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

The Secret Service has denied multiple Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests seeking records related to the July 13, 2024, assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump. The attack occurred during a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, where 20-year-old Thomas Crooks managed to evade security, climb onto a roof, and fire eight shots at the former president.

President Trump narrowly escaped serious injury when a bullet grazed his ear after he turned his head to read a chart on illegal immigration. The incident raised significant concerns about security measures at the event.

Conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch filed three FOIA requests shortly after the incident, seeking emails, videos, and advance security assessments related to the attempt on Trump’s life. The Secret Service, however, refused to release any documents, citing Title 5 U.S.C. § 552(B)(7)(A), which exempts records that could potentially interfere with enforcement proceedings.

Judicial Watch, known for its legal efforts to obtain government transparency, expressed frustration with the Secret Service’s refusal to provide the requested records. The organization’s president, Tom Fitton, criticized the agency for what he described as a “cover-up,” accusing it of failing to protect the former president and hiding information from the public.

“The Biden Secret Service is in cover-up mode on its inexcusable and epic failure to protect former President Trump and other innocents,” Fitton said. “For Secret Service leaders to promise transparency to Congress while hiding every possible FOIA record from the American people is yet another indictment of this corrupt and failing agency.”

Judicial Watch has indicated that it is preparing for litigation to compel the release of the documents.

The Secret Service’s decision to withhold records has only fueled controversy surrounding the assassination attempt and the agency’s handling of the situation, further igniting conspiracy theories and raising questions about transparency.

SOURCE: JUDICIAL WATCH

The U.S. Army is grappling with the fallout from an $11 million marketing deal with the United Football League (UFL) and Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson that failed to yield any new recruits, according to internal documents obtained by Military.com.

The Army had hoped that the high-profile partnership with Johnson, a global superstar and UFL owner, would boost recruitment numbers. However, the deal, which was part of an effort to modernize the Army’s marketing approach, appears to have had no positive impact on enlistments. In fact, internal reviews suggest the deal may have negatively affected recruitment efforts.

The marketing deal, which was finalized earlier this year, included significant Army branding during UFL games and a commitment from Johnson to act as a brand ambassador. This included an agreement that Johnson would make several social media posts promoting the Army. Despite his massive social media following, Johnson only fulfilled two out of the five promised posts, leaving the Army dissatisfied and seeking to recoup $6 million from the UFL.

The UFL’s inaugural season, which ran from March through June, failed to attract significant viewership, further diminishing the potential impact of the marketing deal. An internal review revealed a projected loss of 38 enlistments as a result of the partnership. The Army’s internal documents show that the resources spent on the UFL were deemed a net negative for recruiting efforts.

From the outset, some Army officials expressed skepticism about the partnership. Concerns were raised about the financial burden and low viewership of the UFL. Despite these warnings, the deal was pushed through by Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George. Internal emails revealed that senior staff were apprehensive about the effectiveness of the partnership.

A senior Army marketing official likened the deal to the National Guard’s $88 million NASCAR sponsorship, which also failed to generate new recruits. The internal review pointed out “inexperienced” UFL staff and numerous communication breakdowns, leading to a lack of confidence in future deals with the UFL.

The Army’s recruiting struggles are compounded by its difficulty in adapting to modern marketing trends. Much of its efforts remain focused on traditional media, such as cable TV and sports broadcasts, which are increasingly irrelevant to Gen Z. According to a 2022 Morning Consult poll, 33% of Gen Zers do not watch live sports, compared to 22% of Millennials.

Despite these challenges, the Army is barred from advertising on popular Gen Z platforms like TikTok due to security concerns over the platform’s Chinese parent company.

Laura DeFrancisco, a spokesperson for the Army’s marketing arm, acknowledged that some of the materials reviewed by Military.com were taken out of context but declined to provide specifics or grant interview requests. The UFL and Johnson’s publicist did not respond to requests for comment.

Col. Dave Butler, a spokesperson for Gen. George, expressed disappointment over the failed partnership, stating, “In terms of The Rock, it’s unfortunate he was pulled away at a time when we expected him to be present with us to create content for his social media channels. But we’re working with the UFL to rebalance the contract. The Rock remains a good partner to the Army.”

The Army is now seeking to mitigate the financial and reputational damage from the failed marketing deal as it continues to navigate the complexities of modern recruitment in a rapidly changing media landscape.

SOURCE: MILITARY.COM