Trump admin reveals extent of planned USAID cuts — which will save America a fortune



The U.S. State Department confirmed Wednesday that the Trump administration is eliminating thousands of foreign assistance awards and grants at the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Peter Marocco, brought in by Secretary of State Marco Rubio to help run USAID, said in a statement to the federal district court presiding over two consolidated lawsuits brought against the administration by aid organizations that following a review, Secretary of State Marco Rubio decided to cut roughly 92% of the agency's grants, reported NPR.

According to a State Department memo reviewed by the Washington Free Beacon, the 92% figure reflects 5,800 grants valued at $54 billion at USAID that Trump administration officials are set to terminate. Auditors scrutinized over 9,100 more grants at the State Department, 4,100 of which — valued at $4.4 billion — are slated for elimination.

'Continuing this program is not in the national interest.'

"USAID evaluated 6,200 multi-year awards with $58.2 billion in value remaining," a State Department spokesman said in a statement to Axios. "Nearly 5,800 awards with $54 billion in value remaining were identified for elimination as part of the America First agenda."

In terms of awards that survived the cuts, roughly 500 at USAID and 2,700 at the State Department will remain.

Contractors learned of the award and grant terminations in a memo from USAID's office of acquisition and assistance. A copy of the memo obtained by NPR stated that Rubio and Marocco "have determined your award is not aligned with Agency priorities and made a determination that continuing this program is not in the national interest."

President Donald Trump noted in an aid-freezing executive order on his first day in office that the "foreign aid industry and bureaucracy are not aligned with American interests and in many cases antithetical to American values."

He further indicated that it would be the "policy of United States that no further United States foreign assistance shall be disbursed in a manner that is not fully aligned with the foreign policy of the President of the United States."

In turn, the State Department ordered a freeze on new funding for virtually all U.S. foreign assistance on Jan. 24.

Following a pair of lawsuits by aid organizations, a Biden judge issued a restraining order, requiring that the funding be released.

The U.S. Supreme Court temporarily blocked U.S. District Judge Amir H. Ali's restraining order Wednesday evening.

In addition to eliminating awards and grants to wasteful programs — for instance, USAID previously blew $45 million on DEI scholarships in Burma, $2 million on sex-change activism in Guatemala, and $20 million for a "Sesame Street" show in Iraq — the Trump administration has placed all personnel at USAID "with the exception of designated personnel responsible for mission-critical functions, core leadership and/or specially designated programs" on administrative leave and is firing 1,600 positions at the agency that are presently occupied.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Blaze News investigates: Sparing taxpayers from funding leftist propaganda



National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service are kept afloat with the help of taxpayer dollars. NPR has gone so far as to claim that "federal funding is essential to public radio's service to the American public and its continuation is critical for both stations and program producers, including NPR."

The media outfits' unmistakable ideological bias and imbalanced coverage in recent decades have prompted a steady stream of calls to defund both organizations or perhaps even to close the fountainhead of most of their taxpayer funding, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting — a move that would require lawmakers to revisit the Communications Act of 1934 and its amendments.

Following the re-election of President Donald Trump, who has characterized NPR as a scam and whose first administration sought to cut funding for the CPB, there has been mounting pressure both to ascertain whether NPR, PBS, and their respective member stations have violated federal bylaws and to spare American taxpayers from having to bankroll leftist propaganda.

Blaze News reviewed the media outfits' recent history of partisan hackery and reached out to a top critic of public broadcasting as well as to lawmakers involved in holding the taxpayer-funded media outfits accountable. It appears that to ensure no partisan media outfit is subsidized at taxpayers' expense, the government may have to get out of the business of public broadcasting altogether.

Funding

NPR, a beneficiary of National Endowment for the Arts grants, claims that less than 1% of its annual operating budget comes in the form of grants directly from the CPB — which has an operating budget of $545 million for fiscal year 2025 — and other federal sources.

The outfit, which operates as a syndicator to a network of well over 1,000 public radio stations, has acknowledged, however, that multitudes of public radio stations that receive grants directly from the CPB use the funds to "pay NPR and other public radio producers for their programming."

According to consolidated financial statements, the organization secured over $96.1 million in "core and other programming fees" in 2023, $93.2 million in 2022, $90.4 million in in 2021, and $92.5 million in 2020.

"These station programming fees are one of NPR's primary sources of revenue," noted the media outfit. "The loss of federal funding would undermine the stations' ability to pay NPR for programming, thereby weakening the institution."

Like NPR, public TV stations that receive CPB funding pay significant programming dues to PBS.

According to the public TV broadcaster, its flagship "News Hour" program, for instance, receives roughly 35% of its "annual funding/budget from CPB and PBS via national programming funds — a combination of CPB appropriation funds and annual programming dues paid to PBS by stations re-allocated to programs like ours."

A spokesman for PBS, which has over 330 member television stations, recently indicated that the organization receives 16% of its funding directly from the federal government each year.

Propaganda

While neither NPR nor PBS has done a good job hiding its political leanings, Uri Berliner, a Peabody Award-winning senior business editor who worked at NPR for 25 years, helped shine a spotlight last year on just how slanted public broadcasting has become, slamming NPR specifically in an opinion piece for mindlessly advancing Democratic propaganda and altogether giving up on journalistic independence.

Berliner, the son of an LGBT activist and a grandson of Holocaust victims, made clear at the outset he was no rightist, characterizing himself instead as something akin to the stereotypical NPR listener, "an EV-driving, Wordle-playing, tote bag-carrying coastal elite."

While acknowledging the media outfit’s long-standing "liberal bent," Berliner noted that NPR had effectively transformed into a Democratic propaganda machine, working vigorously to "damage or topple Trump's presidency," in part by "hitch[ing] our wagon to Trump's most visible antagonist, Representative Adam Schiff," and amplifying the Russia collusion hoax.

Berliner — who discovered that 87% of NPR’s Washington, D.C., editors and reporters were registered Democrats and that none were registered as Republicans — hammered NPR further for gaslighting Americans about the likely origins of COVID-19, for turning a blind eye to the Hunter Biden laptop scandal and its characterization of the damning story as a "pure distraction," and over its obsession with race.

While NPR's objectivity had been criticized for decades, Berliner suggested that "independent journalism" at the company really began to slip under former CEO John Lansing, who apparently used George Floyd's death as an excuse to center race and identity in everything the company did while eliminating any remaining "viewpoint diversity."

Berliner indicated that things worsened under the current CEO, Katherine Maher, a longtime BLM supporter who previously helped transform Wikipedia into a repository of leftist propaganda, publicly stated, "Donald Trump is a racist," and suggested that "our reverence for the truth might be a distraction that is getting in the way of finding common ground and getting things done."

After Maher said that Berliner had been "profoundly disrespectful, hurtful, and demeaning" for daring to question the neutrality and integrity of taxpayer-funded propagandists, NPR suspended him. The journalist resigned shortly thereafter.

PBS may not have a Berliner-caliber whistleblower to call its own, but it is certainly no better.

The Media Research Center conducted a study from June 1, 2023, to Nov. 30, 2024, analyzing political labels used by anchors, reporters, and contributors on PBS' "News Hour." PBS staff apparently threw around the term "far right" or some variation thereof 162 times but used the term "far left" only six times.

Reporters reflexively deemed social conservatives and Trump-adjacent Republicans as "extreme" or "extremists."

'I understand the importance of nonpartisan, balanced media coverage.'

While numerous reporters and guests liberally applied the "fascist" label to Trump or his polices, PBS reportedly clamped down on characterizations of failed presidential candidate Kamala Harris and other Democrats as Marxists or communists, writing them off as "slurs."

In another study published last year, the MRC tallied every comment made by PBS journalists during the Republican and Democratic national conventions. Of the 191 minutes of PBS commentary on the Republican National Convention, 72% of opinionated comments were reportedly negative and only 28% were positive.

For instance, when it came to the RNC, "News Hour" co-anchor Amna Nawaz exhibited no pretense of neutrality, accusing Republicans of "echoing some white supremacist notions" and veering "into outright racism."

The DNC coverage was a different story altogether. Not only did PBS air more speeches and footage from the Democratic convention than for the Republican convention, the co-anchors salivated over the speakers.

Geoff Bennett said that the "elevation and evolution" of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) was "so striking because she has found a way to blend populism and pragmatism and blend protest and power."

Not to be outdone by her co-anchor's fawning over AOC, Nawaz stated, "We know we're hearing a lot of this messaging around the joyful warriors that are Harris and Walz, which is really a stark contrast to what we saw on the Republican side."

Defunding

There have been numerous efforts in recent years to defund NPR, defund PBS, and/or shutter the CPB.

Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-Texas), for instance, took aim at both NPR and PBS with a bill in March 2023 titled the No Partisan Radio and Partisan Broadcasting Services Act. By the following year, the bill had 13 co-sponsors but did not go the distance.

Jackson noted that whereas at the time of the media outfits' initial receipt of federal funds, the understanding was that their content "would remain unbiased and benefit every American," it has become "obvious that NPR and PBS have abandoned their founding principles."

Following Berliner's suspension, Republican lawmakers narrowed their focus and pushed multiple bills aimed specifically at kneecapping NPR.

Rep. Claudia Tenney (R-N.Y.), for instance, introduced the Defund NPR Act of 2024, a piece of legislation co-sponsored by 16 other Republicans that would have prohibited federal funding to NPR or to any successor organization.

"As a former newspaper owner and publisher, I understand the importance of nonpartisan, balanced media coverage and have seen firsthand the left-wing bias in our news media," Tenney said at the time. "NPR is using American taxpayer dollars to manipulate the news and lie to the American people on behalf of a political agenda."

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, tried something different in December, introducing the No Propaganda Act, which would amend the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit federal funding for the CPB. Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) introduced a corresponding bill in the House.

Kennedy cast doubt on whether the over $15 billion already blown by Congress on the CPB has actually gone toward satisfying the organization's stated goal of educating, informing, fostering curiosity, and promoting civil discourse essential to American society, suggesting that instead it has merely bankrolled "Big Brother's propaganda outlet."

"The Corporation for Public Broadcasting refuses to provide Louisianans and Americans with fair, unbiased content," said Kennedy. "It wastes taxpayer dollars on slanted coverage to advance a leftist political agenda."

Mike Gonzalez, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation who has long written about the need to defund public broadcasting, emphasized to Blaze News that given the option of whether to defund the propaganda outfits or to defund the CPB altogether, the latter choice is optimal, although he'd personally seek to go farther.

Gonzalez, who indicated that no attempt at mending could justify keeping taxpayers on the hook for public broadcasting, said that Kennedy "going after the CPB is the right approach."

"I would prefer dissolving it," continued Gonzalez. "You can defund the CPB, but that only delays the problem. That's not a permanent solution."

'For my own part, I do not see a reason why Congress should continue sending taxpayer dollars to NPR and PBS.'

While Gonzalez anticipates that the liberal media will continue to circle the wagons and gripe over the potential loss of taxpayer cash to fellow travelers, he suggested that those open to defunding public broadcasting should not lose sight of NPR's and PBS' long-standing efforts to antagonize at least half the population..

"My liberal friends say, 'Look, this is important. We need more journalism, not less journalism.' I don’t, first of all, think [NPR and PBS] are going to go away, but if they go away, I don’t care," said Gonzalez. "Second of all, you have to know what they're doing."

Gonzalez noted that NPR and PBS "gave up any attempt at appearing impartial or objective in any way," adding that in the case of NPR, the choice of Maher as CEO was a crystal-clear message that things won't soon change for the better.

"Maher, on the record, is calling Trump racist. She was an enthusiastic supporter of Kamala Harris," said Gonzalez. "She's on the record as saying the First Amendment and our obsession with truth is getting in the way of consensus. Well, gee — that's the CEO of NPR. Anything else you need to know?"

Neither NPR nor PBS responded to Blaze News' request for comment by deadline.

Comeuppance

There is clearly blood in the water.

The Federal Communications Commission has public broadcasting in its sights, as does the new House Oversight Delivering on Government Efficiency subcommittee, which is chaired by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.).

On Jan. 29, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr announced that the commission's enforcement bureau was opening an investigation into the airing of NPR and PBS programming across their various broadcast member stations.

Carr expressed concern that the two media outfits might be in violation of federal law by airing commercials. While apparently concerned that NPR and PBS member stations might be testing the boundaries of their federal noncommercial authorizations, Carr made no secret that the investigation could furnish lawmakers with further justification to pull the plug on the whole project.

"Congress is actively considering whether to stop requiring taxpayers to subsidize NPR and PBS programming," wrote Carr. "For my own part, I do not see a reason why Congress should continue sending taxpayer dollars to NPR and PBS, given the changes in the media marketplace since the passage of the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967."

'We shouldn't be taxing the American people to fund radically left-wing propaganda.'

"To the extent that these taxpayer dollars are being used to support a for-profit endeavor or an entity that is airing commercial advertisements, then that would further undermine any case for continuing to fund NPR and PBS with taxpayer dollars," added Carr.

On Feb. 3, Greene invited the CEOs from NPR and PBS to testify at a hearing in March regarding their biased news coverage. Both Katherine Maher and Paula Kerger were notified that the hearing constitutes an opportunity to explain why they feel they deserve to continue receiving federal funds.

The subcommittee said in a release, "NPR and PBS have repeatedly undermined public trust by ignoring stories that were damaging to the Biden administration, dismissing genuine calls for balanced reporting, and pushing partisan coverage. As stewards of tax dollars, NPR and PBS have an obligation to provide objective and accurate coverage that serves all Americans."

When asked about the perceived need to defund NPR and PBS and the significance of doing so, a spokesman for Greene told Blaze News that the congresswoman "is looking forward to the hearing and questioning the heads of these publicly funded media outlets, and her letters speak for themselves."

In Greene's letters to the CEOs of the liberal media outfits, she noted on both occasions that as organizations that receive federal funds through their member stations, they should provide reporting that serves "the entire public, not just a narrow slice of like-minded individuals and ideological interest groups."

When asked about the prospect of defunding NPR and PBS or dissolving the CPB altogether, Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas), a member of the DOGE subcommittee, told Blaze News in a statement, "I fully support defunding these organizations and am exploring legislative options to ensure public funds are spent responsibly."

"We shouldn't be taxing the American people to fund radically left-wing propaganda," continued Gill. "Nothing about NPR or PBS is neutral, and taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to bankroll news organizations that hate them and everything they stand for."

While NPR appears set in its ways, PBS — having seen the writing on the wall — appears eager to placate some of its harshest critics by doing the bare minimum: its lawful obligation.

A PBS spokesman confirmed to the Hollywood Reporter on Feb. 10 that the organization had shuttered its race-obsessed DEI office in order to comply with President Donald Trump's executive order "ending radical and wasteful government DEI programs and preference."

"The staff members who served in that office are leaving PBS. We will continue to adhere to our mission and values. PBS will continue to reflect all of America and remain a welcoming place for everyone," the spokesman said in a statement.

While it was apparently easy to shutter the DEI office and kick to the curb Cecilia Loving, the organization's senior vice president of DEI, eliminating political bias at PBS and NPR would be a herculean feat with no promise of a lasting solution.

When condemning the use of taxpayer funds for public broadcasting during the first Trump administration, Mike Gonzalez appealed to Thomas Jefferson to help make his point, quoting the third president as saying, "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagations of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

DOGE Is Deadly To The Swamp And A Ray Of Light For The American Taxpayer

We’re getting a much better look at the cancer killing this republic. The DOGE is proving to be a pretty powerful MRI.

Time magazine tries defending Harris by fact-checking Trump — then forced into all-time correction



During Tuesday's debate, President Donald Trump said that Kamala Harris "wants to do transgender operations on illegal aliens that are in prison," adding, "This is a radical left liberal that would do this."

The liberal media dutifully rushed to defend the vice president, claiming that Trump's assertion was false — which it is not. In doing so, misleading publications like the New Yorker not only drew greater attention to Harris' desire to mutilate illegal aliens' genitals using taxpayer money, but to their own propagandic nature.

Time magazine, another publication whose writers evidently underestimated Harris' radicalism, was among the offenders. Confronted with the truth of Trump's claim, it had to issue an embarrassing correction Wednesday.

'The truth was too crazy for the fact checkers.'

On Monday, CNN's investigative outfit KFile unearthed an American Civil Liberties Union questionnaire completed in 2019 by then-Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), which revealed several of Harris' extreme positions and goals.

Harris indicated that she supported the decriminalization of all drug possession for personal use; statehood for Washington, D.C.; the repeal of the Hyde Amendment; ending illegal alien detention facilities; and cutting Immigration and Customs Enforcement funding.

Harris also vowed to ensure that "federal prisoners and detainees are able to obtain medically necessary care for gender transition, including surgical care, while incarcerated or detained."

Time magazine, which has previously concern-mongered about "disinformation" and "fake news," originally reported:

The former President repeated a baseless Internet rumor that migrant invaders were killing and eating pet dogs and cats in Springfield, Ohio, and falsely claimed that Harris 'wants to do transgender operations on illegal aliens in prison.'

The publication has since updated the article to read:

Trump glowered and grimaced, spewing old grievances and strange new attacks. The former President repeated a baseless Internet rumor that migrant invaders were killing and eating pet dogs and cats in Springfield, Ohio, and claimed that Harris 'wants to do transgender operations on illegal aliens in prison.'

The latest version contains a corrective note at the very bottom admitting that Time's original story "mischaracterized as false Donald Trump's statement accusing Kamala Harris of supporting 'transgender operations on illegal aliens in prison.'"

"As a presidential candidate in 2019, Harris filled out a questionnaire saying she supported taxpayer-funded gender transition treatment for detained immigrants," added Time's correction.

Donald Trump Jr. noted on X, "Unreal."

Former presidential candidate and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy said, "Turns out the truth was too crazy for the fact checkers."

Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk tweeted, "Kamala, TIME, and ABC collectively got owned on one simple, easily confirmed fact-check. This is fantastic."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Exclusive: All Things Considered, Lawmakers Say It’s Time To Defund NPR

Rep. Bob Good is introducing a bill that would prohibit federal funds in general from going to the radio network.

Minnesota Democrats push basic income program where illegal aliens can qualify for monthly handout of $500 or more



Minnesota Democrats want to implement a freewheeling basic income program that would redistribute taxpayer money to residents identifying as needy — including illegal aliens.

House File 2666, sponsored by Democratic state Rep. Athena Hollins, cleared the House Children and Families Finance and Policy Committee on a voice vote Tuesday. Since the Democratic Party controls the office of the governor and both chambers of the legislature, the bill stands a good chance of success.

If harmonized with the state Senate's companion bill, Senate File 2559, and then implemented, $100 million would be sucked out of the General Fund in fiscal year 2025. This money would, in turn, be granted out to intermediaries. These nonprofits would be tasked doling out cash in monthly increments ranging from $350 to $1,200 to those individuals and families they deem deserving for a period of 12 to 24 months.

To qualify for this taxpayer-funded handout, prospective recipients must "be receiving public benefits or have a household income less than or equal to 300 percent of the federal poverty guidelines." Recipients also apparently don't have to prove their financial need with paperwork or proper identification.

The bill explicitly states that "grantees may set other eligibility requirements for the eligible recipients it serves under this section but must not require any other income, proof of residency or citizenship, or identifying documentation of any recipient."

Once an individual is enrolled in the program on the basis of an attestation that they qualify, they will not have to recertify. Hollins confirmed that even if a recipient gets a good job the day after qualifying, they would get to continue to draw payments.

Handouts will also not be considered as income, meaning recipients' eligibility for other welfare programs will not be affected.

Republican state Rep. Walter Hudson was critical of the proposed legislation during Tuesday's committee hearing, noting, "I think I know what this bill is trying to do, but I am confused as to the method that it is utilizing in order to do it."

"We have mechanisms within the state in order to facilitate [a universal basic income]," said Hudson. "We have our Department of Revenue. They could identify those who meet an income qualification and then provide monthly deposits through a secure cash-benefit system. Instead, what this bill does is it gets middlemen involved including nonprofits. As I see it, there are no quality controls on those nonprofits."

Hudson noted further the bill provides for no ways to "verify who's getting the money"; to ensure there won't be abuses among the intermediaries such as kickback schemes; and to regulate how intermediaries spend money on their employees.

Republican state Rep. Ben Davis indicated the bill also lacks any measure to ensure the taxpayer-funded handouts won't ultimately be blown on addicts' drug habits.

"I've worked in alcohol and drug abuse recovery programs for 12 years, and I've seen a lot of abuse with government funds being spent on peoples' addictions," said Davis. "I would highly encourage us to have something in here that says, 'Hey, you got to turn in some receipts on what you are spending this money on.' We need more accountability."

Democrats were not overly concerned about the potential for abuse. They did, however, seize upon Hudson's mention that the legislation would enable illegal aliens to draw monthly payments.

Hollins, the bill's sponsor, said in response, "I do think that it is important that we extend this — because it's a pilot program — to individuals who may not have documentation."

Hollins further suggested that it was prudent to include illegal aliens in the program in the interest of collecting more data to know how "to best implement something like this in the future if we wanted to do something at the statewide level that identifies all the people."

Democratic state Rep. Liz Lee argued that illegal aliens should be eligible because they allegedly pay taxes to the state.

"The Minnesota tax base is funded by undocumented and noncitizens," said Lee.

State Rep. Carlie Kotyza-Witthuhn echoed Lee, claiming, "We earn $5.8 billion dollars off the backs of undocumented immigrants in the state of Minnesota. ... They are paying taxes, and we should be supporting them."

— (@)

The rollout of universal basic income without a requirement that recipients provide legal documentation would be a bonus for those illegal aliens already drawing heavily on federal welfare benefits.

Citing data from the 2022 Survey of Income and Program Participation, the Center for Immigration Studies concluded in a December report that an estimated 59.4% of households headed by illegal aliens drew on at least one major taxpayer-funded welfare support.

As a cohort, illegal aliens reportedly use every welfare program at "statistically significant higher rates than the U.S.-born, except for [Supplemental Security Income], [Temporary Assistance for Needy Families], and housing."

The House Committee on Homeland Security indicated in a November 2023 report that "for every one million parolees released into the United States on [Department of Homeland Security Alejandro] Mayorkas' watch, the cost in federal welfare benefits that will be incurred could total $3 billion annually, with those costs starting to kick in January 2026."

Blaze News previously reported that the estimated annual cost to house known gotaways and illegal aliens released into the country under Biden's watch is $451 billion.

Alpha News reported that HF2666 will next be taken up by the state House Human Services Finance Committee.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

House Republicans Agree To Help Democrats Grow The Welfare State And Shrink The Workforce

Committee members just took another step toward more low-income families on the government rolls than in work.

Taxpayer-subsidized art center in Minnesota holds 'playful demon summoning session' for families



A contemporary art museum in Minneapolis, which has received millions in taxpayer funds, invited families earlier this month to "participate in a playful ceremony to summon and befriend their demon."

The Walker Art Center, which Alpha News indicated has enjoyed funding from the Arts and Cultural Heritage Fund, advertised demon-summoning activities from 10 a.m. until 1 p.m. on Aug. 5 at the Minneapolis Sculpture Garden.

"Demons have a bad reputation, but maybe we're just not very good at getting to know them," said the event listing on the art center's website. "Do you have a demon that creeps into your thoughts? ... Work with visiting artist Tamar Ettun to design a vessel for holding the demon you know best!"

Tamar Ettun, a so-called performance artist who refers to herself as a sexual plurality, seeks through the ongoing "multidisciplinary project" she brought to the art center to conjure the "aerial spirit demon, Lilit (Lilith), whose story traces back to ancient Sumerian, Akkadian, and Judaic mythology."

The seeming occultist writes on her website, "In the 2nd-7th centuries, artist-healers created spells, drawings, and talismanic objects to trap demons like Lilit, who was characterized as a dangerously sexual female entity, and appeared frequently on incantation bowls used in protective rituals. The rituals were often performed by womxn concerened [sic] with medical issues like pregnancy and birth. I revive these practices through a feminist lens by subverting Lilit’s misogynistic archetype and revamping her image as an Empathic Demon."

To this end, she takes on the "persona of Lilit and, through text messages, interact[s] with several hundreds of people every month ... who frequently write her back with snippets about their lives and demons."

Having adopted the persona of the ancient demon who she acknowledges is associated with "unchecked violence and manipulation" and who first "came to her" after she learned she was pregnant, Ettun then provides instructions to her occultist pen pals that "lead to offline actions, such as an exercise that leads participants to find something in their home shaped like a full moon, and use it to draw on their body."

Beyond fielding questions on behalf of the demon, earlier this summer, Ettun raised inflated sculptures in the demon's honor outside Vermont's Shelburne Museum.

It does not appear that her exhibits are entirely bloodless. Her previous display at an art college in Purchase, New York, appears to have involved imagery of her burying another woman's placenta.

Following the instruction of children and adults on how to construct a "vessel" to hold their demons earlier this month, the Walker Art Center indicated, "Lilit the Empathic Demon will come from the dark side of the moon to lead you in locating your feelings using ancient Babylonian techniques. This collective and playful demon summoning session will conclude with a somatic movement meditation, designed to help you befriend your shadows."

Besides demon summoning, it appears Minnesota taxpayers have subsidized a number of other questionable activities.

Alpha News previously reported that as of 2021, Minnesota's Arts and Cultural Heritage Fund, which has supported the demon-friendly Walker Arts Center, had spent over $630 million on leftist groups and propaganda, including an adaptation of the "Sleeping Beauty" fairy tale "collaboratively re-imagined through a queer lens"; an anti-police documentary; a group that supports transvestic agitprop in film; a theater company's production of "queer and trans stories"; "Drag Story Hour in Minneapolis"; and a production called "Queertopia."

7 MINUTES TAMAR ETTUN MARCH 27 2020youtu.be

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Video: Dan Crenshaw floors Democratic witness with simple request for scientific proof that child sex-change mutilations are beneficial: 'Tell me one. Name one study.'



Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) pressed expert witnesses Wednesday about the scientific justification for sex-change mutilations of children and the potential long-term benefits of such irreversible procedures. The Texas congressman did not have to press hard to find that there was little in the way of a tenable rationale beyond that found in pseudo-scientific activist literature.

The Subcommittee on Health convened to take up a number of proposals concerning health care access and research support for rare diseases. The committee also discussed the reauthorization of a program that sends taxpayer money to children's hospitals.

The Children's Hospital Graduate Medical Education Payment Program, contingent on legislation that comes up for reauthorization every five years, doled out roughly $356 million to 59 hospitals nationwide last year.

Crenshaw seeks to ensure that the program does not ultimately direct taxpayer money to children's hospitals that mutilate kids, stating, "This is taxpayer money, and when 70% of taxpayers opposed these barbaric treatments on minors, then taxpayers should not fund it."

He has proposed an amendment to that effect, conditioning reauthorization on the prohibition of funds going toward children's hospitals that, at any point during the preceding fiscal year "furnished gender-affirming care ... to an individual under 18 years of age."

During the hearing, he broached the issue with Dr. Meredithe McNamara, an assistant professor of pediatrics at Yale School of Medicine.

McNamara, opposed to Crenshaw's proposed amendment, claimed in her testimony, "This bill would require children's hospitals to deny kids health care to maintain funding. ... Kids suffer when their legislators remove parents' rights and prevent pediatricians from providing the evidence-based standard of care."

McNamara further indicated, "Gender-affirming care is the only evidence-based treatment for gender dysphoria. ... The scientific evidence shows that GAC is lifesaving care that improves mental health and physical well-being in those experiencing gender dysphoria."
"It is very unscientific and flawed to pick a single study or a single statistic and discuss it in isolation. ... Medical experts are able to talk about all of the evidence as a whole," McNamara told Crenshaw.

Agreeing, Crenshaw said, "It's good to look at systematic reviews, right? That's the gold standard of evidence when you're trying to understand whether something works or doesn't. So the [British Medical Journal] looked at 61 systematic reviews with the conclusion that 'there is great uncertainty about the effects of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgeries in young people.' The Journal of the Endocrine Society came up with the same conclusion. Even the American Academy of Pediatrics all cite the lack of evidence."

"When you're talking about permanent physiological changes, do you not agree, just from an ethical standpoint, that you might want extremely strong evidence of the benefits? And there is no systematic review that states that there is strong evidence of benefits," said Crenshaw.

Given McNamara's repeated allusion to evidence, Crenshaw looked to McNamara to provide some.

McNamara responded, "The standards of care were developed based on extensive —"

Crenshaw interjected, saying, "You're not telling me any journal. You're not telling any study. Don't say 'standards of care.' Tell me one."

The so-called expert appeared flummoxed, reiterating, "The standards of care."

"'The standards of care.' That’s not a journal. That’s not a study. That’s not an organization. It’s not an institution. You’re just saying words. Name one study," said Crenshaw. "Tell me one. Name one study."

\u201c"Name. One. Study."\n\n@RepDanCrenshaw corners Dem witness on her support of gender transition for children \u2013 and she can't name a single study that states the benefits of transgender procedures on kids! \ud83d\udd25\u201d
— Kara Zupkus (@Kara Zupkus) 1686773121

The Washington Examiner reported that Crenshaw later posed similar questions to child and adult psychologist Miriam Grossman, who noted, "Medicine is unfortunately permeated with politics at this point. ... Now, ideally, we wouldn’t be stepping in. Who wants the government stepping in between doctors and parents and children? ... But when there’s something that is so wrong that is going on, then I think we have to."

Crenshaw said in a June 9 statement, "There is no other human rights atrocity in America that is so quickly gaining momentum and validation within the very institutions that should know better."

"One of these institutions is children’s hospitals. In a place where 'do no harm' is the ultimate guiding principle, there is no excuse to ever perform these treatments that permanently alter a child’s physiology," said the Texas congressman. "From now on, we will not allow a dime of this taxpayer-funded program to go toward children’s hospitals that cater to the harmful pseudoscience that is 'gender-affirming care.'"

Here is the full exchange:

Dan Crenshaw Speaks on Blocking Program Funding for Hospitals Providing Gender Transition for Minors youtu.be

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Durham Report: FBI Proposed Paying Russia-Collusion Hoaxer Igor Danchenko To Silence Him After Learning He Lied

The FBI brought Danchenko on as a confidential human source in March 2017 after he spent months fabricating dirt on Donald Trump.