Taxpayer Dollars Can’t Be Considered 'Free Money' Anymore

With the arrival of Trump 2.0, the winds of change are being felt across the Washingtonian swamp. For the status quo, spendthrift Deep Staters, those winds have a sub-zero windchill. But the usual suspects on the political and ideological Left aren’t taking the freeze sitting down.

A cadre of those who routinely feed at the governmental taxpayer monetary feed trough, including the National Council of Nonprofits and other Non-Government Organization (NGO) entities, have taken legal action against the Office of Management & Budget and its Acting Director, Matthew Vaeth, following a directive that halted the disbursement of federal grant and loan funds.

This move by Democrat attorneys general from states like New York, California, New Jersey, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island to sue over the policy seems less about legality and more about protecting the flow of “free” taxpayer federal money into Leftist and Left-leaning politically aligned non-profits and NGOs. Attorney General Letitia James of New York—you remember her, she’s one of the Soros-installed AGs that went after Donald Trump over business practices that no one had a problem with—James branded the directive as “dangerous, reckless, illegal, and unconstitutional.” She’s undoubtedly more concerned with maintaining funding for organizations that align with her specific political agendas rather than addressing the broader implications of fiscal responsibility.

Vaeth's rationale for the funding pause—to ensure that federal dollars are spent in alignment with the President's policy goals—highlights much-needed (and long overdue) scrutiny of how taxpayer money is funneled into special interest groups and non-profit organizations. This review is crucial, considering the vast sums often allocated to these entities, which may not reflect the interests or needs of the general populace but serve radical niche political ideologies.

As reported by The Hill.com:

“Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) accused the Trump administration of ‘blatantly’ disobeying the law ‘by holding up virtually all vital funds that support programs in every community across the country.’

“‘Congress approved these investments, and they are not optional; they are the law,’ Schumer said. ‘These grants help people in red states and blue states, support families, help parents raise kids, and lead to stronger communities.’

“He said the move could jeopardize ‘billions upon billions of community grants and financial support that help millions of people across the country. It will mean missed payrolls and rent payments and everything in between: chaos for everything from universities to non-profit charities.’”

The plaintiffs' claim that the guidance will devastate non-profits dependent on government grants paints a picture of organizations addicted to federal funding. This presents a legitimate point: questioning their sustainability and true independence. If these groups are so reliant on federal funds to operate, one must ask how effective or necessary their missions truly are without such support.

Furthermore, the argument that this guidance breaches the Administrative Procedure Act by being “arbitrary and capricious” reveals how the far-Left manipulates the law to advance their transformative and spendthrift agendas. It evidences an overreach by these organizations to shield their financial interests under the guise of legal rights. The assertion that this could infringe on First Amendment rights, particularly for groups advocating for Left-leaning causes like LGBTQ rights, suggests a fear that funding might be more critically evaluated based on merit rather than political alignment.

Basically, this lawsuit is less about protecting the constitutional rights of non-profits and NGOs and more about defending a profligate system where federal funds—taxpayer dollars, and taxpayer dollars in an age of incredible national debt—are disproportionately directed towards far-Left special interest groups at the expense of broader, more equitable—and constitutional—public policy goals.

The reaction to this funding pause indicates how entrenched some non-profits and NGOs have become in relying on government support (read taxpayer dollars), raising questions about the efficiency and impartiality of the federal funding distribution qualifying process.

Bottom line: If a non-profit organization or a federal grant-eligible non-government organization is worthy of support, that support should come exclusively from the private sector, not through the extraction of tax dollars—under threat by the taxman—from the general public. If you want to support a non-profit or NGO, I applaud you; more power to you. But government shouldn’t force me to support auxiliary organizations outside the constitutionally required entities of the federal government.

That’s the very meaning of “unconstitutional.”

In the end, the temporary funding freeze to evaluate which initiatives were receiving taxpayer dollars was rescinded, but not until billions of dollars in funding for special interests and unconstitutional wealth disbursement were eliminated.

Quite frankly, I think that the $50 million spent on condoms for Palestinians in Gaza—which they filled with flammable materials to firebomb farms and local civilian populations in Israel— or free benefits for people who have broken the law to be here in the first place, could be better spent on Americans in need right here in the United States.

But hey, I’m not a federally elected or appointed spendthrift, so what do I know…

Then, when we return, our segment on America’s Third Watch, broadcast nationally from our flagship station WGUL AM930 & FM93.7 in Tampa, Florida..

Underground USA is reader-supported. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber.

If Information Is Power, Then Data Is The Fuel

Before we go, a few words on yet another communist Chinese initiative to collect data on foreign nationals and, specifically, Americans.

DeepSeek, the Chinese app that triggered a $1 trillion meltdown in the US markets this week, is not only storing its rapidly expanding pools of US user data on servers in China but is also suspected of having ulterior motives driven by the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) agenda. This situation echoes the national security concerns that led to Congress's crackdown on TikTok.

Despite its popularity—it topped the charts in both Apple’s App Store and Google’s Play Store on Tuesday, with over 2 million downloads since its international debut—DeepSeek raises red-flag alarms (no pun intended) about data privacy and national security. Unlike other AI chatbots like ChatGPT, which also gather extensive user data, DeepSeek's use of China-based servers marks a significant and concerning distinction, posing a direct privacy threat to American users.

Angela Zhang, a law professor at the University of Southern California specializing in Chinese tech regulations, said:

“What sets this context apart is that DeepSeek is not just a company but a tool potentially leveraged by the CCP for surveillance and influence…The collection of sensitive data like IP addresses and keystroke patterns could easily be exploited for espionage or to manipulate public opinion, posing a clear national security threat.”

DeepSeek’s terms of service openly admit that user data is stored on "secure servers located in the People’s Republic of China," automatically collecting personal details including “device model, operating system, keystroke patterns or rhythms, IP address, and system language.” This level of access to personal data under the control of the CCP, which has a notorious record of using technology for authoritarian control, is deeply troubling.

All companies based in China are legally obligated to comply with the CCP's cybersecurity laws. These laws require them to share data with the government upon request, essentially making DeepSeek a conduit for state surveillance.

The security risks associated with DeepSeek's close ties to Beijing have prompted exacting responses; for instance, the US Navy has explicitly ordered its members to steer clear of using this chatbot, highlighting the gravity of the situation. This move underscores a broader concern about the strategic use of technology by the CCP to undermine privacy, security, and democratic values in the West.

The mainstream populace has gotten so used to thinking of Chinese business ventures as sympatico with Western business initiatives that they completely ignore that the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese People's Liberation Army are at the core of everything they do; at the core of their Commu-Capitalist economic system.

To wit: I suppose if you didn't listen about the dangers of TikTok, you wouldn't care about the dangers of this AI data-collecting communist Chinese initiative.

But if you are short-sighted enough not to see the danger of the communist Chinese amassing data on you and your children through these apps, then you are naive to the goals they have set for themselves: to be the domi