Defense Sec. Pete Hegseth announced Thursday that the Department of Defense (DOD) would cut more than $580 million in contracts.
The contracts “do not match the priorities of this president and this department,” Hegseth said in the announcement on X. The cuts come from DOGE as it works its way through the Pentagon. “I commend Department leadership for identifying these opportunities to cut wasteful spending, and I encourage other leaders across the enterprise to follow this example and identify more opportunities for savings which we can re-invest in critical mission needs,” Hegseth said in a memo shared by the Daily Caller.
The cuts include programs like the Defense Civilian Human Resources Management System, which was only supposed to cost $36 million and last a single year. Instead, it went $280 million over budget and lasted eight years. Other cuts went on things like diversity, equity and inclusion programs, “equitable” AI, and similar-sound initiatives costing millions of dollars each.
“I need lethal machine learning models, not equitable machine learning models,” Hegseth explained.
Bye-Bye Consultants
Hegseth also waved goodbye to consulting services specifically for IT from Gartner and McKinsey, which came with a $30 million bill. Civilian workforces will also be cut by 5-8%, but some 21,000 employees have already taken the option of a voluntary Deferred Resignation Program, Daily Caller reported.
The Pentagon is required to pass a financial audit by 2028, having failed seven consecutive audits, including one in 2024. Some $170 million is now said to be reallocated to mission-critical priorities.
Not All Cuts Are Permanent
Roughly 1,000 employees of the National Parks Service who were previously “fired” as a result of DOGE cuts had their positions reinstated in March, according to the LA Times. The workers were all in probationary periods at the time of the cuts.
A further 25,000 federal workers have also had their positions reinstated after reviews conducted by DOGE, the BBC reported. As legal decisions over the cuts move their way through our nation’s courts, we’re asking for prayer for all those impacted by this upheaval. We are experiencing many changes in America right now, so much so that some may call this moment in history a revolution. That is why your voice is so important today.
Please visit Million Voices for more articles like this.
In a recent appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience, former State Department official Mike Benz detailed a covert operation by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) during the Obama administration, which involved the creation of a secret Twitter-like social media platform designed to incite political unrest in Cuba.
“This was a scandal during Obama, the Obama USAID era,” Benz said.
“Now, we were running a number of rogue USAID operations in Cuba at the time.”
The operation, known as ZunZuneo, was modeled after Twitter and launched between 2009 and 2014 to target Cuban citizens with initially non-political content like sports, music, and hurricane updates. According to Benz, the aim was to build a user base large enough to later introduce political messages designed to create civil unrest and ultimately spark a “Cuban Spring.”
“This was a Twitter knockoff,” Benz said.
“Zunzini, oh, is the Cuban slang word for hummingbird. So just it means it’s bird. It was the Twitter bird, the whole thing. But the whole trick about it was, you have to make it look like it’s coming from the Cubans, if you’re going to do this operation.”
Benz explained that USAID funneled money for the project through concealed channels.
“They took funds, millions of dollars, of funds that were concealed as humanitarian funds designated for Pakistan,” he said.
“Now, I don’t know if Joe or the audience, if you’ve looked at a map lately, but Pakistan is not exactly a next-door neighbor of Cuba.”
The project was executed by Creative Associates International (CAI), a U.S. government contractor.
According to Benz, CAI set up a complex network of front companies and used Cayman Islands bank accounts to conceal the source of funding.
“They said that these were humanitarian funds for Pakistan, and then they ran that to their contractor, CAI, to quote, set up a Byzantine system of front companies using Cayman Islands bank accounts and recruiting unsuspecting business executives who would not be told of the company’s ties to the U.S. government,” Benz said.
The operation reached around 60,000 subscribers in Cuba. Benz described how the initial content served as a smokescreen for building a surveillance and political targeting network.
“The initiative appears to also have had a surveillance dimension, allowing a, quote, vast database of Cuban zunzinio subscribers, including gender, age and receptiveness and political tendencies, to be built,” he said.
“The data would then be used for micro targeting efforts towards anti and pro-government users in Cuba.”
Benz emphasized that the political content was introduced after enough users had joined, stating, “Once they hit a critical mass, they would create rental riots and they would use this the same way they used it in Egypt and Tunisia to topple those governments under the Obama administration. They would organize smart mobs, rental riots.”
Internal documents revealed by Benz indicated that the program’s end goal was to spark a political movement and challenge the Cuban government’s power structure.
“Documents show the U.S. government plan to build a subscriber base through non-controversial news content… Later, when the network reached a critical mass… operators would introduce political content aimed at inspiring Cubans to organize, quote, smart mobs… that might trigger a Cuban spring, or, as one USAID document put it, quote, renegotiate the balance of power between state and society.”
Benz also addressed the implications of running such operations through USAID rather than the CIA.
“This is classic CIA work,” he said.
“You’re using Cayman Islands bank accounts. You’re marking it for Pakistan… If this gets busted, this is why we task the CIA to do this—plausible deniability… because there’s diplomatic blowback if U.S. fingerprints are revealed.”
While Benz clarified he is not defending the Cuban regime, he stated, “I’m simply showing the American people where your tax dollars are going and how these things are structured in order to systematically fool you and to fool Congress and to fool the White House.”
HOLY CRAP
Obama pretended to send USAID money to aid foreign countries but was actually funneling it to Cayman Islands to be used for “Rent-a-Riots” pic.twitter.com/3VN70jiIlr
No current U.S. official has commented on Benz’s claims, but his revelations have reignited scrutiny of USAID’s role in foreign influence operations and the use of civilian agencies for covert activity traditionally conducted by intelligence services.
The highly anticipated JFK files, released on Tuesday, have revealed that a CIA operative who was convinced the agency had killed Kennedy was mysteriously found dead from suicide six months later. While the final batch of JFK documents, which includes 80,000 pages, offers “few revelations so far,” per The New York Times, one particular file concerning the death of CIA operative Gary Underhill has begun raising eyebrows.
The file states, “The day after the assassination, Gary Underhill left Washington in a hurry. Late in the evening, he showed up at the home of friends in New Jersey. He was very agitated.”
Newly released JFK files tell a story about how Gary Underhill, who worked for the CIA, was found dead after he revealed to friends that the CIA was responsible for JFK’s assassination.
“The day after the assassination, Gary Underhill left Washington in a hurry. Late in the… pic.twitter.com/psZkYQ5COi
A small clique within the CIA was responsible for the assassination, he confided, and he was afraid for his life and probably would have to leave the country.
Less than six months later Underhill was found shot to death in his Washington apartment. The coroner ruled it suicide.“
According to Underhill’s friends, he was very disturbed after discovering that a “CIA clique which was carrying on a lucrative racket in gun-running, narcotics, and other contraband, and manipulating political intrigue to serve its own ends” had assassinated JFK. Kennedy allegedly got “wind that something was going on” but was ultimately taken out before he could “blow the whistle on it.”
Underhill’s friends initially didn’t take his claims seriously, refusing to believe that the CIA could be responsible for assassinating their own American president. However, his friends’ suspicions were raised following Underhill’s subsequent ‘suicide’ six months later.
“His body was found by a writing collaborator, Asher Brynes of the New Republic. He had been shot behind the left ear, and an automatic pistol was under his left side. Odd, says Brynes, because Underhill was right-handed.”
Brynes also wondered why a silencer had been fitted to the pistol and if Underhill had indeed used it.
The file states:
“Underhill obviously had been dead several days. Garry Underhill’s chilling story is hardly implausible.
As a spy apparatus, the CIA is honeycombed with self-contained cliques operating without any real central control.”
Secretary of Education Linda McMahon shared the department’s “final vision” in March, promising a “restoration” of the American education system.
McMahon has promised to eradicate corruption within the education system, as well as emphasizing oversight and an end to overreach from Washington. The process will start with an in-depth review of the department’s programs in order to ensure a true return on investment for the American people.
When I took the oath of office as Secretary of Education, I accepted responsibility for overseeing the U.S. Department of Education and those who work here. But more importantly, I took responsibility for supporting over 100 million American children and college students who are counting on their education to create opportunity and prepare them for a rewarding career.
I want to do right by both.
As you are all aware, President Trump nominated me to take the lead on one of his most momentous campaign promises to families. My vision is aligned with the President’s: to send education back to the states and empower all parents to choose an excellent education for their children. As a mother and grandmother, I know there is nobody more qualified than a parent to make educational decisions for their children. I also started my career studying to be a teacher, and as a Connecticut Board of Education member and college trustee, I have long held that teaching is the most noble of professions. As a businesswoman, I know the power of education to prepare workers for fulfilling careers.
American education can be the greatest in the world. It ought not to be corrupted by political ideologies, special interests, and unjust discrimination. Parents, teachers, and students alike deserve better.
After President Trump’s inauguration last month, he steadily signed a slate of executive orders to keep his promises: combatting critical race theory, DEI, gender ideology, discrimination in admissions, promoting school choice for every child, and restoring patriotic education and civics. He has also been focused on eliminating waste, red tape, and harmful programs in the federal government. The Department of Education’s role in this new era of accountability is to restore the rightful role of state oversight in education and to end the overreach from Washington.
This restoration will profoundly impact staff, budgets, and agency operations here at the Department. In coming months, we will partner with Congress and other federal agencies to determine the best path forward to fulfill the expectations of the President and the American people. We will eliminate unnecessary bureaucracy so that our colleges, K-12 schools, students, and teachers can innovate and thrive.
This review of our programs is long overdue. The Department of Education is not working as intended. Since its establishment in 1980, taxpayers have entrusted the department with over $1 trillion, yet student outcomes have consistently languished. Millions of young Americans are trapped in failing schools, subjected to radical anti-American ideology, or saddled with college debt for a degree that has not provided a meaningful return on their investment. Teachers are leaving the profession in droves after just a few years—and citing red tape as one of their primary reasons.
The reality of our education system is stark, and the American people have elected President Trump to make significant changes in Washington. Our job is to respect the will of the American people and the President they elected, who has tasked us with accomplishing the elimination of bureaucratic bloat here at the Department of Education—a momentous final mission—quickly and responsibly.
As I’ve learned many times throughout my career, disruption leads to innovation and gets results. We must start thinking about our final mission at the department as an overhaul—a last chance to restore the culture of liberty and excellence that made American education great. Changing the status quo can be daunting. But every staff member of this Department should be enthusiastic about any change that will benefit students.
True change does not happen overnight—especially the historic overhaul of a federal agency. Over the coming months, as we work hard to carry out the President’s directives, we will focus on a positive vision for what American education can be.
These are our convictions:
1. Parents are the primary decision makers in their children’s education.
2. Taxpayer-funded education should refocus on meaningful learning in math, reading, science, and history—not divisive DEI programs and gender ideology.
3. Postsecondary education should be a path to a well-paying career aligned with workforce needs.
Removing red tape and bureaucratic barriers will empower parents to make the best educational choices for their children. An effective transfer of educational oversight to the states will mean more autonomy for local communities. Teachers, too, will benefit from less micromanagement in the classroom—enabling them to get back to basics.
I hope each of you will embrace this vision going forward and use these convictions as a guide for conscientious and pragmatic action. The elimination of bureaucracy should free us, not limit us, in our pursuit of these goals. I want to invite all employees to join us in this historic final mission on behalf of all students, with the same dedication and excellence that you have brought to your careers as public servants.
This is our opportunity to perform one final, unforgettable public service to future generations of students. I hope you will join me in ensuring that when our final mission is complete, we will all be able to say that we left American education freer, stronger, and with more hope for the future.
EPA Chief Lee Zeldin has notified eight recipients of the $20 billion climate fund that their grants had been terminated. In a recently surfaced video, a source told Project Veritas that the Biden administration had rushed to disperse the funds before Trump took over.
“Now it’s how to get the money out as fast as possible before they come in … It truly feels like we’re on the Titanic or throwing gold bar off the top edge,” EPA’s special advisor Brent Efron told a Project Veritas undercover investigator. The conservative activist group termed the quick disbursements as “an insurance policy against Trump winning.”
BREAKING: @EPA Advisor Admits ‘Insurance Policy’ Against Trump is Funneling Billions to Climate Organizations, “We’re Throwing Gold Bars off the Titanic”
“It was an insurance policy against Trump winning.”
However, Zeldin has reclaimed $20 billion awarded under Biden’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) and worked with Citibank to freeze. He also notified the impacted organizations that they would no longer receive the awarded grants.
“It is my commitment to President Trump, Congress, and you, that EPA will be an exceptional steward of your tax dollars. I’ll have it no other way!” Lee Zeldin said.
Recipients of the Biden climate slush fund included “Coalition for Green Capital, Climate United Fund, Power Forward Communities, Opportunity Finance Network, and Inclusiv and the Justice Climate Fund,” the Associated Press reported.
Zeldin bragged about making a significant discovery and keeping a very important pledge he made to the American people shortly after he was confirmed.
“Fortunately, my awesome team at the EPA has found the gold bars. Shockingly, roughly $20 billion of your tax dollars were parked at an outside financial institution by the Biden EPA. This scheme was the first of its kind in EPA history and it was purposely designed to obligate all of the money in a rush job with reduced oversight,”
He lamented that only eight organizations were responsible for the amount and operated without transparency. Apparently, one organization known as Climate United Fund had received a whopping $7 billion. Approximately $14 billion and $6 billion were awarded to non-profit organizations implementing climate projects in disadvantaged communities.
Comparing awarding the contracts to tossing the “gold bars” off Titanic, Zeldin asserted the importance of reviewing every transaction. He promised that his agency would show responsibility by accounting for every awarded penny. In a separate post, he also warned that his organization would have “zero tolerance of any waste and abuse” of federal government funds.
“The financial agent agreement with the bank needs to be instantly terminated and the bank must immediately return all the gold bars that the Biden Administration tossed off the Titanic. EPA needs to assume responsibility of all these funds. We will review every penny that has gone out the door. I will [be] referring this matter to the inspector general’s office and will work with the Justice Department as well.”
🚨The Biden EPA tossed $20 billion of “gold bars off the Titanic”.
BIG UPDATE! We found the gold bars and they are now being recovered for you, the hardworking American taxpayer.
Meanwhile, Zeldin’s latest recovery adds to the growing list of wasteful government expenditures that the Trump administration hopes to stop. The president recently directed the head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) Elon Musk to step up his efforts to stop government waste.
US debt clock is a website listing US debt in real time, but they recently added DOGE saving clock.
Its about to hit $200 Billion just from cutting fraud and state funding for leftist politics. pic.twitter.com/ourCLQJSy4
A heated exchange erupted on CNN’s NewsNight when former South Carolina Democrat lawmaker Bakari Sellers clashed with Shark Tank investor Kevin O’Leary over federal spending cuts and education policy. The debate, which took place during Abby Phillip’s late-night panel, quickly escalated into a full-blown argument, with Sellers attempting to lecture O’Leary on economic policy—only to be met with immediate pushback. Sellers, now a political commentator, criticized recent budget cuts, particularly targeting reductions in the Departments of Education and Agriculture under President Donald Trump.
O’Leary, a longtime advocate for shrinking the federal government, argued that the cuts should go even further. As Sellers attempted to explain his perspective, he addressed O’Leary directly: “Let me just say, can I explain to you—” O’Leary, worth an estimated $400 million, immediately interrupted. “You need to explain it to me? I know how it works,” he shot back.
Sellers doubled down. “But no, you don’t.”
As Sellers seemed prepared to launch into a lengthy explanation, O’Leary cut him off again. “I do, I’ve done it multiple times,” he countered, referencing his extensive business experience. The argument intensified, with Sellers and other panelists expressing outrage at O’Leary’s stance on government spending.
“You cannot run everyday government the same way you run [the private sector]!” Sellers exclaimed.
O’Leary responded without hesitation. “This is worse than the private sector. [This is] fat dripping-with-waste government.” The cuts discussed align with President Trump’s ongoing effort to reduce federal spending, including a planned executive order to dismantle the Department of Education. The USDA cuts announced earlier in the week also fit within the administration’s broader strategy of reducing bureaucratic waste.
During the segment, O’Leary pointed to Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s aggressive approach to cost-cutting, including his handling of layoffs at his companies. He argued that deeper cuts were necessary across government agencies.
“This issue is not going to go away because it’s very contentious, but when you cut in any organization, government or private, it’s very demoralizing,” O’Leary said.
“It’s traumatic, and it gets lots of bad press as we’re doing right now.”
The businessman then outlined his philosophy on budget reductions.
“But that’s why you cut 20 percent more. I think Elon is not cutting enough. Cut 20 percent more. Now get your spreadsheet out. These are the names. Whack everybody and then 20 percent more—as we do in the private sector every day and have done for 100 years. Demoralization only happens once.”
O’Leary’s comments drew backlash from the liberal panelists, particularly over his stance on education reform. When he suggested that ineffective educators are contributing to failing schools, Sellers and others pushed back, arguing that poverty and hunger were larger issues.
“My whole career was in education,” O’Leary said, attempting to clarify his point while being interrupted by other panelists.
Sellers, speaking over O’Leary, insisted on making his case but struggled to maintain control of the conversation.
“So, like… no, no, no… let me finish,” he stammered.
O’Leary, often compared to President Trump for his blunt business-minded approach, has built a career in finance and entrepreneurship. He co-founded O’Leary Funds and Softkey, the latter of which was sold to Mattel in 1999 for $3.5 billion, securing his status as a multimillionaire. In 2017, he briefly entered politics, running for leadership of Canada’s Conservative Party before dropping out due to lack of support.
He has been an outspoken critic of liberal economic policies, particularly those proposed by Vice President Kamala Harris during the 2024 election cycle. Following Trump’s victory, O’Leary expressed satisfaction with the outcome, stating that he was “very proud of the work I did” throughout the campaign.
What’s going on at the soon-to-be defunct U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)? Well, lots of document shredding, but for what purpose, and whether this is standard operating procedure or an attempt to cover up malfeasance, is not clear.
Politico reports that a “senior official” at the troubled agency sent an email to all staff instructing them to destroy “sensitive” documents.
USAID has come under fire from the Trump administration for wasteful spending on international projects that seem to have nothing at all to do with benefiting the United States. Worse, the agency has been funding “woke” projects on transgenderism and more in foreign countries.
Here’s just a short list of the grants the agency has disbursed to foreign countries, according to a summary from the White House:
—$1.5 million for “diversity, equity and inclusion” in Serbia
—$6 million to boost Egypt’s tourist trade
—$47,000 for a “transgender opera” mounted in Colombia
—$32,000 for what’s described as a “transgender comic book” to be published in Peru
—$2 million for sex change operations for the citizens of Guatemala
You get the picture. President Donald Trump has targeted USAID for closure, which sparked a flurry of lawsuits by left-aligned interest groups. As of March 11, 2025, a federal court has ordered the Trump administration to pay out $671 million in USAID money owed to contractors who have already completed projects for the agency. But, it appears the courts recognize the administration’s authority to shut the agency down after making good on its back bills, and that’s exactly what Trump is doing.
That brings us to the order from USAID officials to employees to shred documents. While the media is full of reports on this, it is not yet clear what’s going on. Is this a brazen and illegal attempt by fleeing officials to cover up misdeeds? Or, is it standard operating procedure related to sensitive or classified documents? It’s murky, but a union that apparently represents contractors working for USAID (really?) has asked federal courts to step in to stop the destruction of documents.
According to Politico, a supervisor instructed employees by email to “Shred as many documents first, and reserve the burn bags for when the shredder becomes unavailable or needs a break.”
It will be at least one or two more days before the fog around this situation clears. Meanwhile X/Twitter users are speculating. Most seem to think it’s “extra-legal”:
“This isn't even parody. They're deleting history in real time. SPEECHLESS.”
Waitaminute…they are literally burning federal documents without authorization?
SPOLIATION: Isn’t this a gross legal violation of Duty to Preserve Evidence or has no legal action been initiated? If not what not! There is a duty to preserve potentially relevant evidence (including electronically stored information (ESI), hard copy documents, and other…
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has identified nearly $900 million in savings after reviewing just two percent of its contracts, according to VA Secretary Doug Collins.
The findings come as part of a broader effort to eliminate wasteful spending while maintaining healthcare and benefits for American veterans.
Collins made the announcement in a video posted to his official X account, where he addressed concerns regarding potential changes at the VA.
He emphasized that the department’s ongoing reviews would not impact the quality of healthcare or benefits for veterans and their families.
“VA will always fulfill its duty to provide veterans, families, caregivers, and survivors the healthcare and benefits they have earned,” Collins stated.
“That’s a promise, and while we conduct our review, VA will continue to hire for more than 300,000 mission-critical positions to ensure healthcare and benefits for VA beneficiaries are not impacted.”
The VA, under Collins’ leadership, has launched a comprehensive review of its contracts to identify areas where spending can be reduced without affecting services for veterans.
Collins revealed that the department currently manages approximately 90,000 contracts, valued at over $67 billion.
In its initial review of just two percent of those contracts, the department identified nearly 600 non-mission critical or duplicative agreements that could be canceled.
These cancellations have resulted in nearly $900 million in savings.
The review process is part of a larger initiative aimed at ensuring taxpayer dollars are spent efficiently while improving the overall effectiveness of the VA.
Despite these cost-cutting measures, Collins assured veterans and their families that healthcare and benefit services would not be compromised. Instead, the department is working to streamline operations while continuing to expand hiring efforts.
“While we work to eliminate waste, we are also ensuring that the VA remains fully staffed in areas that directly serve our veterans,” Collins said.
The VA currently employs more than 300,000 workers across the country and is looking to fill additional positions to meet the needs of veterans.
The review of VA contracts is part of the Trump administration’s broader effort to increase efficiency across federal agencies.
President Donald Trump has made veteran care a key priority of his administration, with a focus on reducing bureaucracy, cutting waste, and improving services.
The administration’s efforts have included initiatives such as expanding veteran healthcare access, streamlining the VA’s internal processes, and increasing funding for programs that directly benefit veterans and their families.
Collins’ announcement signals a continued push to ensure that resources are being allocated effectively while maintaining the highest level of care for those who have served in the U.S. military.
As the VA continues its contract review, further savings may be identified, reinforcing the administration’s commitment to fiscal responsibility and improving services for veterans.
CIA analyst and former National Security Council official Eric Ciaramella, the “whistleblower” connected to President Donald Trump’s 2019 impeachment, is back in the spotlight regarding Adam Schiff‘s connection to Ukraine.
Former Ukrainian diplomat Andrei Telashchenko alleged that he was present when Ciaramella met with then-President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden while they discussed Ukraine behind closed doors.
Telashchenko’s claims raise new concerns about Ciaramella’s role in U.S.-Ukraine relations during Obama’s presidency, notably with policies that became a key factor in the first impeachment of President Donald Trump.
Ciaramella was identified as the anonymous whistleblower during Trump’s impeachment inquiry after famously filing a complaint about Trump’s “perfect” phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The complaint was ultimately used to launch an impeachment vote in the House, led by then-chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff.
President Trump has long accused Schiff of lying and manipulating intelligence in order to push narratives that weaponized the government against him.
FBI Director Kash Patel, who played a crucial role in exposing the Trump “Russia Russia Russia” collusion hoax, is now digging deep into Schiff’s involvement. Patel said he has “strong feelings” about Schiff’s actions and probable ties to Ciaramella’s role in Ukraine-related controversies.
The sudden resurfacing of Ciaramella’s name into the spotlight has now reignited debate over the integrity of the 2019 impeachment proceedings against Trump.
Elon Musk responded to the revelations on X, writing:
“Did Adam Schiff commit treason? Sounds like he did.”
Watch:
🚨🇺🇸 SEN. SCHIFF "IN DEEP TROUBLE" OVER UKRAINE CONNECTIONS
Eric Ciaramella, the whistleblower tied to Trump’s 2019 impeachment, is back in the spotlight over Adam Schiff’s Ukraine connections.
WLT writer, Noah, asked Grok to analyze what Schiff may have allegedly done, and whether it could amount to treason, here’s what it said:
To construct the strongest argument supporting the claim that Adam Schiff committed treason, we must first define “treason” under U.S. law and then align the argument with available evidence and reasoning, while critically assessing the narrative. Treason, as defined in Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, requires two elements: (1) levying war against the United States or adhering to its enemies, and (2) providing them aid and comfort. It also requires the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or a confession in open court. The argument below is built on public statements, actions, and sentiment, particularly from critics, while acknowledging the legal threshold for treason is extraordinarily high and rarely met.
Argument: Adam Schiff Committed Treason by Fabricating Evidence to Undermine a Sitting President
Adam Schiff, as a prominent Democratic Representative and later Senator, is accused by critics of committing treason through his actions during the investigation into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election and Donald Trump’s subsequent presidency. The core of the argument is that Schiff knowingly fabricated or exaggerated claims of evidence linking Trump to Russia, with the intent to destabilize a duly elected president, thereby aiding foreign adversaries and undermining the U.S. government.
Claim of Fabricated Evidence: Critics assert that Schiff repeatedly claimed to possess concrete, classified evidence of Trump’s collusion with Russia to influence the 2016 election. For instance, during his tenure as the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Schiff stated on multiple occasions—such as in media appearances—that he had seen evidence of collusion that was more than circumstantial. However, when pressed to produce this evidence, particularly after the Mueller Report (released in April 2019) found no sufficient evidence to establish a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, Schiff allegedly failed to substantiate his claims. Posts on X and statements from Trump supporters highlight this, accusing him of lying about the Steele Dossier or other intelligence that was later debunked or unverified.
Intent to Overthrow or Weaken the Government: The argument posits that Schiff’s actions were not mere political posturing but a deliberate attempt to overthrow or cripple Trump’s presidency. By promoting the “Russia collusion” narrative, Schiff is said to have led a campaign—supported by Democrats and media outlets—that amounted to a “coup” against a sitting president. Critics, including those on X, argue this was an act of sedition or treason because it sought to delegitimize the government’s executive branch, potentially inciting unrest or weakening U.S. leadership on the global stage. Trump himself amplified this view, calling Schiff’s actions “treason” and suggesting he should be arrested, as noted in posts and news reports from 2019 and beyond.
Aid and Comfort to Enemies: The treason claim hinges on the idea that Schiff’s actions indirectly aided foreign enemies, particularly Russia. By amplifying a narrative of Russian interference without conclusive proof, he allegedly played into Russia’s hands—since sowing discord and distrust in U.S. institutions is a known tactic of foreign adversaries. If Schiff knowingly lied, the argument goes, he provided Russia with a propaganda victory, eroding American unity and credibility, thus giving “aid and comfort” to an enemy. This is a stretch legally but resonates with critics who see his actions as reckless or malicious.
Public and Political Consequences: Schiff’s role in Trump’s first impeachment (2019-2020) over the Ukraine call—where he paraphrased Trump’s conversation in a way critics called a fabrication—further fuels the argument. Trump tweeted in September 2019, “Arrest for Treason?” about Schiff, claiming he misrepresented the call to Congress and the public. The House censured Schiff in June 2023 for his role in the Russia probe, with Republicans like Anna Paulina Luna accusing him of abusing his position. This censure, while symbolic, is cited as evidence of wrongdoing that aligns with the treason narrative.
Supporting Evidence and Sentiment
Statements and Actions: Schiff’s public assertions about Russian collusion, contrasted with the Mueller Report’s findings, are the backbone of the claim. His 2019 impeachment paraphrase of Trump’s Ukraine call, which he admitted was partly satirical but presented as serious, is seen as evidence of deceit.
Trump’s Accusations: Trump’s repeated labeling of Schiff as a traitor, including in January 2025 remarks about the Jan. 6 committee, lends weight among his base. Trump called the entire committee’s work “TREASON” in a New York Times-reported statement. Public Sentiment on X: Posts from users like @CjmMccarth39414 and @thewildbill59 (March 2025) explicitly call Schiff’s actions treasonous, reflecting a belief that lying about evidence to undermine a president crosses a legal and moral line.
Counterpoints and Weaknesses
Legally, this argument struggles to meet the Constitution’s strict definition of treason. No evidence shows Schiff levied war or directly adhered to an enemy like Russia—his actions were political, not military. The “aid and comfort” claim is speculative, lacking two witnesses to an overt act. Critics might argue he was exercising his congressional role, however aggressively, not committing a crime. The Mueller Report’s inconclusive findings don’t prove Schiff lied knowingly; he could have been mistaken or overzealous. The censure reflects partisan disagreement, not a legal conviction.
Conclusion
The best argument for Schiff committing treason rests on the narrative that he knowingly fabricated evidence to destabilize Trump’s presidency, indirectly aiding Russia by amplifying division—acts framed as a betrayal of the nation. While compelling to his detractors, it falls short of legal treason without direct proof of intent and enemy collaboration. It thrives as a political accusation rather than a prosecutable case, rooted in the polarized lens of Trump-era conflicts.
Chairwoman of the Task Force on the Declassification of Federal Secrets, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL), has thrown shade on Attorney General Pam Bondi’s release of the Jeffrey Epstein client list, arguing the previous setbacks have not instilled confidence in her.
During an interview with Rep. Matt Gaetz on One America News Network (OANN), Luna echoed millions of frustrated conservatives who took to social media to vent anger over the heavily redacted Epstein file release last week.
Just last month, Bondi claimed on Fox News she was “actively reviewing” the Epstein, JFK, and MLK files.
Following the release of the files, Luna took to X, writing:
“AG Pam Bondi, We saw over the weekend you are reviewing all files from JFK to Epstein! We are ALL anticipating their release! When will they be declassified and available to the public?”
.@AGPamBondi We saw over the weekend you are reviewing all files from JFK to Epstein! We are ALL anticipating their release! When will they be declassified and available to the public?
The conservative firebrand didn’t stop there and brutally doubled down in a follow-up post:
“On Feb 11 & Feb 19, House Oversight sent a letter to the DOJ asking for status on releasing the Epstein files as well as JFK, etc. The DOJ has not responded. Reaching out on X because we can’t seem to get a response from the AG. AG Pam Bondi, what is the status of the documents? These documents were ordered to be declassified.”
On Feb 11 & Feb 19, house oversight sent a letter to the DOJ asking for status on releasing the Epstein files as well as JFK etc.
The DOJ has not responded.
Reaching out on X because we can’t seem to get a response from the AG.@AGPamBondi what is the status of the…
There was also backlash against the apparent media spectacle of selected conservative influencers who received a binder of phase one of the Epstein documents, with many calling it a media circus.
Luna also vented frustration over the influencers receiving the binder before her committee. She again confronted Bondi over the disappointing release of the Epstein files.
“I nor the task force were given or reviewed the Epstein documents being released today… A NY Post story just revealed that the documents will simply be Epstein’s phonebook,” said Luna.
“THIS IS NOT WHAT WE OR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ASKED FOR and a complete disappointment. GET US THE INFORMATION WE ASKED FOR!”
I nor the task force were given or reviewed the Epstein documents being released today… A NY Post story just revealed that the documents will simply be Epstein's phonebook.
THIS IS NOT WHAT WE OR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ASKED FOR and a complete disappointment.
During her interview with Gaetz, Luna said she was not confident about the Epstein client list release.
“Are you confident, as you sit here now, that there will be an Epstein client list that the American people will see?” Gaetz asked her.
“I’m not confident on the Epstein client list because I haven’t had the briefing yet from the Department of Justice,” Luna responded.
“I’ll know more tomorrow on that. But based on what I’m hearing from the attorney general, she keeps saying that she is going to release something, so I’m going to take her at her word for that,” she added.
“Now, whether that something is a full list, we have asked for the full list. We have asked for all the documentation. We are pushing for maximum transparency. But again, we do not hold declassification authority. That is up to the attorney general.”
Watch:
Florida Congresswoman @RepLuna tells @MattGaetz she is “not confident” about the release of the Epstein Client List, but that “The Attorney General keeps saying she is going to release something.”
As many conservatives expressed outrage after finding that no new information was included in the file, Musk again defended Bondi, writing,
“Imagine if you were suddenly appointed AG or head of the FBI. You were just thrown on a ship with a hostile crew. Until you appoint some new crew members and figure out the ropes, you can’t steer the ship effectively. It’s literally impossible.”
Imagine if you were suddenly appointed AG or head of the FBI.
You were just thrown on a ship with a hostile crew.
Until you appoint some new crew members and figure out the ropes, you can’t steer the ship effectively. It’s literally impossible. https://t.co/cN2fQnZtGR
Not long after Bondi accused the FBI of lying to her about the documents, FBI Director Kash Patel also weighed in.
“The FBI is entering a new era—one that will be defined by integrity, accountability, and the unwavering pursuit of justice,” Patel said.
“There will be no cover-ups, no missing documents, and no stone left unturned — and anyone from the prior or current Bureau who undermines this will be swiftly pursued.”
“If there are gaps, we will find them,” he continued.
“If records have been hidden, we will uncover them. And we will bring everything we find to the DOJ to be fully assessed and transparently disseminated to the American people as it should be,” he added.
“The oath we take is to the Constitution, and under my leadership, that promise will be upheld without compromise.”
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
