Connect with us

Biden Administration

REPORT: Fauci, Other NIH officials May Not Have Been Legally Appointed to Their Offices

Published

on

According to a year-long investigation by the House Energy and Commerce Committee Republicans, former National Institute for Allergies and Infectious Disease (NAIAD) Director Dr. Anthony Fauci and a dozen other NIH directors do not appear to have been legitimately appointed to their positions.

According to GOP committee aides speaking on background, Mr. Fauci and the others were supposed to serve five-year terms beginning no later than December 13, 2021, but repeated requests to Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra for documents confirming the appointments have been ignored or delayed since March 2022.

Every choice made by the directors, most importantly the recipients of over $26 billion in research awards, might be the subject of protracted litigation or be completely thrown out due to doubts about their legal standing.

“We are being cautious about the implications here because this is unprecedented,” one of the GOP aides told journalists. It is not clear, the aides said, if, for example, the entire award process would have to be repeated, a process that could cause chaos among researchers and additional costs to taxpayers.

fauci

The most recent grant to Eco-Health Alliance, a non-profit organization based in New York through which the NIH donated at least $1.7 million to the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China, is one of the $26 billion in grants that are currently under scrutiny. Many intelligence and biological professionals concur that the COVID-19 coronavirus, which has killed more than 1 million Americans, originated at the Wuhan lab. Federal authorities declared a national pandemic in response to the illness, which caused significant social, political, and economic harm and persisted for more than a year.

A spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) defended the appointments, reportedly saying that “the committee’s allegations are clearly politically motivated and lack merit. As their own report shows, the prior administration appointed at least five NIH IC officials under the process they now attack. The Department stands by the legitimacy of these NIH IC Directors’ reappointments.”

In a July 7, 2023, letter to Mr. Becerra, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), the energy and commerce chairman,  said his “failure to follow the law and ensure accountability of billions of dollars in taxpayer funding at [NIH] … could have grave implications for the validity of actions taken by 14 NIH Institute and Center (IC) Directors during their unlawful tenure, including former National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) Director Dr. Anthony Fauci.”

Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-VA), leader of the panel’s oversight and investigations subcommittee, and Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-KY), chairman of the health subcommittee, also joined Ms. McMorris Rodgers in signing the letter to Mr. Becerra.

The 21st Century Cures Act, which was adopted by Congress and signed into law by former President Barack Obama, required Mr. Becerra to appoint the 14 to fresh five-year terms by December 13, 2021. According to the signers, this was the root of the issue. Additionally, the Cures Act stipulates that the HHS secretary, not the NIH director, must make the appointments.

“It has become increasingly clear that you never appointed or reappointed the 14 NIH IC Directors in December of 2021. HHS and the NIH repeatedly assured the committee that the NIH IC Directors were validly reappointed but did not produce proper supporting documentation,” the signers told Mr. Becerra.

“For example, in its first response to the committee on April 5, 2022, the NIH claimed ‘[a]ll current IC Directors who were serving as of December 13, 2016, have undergone review and have been reappointed to new 5-year term appointments,’ and submitted a chart showing that the NIH Director was the official who made the reappointments of the NIH IC Directors, which even if true, is contrary to what the law requires,” they said.

The signers informed Mr. Becerra that despite repeated inquiries from the committee to HHS for documentation relating to the 14 nominations, they had not received any firm responses up until a few weeks ago.

“On June 19, 2023, HHS finally produced documents, titled ‘Ratification of Prior Selection and Prospective Appointment: Appointment Affidavit’ (hereinafter ‘Appointment Affidavit’), and signed by you, purporting to show that some of the NIH IC Directors at issue were reappointed,” the signers wrote.

“However, the Appointment Affidavits were signed on June 8, 2023, and June 15, 2023—not December 13, 2021. Critically, no appointment affidavits were produced for two NIH IC Directors, Dr. Fauci and Dr. Roger Glass, who were serving in December 2016, but retired before June 2023,” they continued.

The signers said the June 2023 appointment affidavits “purport to ratify the prior selection of the NIH IC Directors and to prospectively reappoint them. Here selection refers to actions taken by the NIH Director to identify candidates to recommend to [Becerra] for appointment.”

But the affidavits describe the reappointments as prospective, which means, according to the signers, that “the June 2023 reappointments do not retroactively ratify the decisions that NIH IC Directors made while not lawfully appointed—those decisions occurring between December 14, 2021, and the June 2023 reappointments affidavits. A recent U.S. Court of Appeals decision also suggests that actions taken by NIH IC Directors while they were not lawfully appointed are legally invalid.”

The signers added that Mr. Becerra’s “failure to follow the 21st Century Cures Act and reappoint 14 of the 27 IC Directors, which represents just over 50 percent of NIH IC Directors, is unacceptable. You have not complied with your oath to faithfully discharge the duties of your office.”

The House Republicans also accused HHS and NIH officials of spending “15 months obstructing the committee to cover up your failure only makes matters worse. HHS and the NIH should have known within days of receiving the committee’s March 14, 2022, letter that the reappointments as legally required had not occurred.”

The impact on the NIH will be nearly incalculable if the signers are right that every decision made by the IC officials after December 14, 2021, was unlawful. This is because, in addition to putting nearly $26 billion in research grants in jeopardy for what could be years of expensive litigation, contracts that have already been signed, personnel actions, including hiring and firing, and policy decisions, will also be in tumult.

Biden Administration

U.S. Announces $725 Million Military Aid Package for Ukraine

Published

on

Washington, D.C. — The United States is poised to deliver an additional $725 million in military aid to Ukraine, signaling continued support for Kyiv’s efforts to defend against Russian aggression. The latest package, confirmed by two U.S. officials speaking on condition of anonymity, includes counter-drone systems and munitions for the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS).

Notably, the package raises questions about whether it includes the coveted Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS), a longer-range missile that Ukraine has repeatedly requested to target deeper into Russian-controlled territory. However, the officials declined to confirm whether ATACMS would be included.

In addition to munitions, the aid package features anti-personnel landmines, which Ukraine is using to counter Russian and North Korean ground forces, particularly in contested areas like Russia’s Kursk region.

President Joe Biden remains resolute in using all funds allocated by Congress for Ukraine’s military support before the end of his administration in January. Before Monday’s announcement, approximately $7.1 billion in military assistance had been provided, drawn from Pentagon stockpiles.

While the Biden administration continues to bolster Ukraine, questions loom about the incoming Trump administration’s approach to the conflict. President-elect Trump h as promised to “end the conflict,” potentially signaling a shift in U.S. policy toward Ukraine.

In a noteworthy development, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy suggested last week that NATO membership for Ukrainian-controlled territories could help end the “hot stage of the war.” This remark signals a potential softening in Ukraine’s stance as it seeks to balance territorial integrity with international support.

HIMARS munitions have been a linchpin in Ukraine’s defense strategy, enabling precision strikes on Russian targets. The possible inclusion of ATACMS in this package could extend Ukraine’s reach, putting more strategic Russian positions at risk. Meanwhile, the addition of counter-drone systems underscores the escalating drone warfare in the region, as both sides employ drones for surveillance and strikes.

The use of anti-personnel landmines reflects Ukraine’s tactical efforts to slow Russian advancements, particularly in areas where conventional defense lines have proven difficult to maintain.

The aid announcement comes amid heightened speculation about U.S. foreign policy under the incoming Trump administration. While President Biden has championed robust support for Ukraine, critics argue the ongoing assistance risks overextending U.S. resources. Trump’s pledge to “end the conflict” could signify a more isolationist approach, raising concerns among Ukraine’s allies about the continuity of U.S. support.

As the war grinds on, Ukraine remains reliant on Western military aid to sustain its defenses and reclaim lost territory. The latest U.S. package underscores Washington’s strategic commitment, even as domestic and international pressures mount.

Whether the new administration will maintain this trajectory remains uncertain, but for now, the U.S. remains a steadfast partner in Ukraine’s fight for sovereignty.

SOURCE: ASSOCIATED PRESS

Continue Reading

Biden Administration

U.S. Government Has Sent $239 Million to Taliban Since 2021 Due to State Dept’s Vetting Failures, Report Reveals

Published

on

The U.S. government has inadvertently sent at least $239 million to the Taliban in development assistance since 2021, according to a new report. The oversight occurred because the State Department failed to properly vet award recipients.

Less than a year after it was reported that the Taliban established fake nonprofits to siphon millions of dollars in U.S. aid to Afghanistan, a new investigation by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) reveals that the terrorist group has received hundreds of millions in development assistance due to inadequate vetting by the State Department. Since the 2021 U.S. military withdrawal, at least $239 million have likely filled the Taliban’s coffers.

The State Department’s divisions known as Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) and International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) disbursed the funds to implement development projects aimed at supporting American foreign policy and national security goals in Afghanistan.

Investigators found that the State Department failed to comply with its own counterterrorism partner vetting requirements before awarding at least 29 grants to various local entities. The agency has a system in place to identify whether prospective awardees have a record of ethical business practices and is supposed to conduct risk assessments to determine if programming funds may benefit terrorists or terrorist-affiliates before distributing American taxpayer dollars. However, in the more than two dozen cases examined, the agency neglected these procedures and failed to maintain proper records.

“Because DRL and INL could not demonstrate their compliance with State’s partner vetting requirements, there is an increased risk that terrorist and terrorist-affiliated individuals and entities may have illegally benefited from State spending in Afghanistan,” the SIGAR report states. “As State continues to spend U.S. taxpayer funds on programs intended to benefit the Afghan people, it is critical that State knows who is actually benefiting from this assistance in order to prevent the aid from being diverted to the Taliban or other sanctioned parties, and to enable policymakers and other oversight authorities to better scrutinize the risks posed by State’s spending.”

The watchdog identified issues with 29 awards distributed by DRL and INL. For instance, DRL failed to properly screen the recipients of seven awards totaling about $12 million. INL did not provide any supporting documentation for 19 of its 22 awards totaling about $295 million, making it impossible to determine if they complied with vetting requirements. The State Department acknowledged that not all its bureaus have complied with document retention requirements, complicating the assessment of the magnitude of its transgressions. INL cited “employee turnover and the dissolution of the Afghanistan-Pakistan office” as reasons for not retaining records.

Given the Taliban’s takeover of Afghanistan in August 2021, SIGAR emphasized the importance of U.S. government activities adhering to laws, regulations, and policies intended to prevent transactions with terrorists.

Besides establishing fraudulent non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to loot significant portions of the $3 billion in humanitarian aid the U.S. has provided Afghanistan since the Biden administration’s abrupt military withdrawal, the Taliban has also accrued millions by charging taxes, permit fees, and import duties. This money has flowed through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), a State Department arm known for its corruption, which received $63.1 billion for foreign assistance and diplomatic engagement this year. Additionally, the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), the government’s international broadcasting service, also disbursed funds.

The United Nations has received $1.6 billion in U.S. funding for Afghanistan, and a significant percentage of that money likely went to the Taliban, according to a federal audit. The U.S. government does not require the UN to report on taxes, fees, or duties incurred on American funds for activities in Afghanistan, further complicating accountability.

SOURCE: SIGAR REPORT

Continue Reading

Biden Administration

US Announces $1.7 Billion in New Security Assistance for Ukraine

Published

on

The United States announced on Monday a new tranche of military aid for Ukraine valued at approximately $1.7 billion. This package includes critical air defense munitions and artillery rounds that Ukrainian forces have urgently requested.

The assistance package comprises $200 million in equipment drawn from existing U.S. military stocks, ensuring rapid deployment to the battlefield. Additionally, it includes around $1.5 billion in new orders, which will take longer to reach Ukraine, according to a statement from the Defense Department.

Key Components of the Aid Package

The new security assistance will provide Ukraine with:

  • Various types of air defense munitions to shield against Russian strikes
  • Artillery rounds
  • Ammunition for HIMARS precision rocket launchers
  • Multiple types of anti-tank weapons
  • Other crucial capabilities

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky expressed deep gratitude in a social media post, thanking U.S. President Joe Biden, the U.S. Congress, and the American people for their continued support. Zelensky emphasized that the aid includes items “critical to strengthening Ukrainian defenders, as well as funding to sustain previously committed equipment from the United States.”

Zelensky visited special forces in the border region of Kharkiv on Monday. Moscow’s forces launched a surprise ground offensive in this region in May but failed to make significant progress. The Ukrainian leader observed firsthand how the ongoing assistance from the U.S. helps to save lives and protect citizens from Russian attacks.

The United States has been a pivotal military supporter of Ukraine, committing over $55 billion in weapons, ammunition, and other security assistance since Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022.

Before late April, Washington had announced limited new aid for Ukraine this year, with only a $300 million package made possible through Pentagon savings on other purchases. After months of intense debate, Congress finally approved large-scale funding for Kyiv in April, authorizing $95 billion in aid, including $61 billion specifically for Ukraine.

Despite the new aid, Ukrainian forces are facing significant challenges. On Monday, Russia claimed its forces had captured the village of Vovche in eastern Ukraine, marking the latest in a series of front-line advances by Moscow.

The Ukrainian military reported that it had repelled six Russian attacks on the Kharkiv front line over the past day, including at Vovchansk, a small town that Russian forces have targeted since May. As the conflict grinds through its third year, neither side has managed to gain a decisive advantage, although Moscow’s forces have made recent gains.

Continue Reading

Trending