in deception.

One of the most common excuses to dismiss concerns over financial influence is the claim that “you can’t track every dollar” or that “not every dollar comes from the same source.” This line of reasoning is not just weak—it is precisely the obfuscation that enables corruption. If money cannot be properly accounted for, that isn’t an argument for ignoring it; it’s an argument for demanding even greater scrutiny. The inability—or unwillingness—to trace funds dollar for dollar does not absolve the recipient; it raises even more red flags. Plausible deniability is not proof of innocence—it is the very mechanism by which financial corruption operates.

This is the foundation of money laundering. The whole point is to pass funds through multiple hands, making it difficult, if not impossible, to track the true origin of the money. By the time it reaches its final recipient, it has been “washed” through so many intermediaries that it appears legitimate. This isn’t speculation—it is a well-documented financial practice used by governments, corporations, criminal organizations, and intelligence agencies for decades. It is why shell companies exist, offshore accounts flourish, and powerful interests rely on complex funding networks rather than direct transactions.

Yet, when this same method is used to funnel taxpayer dollars into private institutions, media organizations, or nonprofits, people suddenly abandon their skepticism. The same individuals scrutinizing corporate lobbying, dark money in politics, or financial manipulation by adversaries turn a blind eye when the money lands in the pockets of those they support. But the truth is inescapable: if money is tainted at its source, it does not become “clean” simply because you approve of where it ends up.

The reality is that everyone taking federal funds is, in some capacity, tied to the same system. If accepting this money is problematic for one entity, it is problematic for all. Yet we constantly see people drawing artificial distinctions—excusing funding when it benefits their preferred figures while condemning it when it serves their opponents. This is moral relativism at its worst. There is no ethical exemption based on ideology, personal preference, or the perceived virtue of the recipient. The standard must be universal, or it is meaningless.

Ultimately, the truth is simple: money always has strings attached. Whether those strings are political, ideological, or institutional, they exist. Pretending otherwise is not just naïve—it is willful deception.

It is time to stop making excuses for those who took money without questioning its origins. Throughout history, financial influence has been one of the most effective tools for shaping narratives, controlling institutions, and maintaining power. Whether through Operation Mockingbird, where the CIA funneled money into media organizations to control public perception, or the Panama Papers, which exposed how global elites used financial networks to conceal and legitimize illicit funds, the lesson remains the same: money is never neutral. It always serves an agenda.

The notion that individuals or organizations can accept federal funds—especially from sources deeply entangled in political or ideological interests—without consequences is either dangerously naive or willfully dishonest. When journalists, nonprofits, or corporations accept money without due diligence, they become part of the system they claim to scrutinize. The same individuals who once championed the importance of “following the money” are now complicit in turning a blind eye when that money benefits their interests.

This is not a theoretical concern; it is an observable pattern. We have seen this in the pharmaceutical industry, where government agencies and media outlets that received massive funding from significant drug manufacturers failed to provide unbiased reporting. We have seen it in academia, where institutions that receive grants from politically motivated entities subtly shift research priorities in alignment with their funders. We have seen it in the nonprofit sector, where activist groups that receive federal or corporate money conveniently avoid criticizing the hands that feed them.

History has repeatedly shown that when people fail to question where money comes from, they become tools rather than independent actors. Financial dependency always breeds influence—whether explicit or subtle. This is why genuine accountability must apply universally, not selectively. No one should be given a free pass simply because they are liked or claim to serve a noble cause. When financial scrutiny becomes a matter of convenience rather than principle, the conversation is no longer about ethics but power and control.

The truth is simple: you are responsible for the money you take. If you didn’t ask where it came from, if you didn’t question the intent behind it, if you allowed yourself to become dependent on it—then you were part of the problem. History will not remember the excuses. It will only remember who dared to demand transparency (@doge ) and who chose to remain silent when it was politically or personally advantageous.

Follow the Money: The Inescapable Truth of Power and Influence

“Follow the money”—a phrase as simple as it is profound. It is not a theory, a slogan, or an undeniable truth that has withstood the test of time. Money is the universal language of influence. It does not lie or operate in abstraction, and it always leads to those who hold real power. No matter how noble the intentions, how righteous the cause, or how charismatic the individuals involved, every financial transaction leaves a trail—a trail that, when followed, reveals who is really in control.

For decades, this principle has been the key to unraveling corruption, exposing backroom deals, and dismantling illusions of independence. It has unmasked how industries control regulations, how media narratives are shaped, and how unseen hands quietly steer political movements. From Watergate to the Iran-Contra affair, from Enron’s financial deception to the global banking crisis of 2008, every major scandal that rocked institutions and governments could be traced back to a straightforward question: Who funded it?

The power of “follow the money” cuts through ideology, deception, and emotional rhetoric. It doesn’t matter whether the funding is tied to governments, corporations, nonprofits, or intelligence agencies—the money will always tell the truth. The mere act of tracing financial flows exposes the motives that people try so desperately to conceal. It forces uncomfortable conversations. It reveals conflicts of interest. And more often than not, it shows that those who claim to be independent, ethical, or altruistic are anything but.

This is why those in power aggressively resisted financial transparency. It is why political candidates refuse to disclose their donors, multinational corporations hide behind subsidiaries, advocacy groups downplay the origins of their funding, and institutions create layers of intermediaries to obscure accountability. The carefully curated illusions crumble when people start genuinely following the money.

Once again, it is crucial to consider the Panama Papers, where leaked financial documents revealed how world leaders, corporations, and criminals used offshore accounts to launder money and evade taxes. The 2008 economic collapse, where predatory lending and reckless Wall Street speculation were driven by a system that rewarded profit over stability. Or even more recently, the COVID-19 funding pipelines, where billions of taxpayer dollars flowed into pharmaceutical companies, media campaigns, and so-called “fact-checkers” without scrutiny—while those who questioned the financial incentives were smeared as conspiracy theorists.

Every single time, the answer was there. Follow the money. It will always expose the truth. It will always lead to the root of corruption. And it will always separate those who are genuinely independent from simply actors playing a role in someone else’s script.

This principle is non-negotiable. It is not up for debate. Those who refuse to apply it universally, who defend financial entanglements for those they like while condemning them for those they dislike, are not fighting corruption—they are protecting it. Ultimately, every hidden motive, every corrupt deal, and every controlled institution can be traced back to one thing: who paid for it?

TIP ME

If you like my work, you can tip or support me via TIP ME or subscribe to me on Subscribestar! You can also follow and subscribe to me on Rumble and Locals or subscribe to my Substack or on X. I am 100% people-funded. www.toresays.com