Corruption hunters say Trump's USAID cuts just made organized crime groups 'much more dangerous'
While most of the fallout from the destruction of USAID will be felt abroad, journalists who were formerly funded by the agency say that the cuts are likely to enable organized crime and corruption abroad, which ultimately impact everyday Americans.
The Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project is among the largest international investigative journalism outfits, and up until a few weeks ago, the project received significant funding from USAID. The group's reporting has been involved with some of the biggest international corruption stories in recent memory, including the Panama Papers, the Paradise Papers and the Russian Laundromat.
Drew Sullivan, an investigative reporter and one of the founders of OCCRP, told Salon that the organization received about 38% of its operational budget from the United States government, coming through agencies like USAID, the National Endowment of Democracy and the State Department. Since the cuts came down, Sullivan said the organization has had to lay off about 40% of its staff.
This has impacted reporting projects covering topics from Tren de Aragua in El Salvador to 'Ndrangheta in Italy to money laundering operations buying up real estate in the United States. Sullivan said, from even from strictly an efficiency standpoint, the cuts don't make sense, because OCCRP's investigations, and the investigations conducted by its partner organizations, have helped return more money to Americans than it costs to keep these outfits open.
'We've had a tremendous return to U.S. taxpayers. Over $3 billion has been returned to U.S. coffers in the United States,' Sullivan said. 'Every dollar invested in OCCRP has returned $100 to the U.S. Treasury or other government agencies'
This, Sullivan says, is in addition to the fact that cutting funding for journalists leaves many of them vulnerable to arrest or at risk of being removed from the country they work in, as many require work visas.
Pavla Holcova, a regional editor for OCCRP in Central Europe, worked on investigations into topics like the Pegasus Project and the Russian Asset Tracker.
'It's kind of short-sighted to think that the U.S. will save money by cutting this budget, because we, as journalists, getting this kind of grants, we are just keeping the environment for business much more transparent and much more accountable than it would be otherwise,' Holcova told Salon.
One OCCRP investigation, for example, exposed how real estate in American cities like New York and Miami have become top destinations for those seeking to invest laundered cash. The demand for such investment properties rose to a level that developers appear to have contributed millions to New York City politicians in what appears to have been a successful effort to secure millions of dollars in tax breaks for developers building luxury properties.
Holcova said, in her view, the cuts by President Donald Trump and Republicans are short-sighted and that these issues of corruption and organized crime are likely to become 'much more dangerous' if reporting teams are disassembled.
Attila Biro, another journalist associated with OCCRP, reports on crime and corruption from Romania. His work in Romania led him to cover a credit-card skimming operation in Latin America. In the operation, an international gang operating in Romania and Mexico allegedly stole the credit card information of tourists by tampering with ATMs. The scheme brought in around $1.2 billion, which was funneled into real estate investments in the United States and Brazil.
'If you were a tourist and you were going to Cancun, and you were using your credit card there, there were big, big chances that your data was stolen by this organized crime group that we have investigated. We have exposed them. We have showed the authorities how they are acting, and the FBI and other law enforcement in Mexico, in Romania and other parts shut this group down,' Biro told Salon. 'You know, we are going after organized crime figures that affect everyone, no matter what type of political affiliation you have, you know, like monsters who steal from, you know, Democrats and Republicans at the same rate.'Biro said funding through OCCRP and the United States government enabled their investigation and the training of reporters to do these sorts of investigations. He said without this funding, his organization is taking things 'month by month.'
As it stands, OCCRP is one of the organizations that has sued the federal government in an attempt to restore the funding it was supposed to receive, as allocated by Congress, and it joined with the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition in the suit.
While the federal judge hearing the case agreed and ordered funding restored, the White House responded by claiming that, despite the court order, the administration still maintained the authority to freeze funds and terminate grants.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
36 minutes ago
EPA employees put names to 'declaration of dissent' over agency moves under Trump
A group of Environmental Protection Agency employees on Monday published a declaration of dissent from the agency's policies under the Trump administration, saying they 'undermine the EPA mission of protecting human health and the environment.' More than 170 EPA employees put their names to the document, with about 100 more signing anonymously out of fear of retaliation, according to Jeremy Berg, a former editor-in-chief of Science magazine who is not an EPA employee but was among non-EPA scientists or academics to also sign. The latter figure includes over 70 Nobel laureates. The letter represents rare public criticism from agency employees who could face blowback for speaking out against a weakening of funding and federal support for climate, environmental and health science. Scientists at the National Institutes of Health made a similar move earlier in June. "Since the Agency's founding in 1970, EPA has accomplished (its) mission by leveraging science, funding, and expert staff in service to the American people. Today, we stand together in dissent against the current administration's focus on harmful deregulation, mischaracterization of previous EPA actions, and disregard for scientific expertise," the letter read. Agency spokespeople did not immediately respond Monday to messages seeking comment. 'I'm really sad. This agency, that was a superhero for me in my youth, we're not living up to our ideals under this administration. And I really want us to,' said Amelia Hertzberg, an environmental protection specialist at the EPA who has been on administrative leave since February from the Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights, while the administration works to close down her department. Hertzberg's work focused on the most vulnerable groups impacted by pollution: pregnant and nursing people, young children and babies, the elderly, people with preexisting and chronic health conditions and people living in communities exposed to higher levels of pollution. That wasn't supposed to be controversial, but it's become so in this political climate, she said. 'Americans should be able to drink their water and breathe their air without being poisoned. And if they aren't, then our government is failing,' she said. Berg, who also directed the National Institute of General Medical Sciences at NIH from 2003-2011, said the dissent isn't motivated by partisan criticism. He said the employees hope it will help the EPA get back to the mission for which it was established — which 'only matters if you breathe air and drink water." The letter outlines what the EPA employees see as five main concerns: undermining public trust; ignoring scientific consensus to benefit polluters; reversing EPA's progress in America's most vulnerable communities; dismantling the Office of Research and Development; and promoting a culture of fear, forcing staff to choose between their livelihood and well-being. Under Administrator Lee Zeldin, EPA has cut funding for environmental improvements in minority communities, vowed to roll back federal regulations that lower air pollution in national parks and tribal reservations, wants to undo a ban on a type of asbestos and proposed repealing rules that limit planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions from power plants fueled by coal and natural gas. Zeldin began reorganizing the EPA's research and development office as part of his push to slash their budget and gut their study of climate change and environmental justice. And he's seeking to roll back pollution rules that an Associated Press examination found were estimated to save 30,000 lives and $275 billion every year. 'People are going to die,' said Carol Greider, a Nobel laureate and professor of molecular and cellular biology at the University of California, Santa Cruz, who also signed the letter. She described last week's East Coast heat wave as evidence of the ways people are feeling the effects of climate change. 'And if we don't have scientists at the EPA to understand how what we do that goes into the air affects our health, more people are going to die,' she added. Berg said the declarations of dissent from both the NIH and EPA employees are noteworthy because they represent scientists speaking out as their careers are on the line. Even non-agency employees have to consider whether the government will withdraw research funding. Greider, asked about fears of repercussions or retaliation, said she's 'living the repercussions of everything.' She regularly meets with graduate students who are worried about pursuing scientific careers as labs lose funding. It's a long-term problem if we aren't supporting the next generation of scientists, she said: "That's decades worth of loss.' ___
Associated Press
an hour ago
- Associated Press
EPA employees put names to 'declaration of dissent' over agency moves under Trump
A group of Environmental Protection Agency employees on Monday published a declaration of dissent from the agency's policies under the Trump administration, saying they 'undermine the EPA mission of protecting human health and the environment.' More than 170 EPA employees put their names to the document, with about 100 more signing anonymously out of fear of retaliation, according to Jeremy Berg, a former editor-in-chief of Science magazine who is not an EPA employee but was among non-EPA scientists or academics to also sign. The latter figure includes over 70 Nobel laureates. The letter represents rare public criticism from agency employees who could face blowback for speaking out against a weakening of funding and federal support for climate, environmental and health science. Scientists at the National Institutes of Health made a similar move earlier in June. 'Since the Agency's founding in 1970, EPA has accomplished (its) mission by leveraging science, funding, and expert staff in service to the American people. Today, we stand together in dissent against the current administration's focus on harmful deregulation, mischaracterization of previous EPA actions, and disregard for scientific expertise,' the letter read. Agency spokespeople did not immediately respond Monday to messages seeking comment. Employees want the EPA get back to its mission 'I'm really sad. This agency, that was a superhero for me in my youth, we're not living up to our ideals under this administration. And I really want us to,' said Amelia Hertzberg, an environmental protection specialist at the EPA who has been on administrative leave since February from the Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights, while the administration works to close down her department. Hertzberg's work focused on the most vulnerable groups impacted by pollution: pregnant and nursing people, young children and babies, the elderly, people with preexisting and chronic health conditions and people living in communities exposed to higher levels of pollution. That wasn't supposed to be controversial, but it's become so in this political climate, she said. 'Americans should be able to drink their water and breathe their air without being poisoned. And if they aren't, then our government is failing,' she said. Berg, who also directed the National Institute of General Medical Sciences at NIH from 2003-2011, said the dissent isn't motivated by partisan criticism. He said the employees hope it will help the EPA get back to the mission for which it was established — which 'only matters if you breathe air and drink water.' The letter outlines what the EPA employees see as five main concerns: undermining public trust; ignoring scientific consensus to benefit polluters; reversing EPA's progress in America's most vulnerable communities; dismantling the Office of Research and Development; and promoting a culture of fear, forcing staff to choose between their livelihood and well-being. EPA has cut funding and rolled back federal regulations Under Administrator Lee Zeldin, EPA has cut funding for environmental improvements in minority communities, vowed to roll back federal regulations that lower air pollution in national parks and tribal reservations, wants to undo a ban on a type of asbestos and proposed repealing rules that limit planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions from power plants fueled by coal and natural gas. Zeldin began reorganizing the EPA's research and development office as part of his push to slash their budget and gut their study of climate change and environmental justice. And he's seeking to roll back pollution rules that an Associated Press examination found were estimated to save 30,000 lives and $275 billion every year. 'People are going to die,' said Carol Greider, a Nobel laureate and professor of molecular and cellular biology at the University of California, Santa Cruz, who also signed the letter. She described last week's East Coast heat wave as evidence of the ways people are feeling the effects of climate change. 'And if we don't have scientists at the EPA to understand how what we do that goes into the air affects our health, more people are going to die,' she added. Berg said the declarations of dissent from both the NIH and EPA employees are noteworthy because they represent scientists speaking out as their careers are on the line. Even non-agency employees have to consider whether the government will withdraw research funding. Greider, asked about fears of repercussions or retaliation, said she's 'living the repercussions of everything.' She regularly meets with graduate students who are worried about pursuing scientific careers as labs lose funding. It's a long-term problem if we aren't supporting the next generation of scientists, she said: 'That's decades worth of loss.' ___ Follow Melina Walling on X @MelinaWalling and Bluesky @ ___ The Associated Press' climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
Live updates: Senate inches toward a vote on Trump's sweeping domestic policy bill
Update: Date: 11 min ago Title: "Vote-a-rama" expected for this morning Content: The Senate's marathon voting session — known as a 'vote-a-rama' — that will take place before a final vote on President Donald Trump's sweeping agenda bill is now expected to begin at 9 a.m. ET on Monday, according to a notice sent out by Senate GOP Whip John Barrasso's office. During the marathon voting session, senators can offer as many amendments as they want to vote on before a final vote on the bill. Senators were originally expected to begin the vote-a-rama overnight. Update: Date: 11 min ago Title: Medicaid concerns are central to the debate around Trump's policy bill. Here's what to know Content: Democrats and some Republicans are raising alarm about the impact of changes to Medicaid in President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill,' which GOP leaders worked through the weekend to advance in the Senate. Here's what to know about this sticking point for some Republicans: How it would impact Americans: The Senate version of Trump's agenda bill would leave 11.8 million more people without health insurance in 2034, according to analysis the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released yesterday. That's more than the 10.9 million more people projected to be left uninsured by the House-passed version of the bill. Both chambers are calling for historic spending cuts to Medicaid, which provides coverage to more than 71 million low-income Americans. The package would also enact changes to the Affordable Care Act that are projected to reduce enrollment in the landmark health reform law. But the Senate version calls for even deeper cuts to the Medicaid, leading to the larger estimate. It's emerged as a key issue for holdouts: Only two Republicans voted against advancing Trump's bill in a key procedural vote late Saturday. One of them — Sen. Thom Tillis, who announced yesterday that he will not run for reelection next year — has specifically voiced concerns about the impact Medicaid cuts would have on his constituents. Other GOP lawmakers who are pursuing changes to the bill before a final vote, including Sen. Susan Collins, have also signaled hesitance about changes to the program. Trump allies push back: Republican Sen. Markwayne Mullin, a top Senate negotiator for the president's bill, dismissed Tillis' criticism in an interview yesterday. The bill will cut 'waste, fraud and abuse' from Medicaid, Mullin said on NBC's 'Meet the Press.' He argued that too many people above the poverty line are receiving benefits, and the bill would only eliminate those who 'should never be there' in the first place. GOP Sen. Jim Banks also defended the bill in an interview Sunday morning, telling Fox News that the cuts would only affect 'able-bodied Americans' who 'shouldn't receive Medicaid without working.'
