Hats off to Insurrection Barbie for all the work with most of the receipts exposing The Trillion Dollar Fraud Pipeline. What is great about this piece is that she ties all the pieces together and shows you how corrupt politicians, corrupt NGO’s, the corrupt Democratic party and foreign adversaries have committed a potential Trillion Dollar Fraud upon the American People. When you think about how hard American work this level of corruption and theft is breathtaking.

What struck us was how complex and well thought out the fraud machine is. These in our opinion are premeditated crimes. As Barbie concludes its all there right in front of our faces. Their Brazenness is beyond belief. All that is left is the prosecutions if we have the stomach for it.

We acknowledge this is a long piece and read. But it is absolutely required reading by every adult American. If this article does not motivate you to get your voice and get in the fight to save our country nothing will. Are you a Patriot or something else? We hope this article pushes you to the precipice to fight for our country and demand accountability for this grand theft that will be remembered for generations. Please share this post with your Family and friends.

INSURRECTION BARBIE’S ARTICLE

How a “humanitarian” refugee system became a cash machine for the NGOs and the Democratic Party

PART I: THE OBAMA BLUEPRINT – Building the Fraud Machine (2009-2017)

The Architecture of Exploitation

Barack Obama didn’t personally type up fake invoices or invent phantom meal services. But if you’re asking who built the architecture that made industrial-scale fraud scalable, repeatable, and nearly impossible to unwind—the answer keeps coming back to Obama.

Under his administration, the United States took a pre-existing refugee model and turbocharged it. Washington leaned harder into outsourcing core government functions to “partners.” The federal government turned the Office of Refugee Resettlement into a high-volume grant-and-contract distribution hub, treating “how many bodies moved” as the success metric while treating oversight as a paperwork nuisance.

By the time the system was fully built out, the fraud didn’t need a mastermind. It needed a template. And the template was already sitting there, paid for, staffed up, and politically protected.

The Numbers Tell the Story

Congressional Appropriations:

FY2015: Nearly $1.6 billion for ORR’s Refugee and Entrant Assistance Programs
“Most of which was directed toward the UAC program” (Congressional Research Service)
That’s not a rounding error—that’s an entire parallel welfare state

The Wilson-Fish Alternative Model:

Operating in 13 states by the Obama period
Described as a “one-stop-shop” where a single agency administers: Cash assistance Medical benefits Employment services Case management
Uses single-source grants to bypass state administration
Perfect template for fraud: centralized control, minimal competition, maximum opacity

The Per-Capita Incentive Structure

2015 ORR Voluntary Agencies Matching Grant Program:

Participating agencies receive up to $2,200 per client
ORR awards $2 for every $1 raised by the agency
Competition limited to agencies already providing Reception & Placement services
Result: Permanent resettlement industry with captive market

The Flywheel Effect: When government funds per capita and limits competition to the “approved” club, you get:

More arrivals = More funding
More funding = More staff, subcontractors, political leverage
More capacity = More pressure to keep the spigot open
More political insulation = Less oversight

2009 Example: ORR issued “single-source program expansion supplements” due to “higher numbers of arrivals than anticipated”:

$414,041 to USCRI Vermont program
$181,184 to North Dakota Wilson-Fish program
Explicit policy: Arrivals drive supplements; supplements drive capacity; capacity drives more arrivals

You don’t need a conspiracy when you have a flywheel.

The Unaccompanied Minor Surge Machine

William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (2008):

Shifted responsibilities toward HHS/ORR
Early 2009: Federal delegation and re-delegation of authority
Explicitly envisioned “consultation” with NGOs
Created new lanes for ORR-led activity

Within weeks of the 2009 delegation: ORR issued urgent grants to expand NGO-run shelter and foster care capacity, explicitly stating that “existing grantees” were the only entities with infrastructure to meet the “urgent need.”

The Obama Pattern: Crisis + Urgency + “Only the incumbents can do it” = Rapid growth of contractor ecosystem with minimal competition and maximal political cover

The Oversight Vacuum

Government Accountability Office (GAO) Findings:

Problems with monitoring and oversight in ORR care arrangements
Recommendations for improvement ignored
Alarm bells dismissed as “anti-refugee” sentiment

Congressional Research Service (CRS) Documentation:

Extraordinary scale of UAC surge
Massive strain on the system
Federal response: Open more shelters, expand capacity, pour more money
Emergency procurement normalized as permanent operating mode
Emergency procurement is where accountability goes to die

The Result:

Inconsistent standards across locations
Subcontracting chains so long nobody can track the money without forensic accountants and subpoenas
Political insulation: Oversight questions = “anti-refugee” bigotry
Scrutiny treated as cruelty

This is how fraud ecosystems grow: Not because everyone is corrupt, but because the system is designed to treat scrutiny as cruelty.

The Somali Resettlement Case Study

By the end of the Obama administration:

Large Somali populations embedded in dense web of federally funded benefits
Benefits administration outsourced to NGOs and community-based organizations
Limited competition, limited transparency, enormous political insulation
Structural vulnerability to organized exploitation

Key Insight: This is not a cultural argument. This is a systems argument. When you combine sustained federal funding, per-capita incentives, outsourced authority, and moralized enforcement, you create a system that is structurally vulnerable to abuse.

The vulnerability has nothing to do with race or ethnicity. It has everything to do with governance. The system was built to be exploited.

PART II: THE PROOF – Minnesota’s $250 Million Fraud Template

Feeding Our Future: Industrial-Scale Theft

September 2022: Department of Justice Announcement Federal charges against 47 defendants for their roles in a $250 million fraud scheme exploiting federally funded child nutrition program during COVID.

The Structure:

Described as “largest pandemic relief fraud scheme charged at the time”
Involved “Feeding Our Future and 200+ meal sites”
Charges: Conspiracy, wire fraud, money laundering, bribery
Same structural playbook as refugee fraud

The Mechanism:

Government money routed through nonprofit entities
Inflated claims for services never rendered
Weak oversight and minimal real-time verification
Networks that learned to monetize bureaucracy
Layered subcontracting obscures money trail

Critical Understanding: Feeding Our Future was NOT an ORR program. It was child nutrition program fraud. But the mechanism is the same mechanism. The Obama-era refugee/entrant model normalized the idea that “community nonprofits” are both the moral shield and the financial conduit.

Once that’s normalized, the same playbook migrates across agencies and funding streams.

Treasury Department’s Unprecedented Warning

Current Status (2025-2026):The Treasury Department is publicly describing an “unprecedented Somali organized crime scheme” in Minnesota—so severe it triggered:

Federal financial countermeasures
Warnings to financial institutions
Alerts about fraud tied to federally funded benefit streams

This is not a blogger’s fever dream. This is Treasury, in writing, talking about organized fraud connected to taxpayer-funded programs.

What Changed? Nothing structurally changed. The fraud ecosystem Obama built simply matured. The “nonprofit” cover became industrial. The subcontracting chains became impenetrable. The political protection became absolute.

And then the Biden administration took the template and scaled it nationally.

PART III: THE BIDEN EXPANSION – Removing All Guardrails

The Community Access Program (CAP) Revolution

What Obama Built, Biden Weaponized:

Under the Biden administration, the refugee resettlement infrastructure didn’t just continue—it metastasized into every corner of federal benefits administration. The key innovation: removing citizenship requirements and expanding “community-based organization” access to federal grants.

The Community Access Program (CAP):

Explicitly designed to fund “community-based organizations”
No citizenship verification required
Priority given to organizations serving “underserved communities”
Same organizations receiving grants also provide “navigation services”
Translation: The fox guards the henhouse

The Circular Funding Scandal

Here’s where it gets criminal:

The same organizations receiving federal grants to “serve immigrant communities” are simultaneously:

Organizing anti-ICE protests
Providing legal assistance to resist deportation
Running “Know Your Rights” campaigns against federal law enforcement
Lobbying Congress for more immigration funding
Registering voters (overwhelmingly Democratic)

This is not a bug. This is the feature.

Example: CHIRLA (Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights)

$34 million/year in government grants (mostly California)
$450,000 from DHS for “citizenship education” (2021-2024)
Organized June 2025 LA anti-ICE riots
Currently under FBI investigation for illegal use of federal funds
Under House Judiciary investigation for supporting violent criminal activity

The Playbook:

Receive federal grants for “services”
Use grants to build organizational capacity
Hire “community organizers” (political activists)
Organize protests against the same federal agencies providing the grants
Demand more funding to address the “crisis” you just created
Rinse and repeat

Biden’s Grant Structure Changes: The Technical Details

Pre-Biden Grant Requirements (Simplified):

Demonstrated track record of service delivery
Financial audits and accountability measures
Citizenship verification for benefit recipients
Separation of advocacy from service delivery
Competitive bidding processes

Biden-Era Changes:

“Equity” as primary evaluation criterion
“Community representation” prioritized over financial management experience
Sole-source awards to “trusted partners” (no competition)
Advocacy explicitly funded as “community education”
Cultural and linguistic matching creates ethnic monopolies
Simplified reporting reduces oversight burden

The Effect: Organizations with no financial management experience, no proven track record, and explicit political advocacy missions can now access hundreds of millions in federal grants with minimal oversight and maximum political protection.

This is the Feeding Our Future model, nationalized and legitimized.

PART IV: THE CONVERGENCE – When Domestic Fraud Meets Foreign Influence

The Neville Roy Singham Network Revisited

Now we connect the dots that should terrify every American.

The same infrastructure Obama built for refugee fraud, Biden expanded through CAP and DHS grants, has been weaponized by America’s chief foreign adversary—the Chinese Communist Party.

Neville Roy Singham:

Tech billionaire based in Shanghai
Self-described Marxist
Sold ThoughtWorks for $785 million (2017)
Subject of 1974 FBI investigation for ties to groups “inimical to U.S. interests”
Consultant to Huawei (2001-2008)
Attended CCP propaganda workshop (July 2023)
Shares Shanghai office with Maku Group (Chinese state media)
Married to Jodie Evans (CODE PINK co-founder)

Total Tracked Funding: $275 million+ globally

The Shell Company Laundering Network

Singham’s Dark Money Infrastructure:

All operating from UPS store mailbox addresses:

United Community Fund (Illinois)
Justice and Education Fund (Wisconsin)
People’s Support Foundation (New York)
Progress Unity Fund

Plus:

$18 million through Goldman Sachs Philanthropy Fund
$5 million (2024) from People’s Support Foundation to The People’s Forum

How It Works:

Singham moves money to shell companies
Shell companies donate to “nonprofits”
Nonprofits claim tax-exempt status
Money flows to activist organizations
Organizations coordinate protests, riots, political campaigns
All while maintaining “charitable” status

Congressional Investigations Confirm:

House Ways and Means Committee: “Elaborate dark money network”
House Oversight Committee: Tracking “hundreds of millions of dollars”
Senate Judiciary Committee: FARA violation referral to DOJ

The People’s Forum: CCP Propaganda Central

Location: 320 West 37th Street, Hudson Yards, Manhattan (most expensive commercial neighborhood)

Total Funding: $44.3+ million

Activities:

Hosts “China and the Left: A Socialist Forum”
Offers courses: “Lenin and the Path to Revolution,” “China75—When the People Stand Up”
Organized October 8, 2023 pro-Hamas rally (one day after attacks)
On-site bookstore publishes Ho Chi Minh essays, African dictator speeches
Co-executive directors: Manolo De Los Santos (also works for Singham-funded Tricontinental Institute) and Claudia De La Cruz (2024 PSL presidential candidate)

The Connection: The People’s Forum doesn’t just advocate for open borders and refugee expansion—it directly funds and coordinates the organizations that exploit the refugee fraud infrastructure.

The Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL): Ground-Level Riot Coordination

June 2025 Los Angeles Riots:

Documented Violence:

Federal agents assaulted
Vehicles burned
Businesses looted
Freeway blocked
ICE facilities surrounded

Primary Organizers (All Connected to Singham Network):

Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) – Singham-funded
ANSWER Coalition – Receives funding/support from People’s Forum
The People’s Forum – $44.3M from Singham
CHIRLA – $34M taxpayer-funded
BreakThrough Media – Singham-funded, livestreamed riots

Evidence of Coordination:

Professional signage printed in advance
Simultaneous protests in Oakland, San Antonio, other cities
Trained spokespeople with identical talking points
Social media amplification across platforms
BreakThrough Media livestream coverage

PSL Ideology (Documented):

Defends China’s human rights record
Denies Tiananmen Square massacre
Promotes Chinese economic policies as global model
Explicitly anti-American, pro-CCP

The Criminal Convergence: Same Players, Same Playbook

Here’s the pattern that proves coordination:

Organizations receiving BOTH Singham money AND Biden administration grants:

CODE PINK$1.4M from Singham network Receives federal grants for “peace education” Campaigns: “China Is Not Our Enemy” (2020) Jodie Evans (co-founder) defends Uyghur genocide, calls victims “terrorists”
National Immigration Law Center (NILC)Federal grants for “immigrant services” Coordinates “Take Action” anti-ICE campaigns Organizes congressional lobbying Connected to Singham-funded media networks
Various State/Local “Immigrant Rights” Organizations CAP funding through DHS “Know Your Rights” campaigns (anti-enforcement) Overlap with PSL, ANSWER Coalition organizing Same legal teams, same spokespeople, same talking points

The Mechanism:

Biden administration grants fund organizational capacity
Singham network funds political activism
Organizations use taxpayer-funded infrastructure for CCP-aligned riots
Both funding streams remain obscured through nonprofit status
Anyone questioning the arrangement is smeared as “anti-immigrant” or “racist”

This is money laundering and foreign influence peddling at industrial scale.

PART V: THE BIDEN GRANT CHANGES – Technical Deep Dive

How They Changed the Rules

BEFORE (Trump Administration):

Grant Application Requirements:

Demonstrated organizational capacity
Three years of financial statements
Independent audits
Proven track record of service delivery
Citizenship verification for beneficiaries
Clear separation of advocacy and services
Competitive bidding process
Performance metrics and deliverables

Grant Oversight:

Regular audits by independent firms
Site visits by federal officials
Financial transparency requirements
Sanctions for non-compliance
Debarment for fraud

AFTER (Biden Administration):

New “Equity-Focused” Grant Structure:

“Lived Experience” Prioritization Organizations led by “community members with lived experience” receive preference Translation: Recent immigrants with no financial management experience get priority over established nonprofits Creates immediate fraud vulnerability
“Equity” as Primary Evaluation Criterion 40-60% of grant score based on “equity commitment” Actual service delivery capacity: 20-30% of score Financial management: 10-20% of score Incentivizes equity rhetoric over competence
Simplified Reporting Requirements “Reduced burden on community organizations” Fewer financial disclosures required Self-reporting of outcomes accepted Translation: Less oversight, more fraud opportunity
“Cultural Competency” Multipliers Extra funding for “culturally matched” services Language-specific services receive premium rates Creates ethnic service monopolies Same populations served, controlled, and mobilized by same organizations
Advocacy Explicitly Funded “Community education” includes political organizing “Know Your Rights” = anti-enforcement training “Civic engagement” = voter registration Federal funds for political activism
Sole-Source “Trusted Partner” Awards No competitive bidding for “established relationships” Same organizations perpetually renewed New entrants effectively locked out Creates permanent funding class

The Community Access Program (CAP) Scandal

Official Description: “CAP provides funding to community-based organizations to deliver services and assistance to underserved communities, including immigrants and refugees.”

Reality:

Citizenship Requirements: REMOVED

Previous requirement: Services only for citizens and legal permanent residents
CAP change: Services available to “all community members regardless of immigration status”
Effect: Federal funds now explicitly available for illegal immigrants
No verification, no tracking, no accountability

Eligible Organizations:

“Community-based organizations with deep roots in underserved communities”
“Organizations led by and for the communities they serve”
Translation: Ethnic advocacy groups, many recently formed, with minimal track record

Funded Activities Include:

“Navigation services” (helping access benefits)
“Community education” (political organizing)
“Civic engagement” (voter registration)
“Know Your Rights training” (anti-enforcement)
“Legal assistance” (deportation resistance)

Grant Amounts:

Average award: $500,000 – $2 million
Largest awards: $5 million+
Total CAP funding (2021-2024): Estimated $2+ billion
Oversight: Minimal
Audits: Rare
Fraud prosecution: Nearly non-existent

The DHS “Partnerships” Scam

DHS “Shelter and Services Program” (SSP):

FY2023 Appropriation: $800 million FY2024 Appropriation: $650 million

Ostensible Purpose: Reimbursement to jurisdictions for costs of housing and transporting migrants

Actual Recipients:

Nonprofit organizations
NGOs with political advocacy missions
Many also receiving CAP funding
Many also connected to anti-ICE organizing

Example Grant Recipients:

Catholic Charities$350+ million (FY2023-2024) Also organizes “immigrant advocacy” campaigns Lobbies for increased refugee admissions Provides legal assistance against deportation
Jewish Family Services$150+ million (FY2023-2024) Advocates for “sanctuary” policies Organizes opposition to enforcement
Various “Immigrant Rights” Organizations Hundreds of millions in combined funding All advocate against immigration enforcement Many connected to protest organizing networks

The Circular Funding:

DHS funds NGOs to “serve” migrants
NGOs use funding to build capacity
NGOs hire “community organizers” (political activists)
NGOs organize anti-DHS, anti-ICE protests
NGOs demand MORE funding to address “crisis”
Congress appropriates more funding
DHS grants more money to same NGOs

This is institutionalized money laundering

PART VI: THE COMPLETE NETWORK MAP

How It All Connects

LAYER 1: OBAMA INFRASTRUCTURE (2009-2017) Built the template:

ORR as $1.6B pass-through
Wilson-Fish single-source model
Per-capita incentive structures
Minimal oversight, maximum political insulation

LAYER 2: BIDEN EXPANSION (2021-2026) Scaled nationally:

CAP removes citizenship requirements
DHS grants to advocacy groups: $363M (FY2024)
“Equity” prioritizes political reliability over competence
Advocacy explicitly funded

LAYER 3: SINGHAM WEAPONIZATION (2017-2026) Foreign influence exploitation:

$275M from CCP-linked billionaire
Shell companies launder money to “nonprofits”
The People’s Forum ($44.3M) coordinates activism
PSL organizes violent riots
Same organizations receive BOTH taxpayer funds AND CCP money

LAYER 4: ORGANIZED CRIME EXPLOITATION (2020-2026) Criminal networks join in:

Feeding Our Future: $250M fraud
Treasury warnings on “Somali organized crime”
Same nonprofit infrastructure
Same per-capita incentives
Same lack of oversight

PART VII: THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATIONS

What They’ve Found (So Far)

FBI Investigation (Director Kash Patel):“The FBI is investigating any and all monetary connections responsible for these riots.”

Focus Areas:

Neville Roy Singham funding network and CCP ties
CHIRLA’s use of federal grant money for riot organizing
Money laundering through shell organizations
Intent behind donations (protected speech vs. funding illegal activities)

House Oversight Committee (Chairman James Comer):

Actions Taken:

Subpoenaed Neville Roy Singham
Demanded Treasury evaluate sanctions/asset freezes
Investigating “Strategy of Sowing Discord” (CCP doctrine)

Key Finding: “An elaborate dark money network funneling hundreds of millions of dollars from the CCP directly into organizations orchestrating riots on American streets.”

House Ways and Means Committee (Chairman Jason Smith):

Demand to The People’s Forum: Provide documentation regarding “foreign funding sources, ties to Neville Roy Singham, foreign principals, and sponsored organizations” by September 18, 2025.

Key Allegation: The People’s Forum violated 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status by acting as foreign agent.

House Judiciary Committee (Chairman Jim Jordan):

Investigation into CHIRLA: Demanding “all documents and communications” related to:

Federal funds received
Financial contributions to other organizations (Jan 2021-present)
Protests against ICE, DHS, CBP, immigration enforcement

Allegation: “CHIRLA may be using federal funds to support violent criminal activity that impedes the enforcement of federal immigration law.”

Senate Judiciary Committee (Chairman Chuck Grassley):

Request to DOJ/FBI: Investigate whether The People’s Forum and CODE PINK should register under Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) due to Beijing ties.

Treasury Department:

Actions Taken:

Issued warnings about “unprecedented Somali organized crime scheme” in Minnesota
Financial countermeasures implemented
Alerts to financial institutions about fraud tied to federally funded benefit streams

This is not speculation. This is official federal agency action.

PART VIII: THE SOMALIA CONNECTION – How The Template Spread

From Refugee Resettlement to Organized Crime

Timeline of Exploitation:

2009-2016 (Obama Era):

Large-scale Somali refugee resettlement to Minnesota
Wilson-Fish model consolidates benefits administration
Community-based organizations become primary service providers
Language barriers and “cultural competency” create service monopolies
Networks form with exclusive access to federal benefits

2017-2020 (Trump Era):

Refugee admissions slow but infrastructure remains
Community organizations maintain federal funding
Networks mature, learn the system
Subcontracting chains lengthen
Political protection strengthens

2020-2022 (Biden Era – COVID):

Pandemic relief creates massive new funding streams
Oversight collapses during emergency
Child nutrition programs become ATM machines
Feeding Our Future scandal: $250M fraud
47 federal defendants charged

2023-2026 (Biden Era – Post-COVID):

CAP and other programs expand scope
“Equity” standards reduce scrutiny
Treasury issues organized crime warnings
Federal investigations accelerate
Pattern spreads to other immigrant communities

The Feeding Our Future Model

How It Worked:

Nonprofit Structure: Feeding Our Future claims to run child nutrition programs Registers 200+ “meal sites” Receives federal reimbursements per meal served
Phantom Services: Claims to serve meals to thousands of children Actual meal service: minimal to none Sites operate from residential addresses, parking lots “Children served” are fictitious
Inflated Claims: Submit reimbursement claims for non-existent meals Use names of real children without permission Create fake documentation (rosters, receipts, invoices) Total theft: $250+ million
Money Laundering: Route funds through multiple shell companies Purchase luxury vehicles, real estate, international travel Wire money overseas Pay bribes to cover tracks
Network Protection: Claim ethnic/cultural discrimination when questioned Use “community leaders” to provide political cover Threaten lawsuits against whistleblowers Leverage immigrant advocacy groups for protection

The Key Insight: This is the EXACT playbook the refugee resettlement infrastructure created. Different program, same structure:

Federal funds routed through nonprofits
Per-capita reimbursement model
Weak oversight
Community-based gatekeepers
Political insulation

The “SomaliFraud” Expansion

Beyond Feeding Our Future:

Documented Fraud Schemes (Under Investigation):

Childcare Assistance Fraud Phantom daycare centers Inflated attendance claims Identity theft for benefit applications Estimated losses: $100M+
Housing Assistance Fraud Section 8 voucher fraud Inflated rent claims Phantom tenants Property owner collusion Estimated losses: $50M+
Medical Assistance Fraud Billing for services not rendered Phantom patients Identity theft Provider collusion Estimated losses: $75M+
Tax Fraud Fraudulent EITC claims Phantom dependents Fake businesses for deductions Estimated losses: $200M+

Combined documented/estimated fraud in Minnesota Somali community: $675+ million

And that’s just what’s been discovered so far.

Why Minnesota?

Perfect Storm of Factors:

Large Refugee Population Concentrated settlement patterns Obama-era resettlement surge Established community networks
Wilson-Fish Model Single agencies control multiple benefit streams Minimal state oversight Community organizations as gatekeepers
Political Protection Progressive state government “Diversity” politics shield from scrutiny Accusations of “racism” deter investigation
Language Barriers Create dependency on community “navigators” Same navigators control access to benefits Verification becomes impossible
Existing Infrastructure Nonprofit sector built during refugee surge Established relationships with federal agencies Know how to navigate grant applications
Weak Oversight Emergency procurement during COVID “Equity” prioritization reduces scrutiny Political leadership opposes enforcement

Minnesota wasn’t random. It was optimal.

PART IX: THE BIDEN GRANT STRUCTURE – Detailed Analysis

How “Equity” Became a Loophole

The Transformation of Federal Grants:

Old Model (Pre-2021):

Technical competence = 50% of score
Financial management = 30% of score
Service delivery record = 20% of score
Result: Established, competent organizations win grants

New Model (2021-Present):

“Equity commitment” = 40-60% of score
“Community representation” = 20-30% of score
Technical competence = 10-20% of score
Financial management = 10% of score
Result: Political reliability trumps competence

What “Equity” Actually Means in Practice:

The Biden administration’s grant guidance defines “equity” as:

“The consistent and systematic fair, just, and impartial treatment of all individuals, including individuals who belong to underserved communities…”

But the evaluation criteria measure:

Leadership demographics (race, ethnicity, immigration status)
“Lived experience” of leaders
“Community roots” and “trusted relationships”
“Cultural competency” and language capacity
NOT actual service delivery or financial management

Translation: An organization led by recent immigrants with zero financial management experience scores higher than an established nonprofit with decades of proven results—if the new organization checks the right demographic boxes.

This is affirmative action for fraudsters.

The CAP Deep Dive

Community Access Program – Full Structure:

Authorizing Legislation: Buried in appropriations bills, minimal public debate

Administering Agency: Various (DHS, HHS, USDA, others depending on program)

Eligible Recipients:

“Community-based organizations”
“Faith-based organizations”
“Grassroots organizations”
“Organizations led by and for underserved communities”

Notable ABSENCE:

No requirement for 501(c)(3) status (new organizations accepted)
No requirement for demonstrated capacity
No requirement for financial audits
No requirement for citizenship verification

Funded Activities:

Officially:

“Navigation services” to help access benefits
“Community education” about available programs
“Outreach” to underserved populations
“Application assistance”

In Reality:

Political organizing disguised as “education”
Voter registration drives
Anti-enforcement “Know Your Rights” training
Legal assistance to resist deportation
Coordination with activist networks

The Grant Process:

Application: Organization claims to serve “underserved community” Demonstrates “cultural competency” and “lived experience” Proposes “equity-centered” approach Minimal financial documentation required
Evaluation: Scored primarily on “equity commitment” Technical capacity: secondary consideration Political connections matter more than competence
Award: Average: $500K – $2M Largest: $5M+ Multi-year awards common Renewals virtually automatic
Reporting: “Simplified” requirements to “reduce burden” Self-reporting of outcomes accepted Few site visits or audits Fraud rarely detected until massive scale
Oversight: Minimal Political pressure against scrutiny Whistleblowers labeled “racist” Investigations politically toxic

Total CAP Appropriations (Estimated):

FY2021: $400M
FY2022: $600M
FY2023: $750M
FY2024: $900M
Total: $2.65 billion (and growing)

The DHS Grants Scandal

Shelter and Services Program (SSP) – The Details:

FY2023: $800 million FY2024: $650 million

Ostensible Purpose: “Reimburse non-Federal entities for costs associated with providing shelter, meals, transportation, and other services to migrants encountered by DHS.”

The Pattern:Every major recipient is also a vocal advocate for:

Increased refugee admissions
Opposition to immigration enforcement
“Sanctuary” policies
Defunding ICE
Open borders

They are being paid by DHS to oppose DHS enforcement.

The Circular Funding Proof

Example: Catholic Charities

Step 1: Receive Federal Grants

SSP: $350M+ (FY23-24)
ORR contracts: $100M+ annually
Other federal sources: $50M+
Total federal: $500M+ annually

Step 2: Build Organizational Capacity

Hire staff (many with activist backgrounds)
Expand facilities
Develop “community relationships”
Create subsidiary organizations

Step 3: Engage in Advocacy

Lobby Congress for increased refugee admissions
Organize opposition to deportations
Provide legal assistance against enforcement
Coordinate with activist networks
Media campaigns against immigration restrictions

Step 4: Demand More Funding

Cite “increased need” created by their own advocacy
Claim “humanitarian crisis” requiring more resources
Leverage political relationships
Threaten to reduce services if funding cut

Step 5: Receive More Funding

Congress appropriates more money
DHS awards new grants
Cycle repeats
No accountability

This is institutionalized corruption.

PART X: THE COMPLETE CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE

Putting All The Pieces Together

We now have proof of a coordinated criminal enterprise involving:

Federal Government Complicity Biden administration changed grant structures to enable fraud Removed citizenship requirements Prioritized “equity” over competence Funded advocacy against enforcement Ignored oversight and accountability
Domestic Organized Crime Minnesota Somali networks stole $675M+ (documented) Feeding Our Future: $250M fraud, 47 defendants Template spreading to other communities Treasury issues organized crime warnings
Foreign Influence Operations Neville Roy Singham: $275M global network

PART XI: THE ACTBLUE MONEY LAUNDERING SCHEME – The Circular Funding Exposed

How Your Tax Dollars Fund Democrats Through Fraudulent Donations

The Missing Link: From NGO Grants to ActBlue “Smurfing”

We’ve traced how taxpayer dollars flow to NGOs through federal grants. We’ve documented how those same NGOs organize anti-ICE riots and receive foreign funding from CCP-linked sources. But there’s one more piece of the puzzle that completes the picture of systemic corruption:

Those NGOs are laundering taxpayer money back to the Democratic Party through ActBlue “smurfing” schemes.

What Is “Smurfing”?

In campaign finance, “smurfing” refers to breaking up large donations into thousands of small donations under different names to evade contribution limits and avoid detection. It’s the political equivalent of money laundering—and it’s been happening on an industrial scale through ActBlue, the Democratic Party’s fundraising platform.

The Mechanism:

Large sum of money needs to funnel to Democrats
Split into thousands of small donations ($2.50-$100 each)
Use names/addresses of real people (often without their knowledge)
Process through ActBlue (which didn’t require CVV codes until 2024)
Donations under $200 don’t require detailed FEC reporting
Money becomes “grassroots small-donor contributions”

Result: Millions in dark money appear as organic grassroots support.

The Evidence: Elderly “Donors” Making Thousands of Donations

Congressional Investigation Findings:

House Administration Committee (Chairman Bryan Steil):

Identified suspicious pattern of donations from individuals with net worths too small to donate reported amounts
“Unemployed” individuals “donating” six-figure sums
Some elderly donors making 4+ donations per day, every day
Many donors listed at “suspicious addresses”

Specific Examples from Federal Election Commission Records:

Connecticut Case Study (Analyzed by Inside Investigator):

18 Connecticut residents identified as likely straw donors
$2 million in donations made in their names
5 signed affidavits saying FEC records don’t match their actual donations

Individual Example – Maryland Woman:

1,000+ donations made in her name
$20,000 total contributed
She was completely unaware of the donations

Individual Example – Cornelius Maneaux (New Orleans):

Listed as “not employed”
847 donations from 2021-2022
$18,276 total contributed
FEC records show donations as low as $2.50 made repeatedly

Individual Example – Connecticut Retiree:

2015-2019: 6 to 66 donations per year (plausible)
2020: 276 donations (suspicious increase)
2021: 1,523 donations — averaging over 4 donations per day
Total: $13,652.39

Statistical Impossibility:

Only 1% of Americans donate more than $200/year to campaigns
Only 26% of Americans planned to donate to campaigns in 2024
67% of Americans have NEVER donated to a campaign
Yet ActBlue records show thousands of “unemployed” and “retired” people making hundreds of donations worth tens of thousands of dollars

This is statistically impossible without fraud.

The Scale of the Fraud

Treasury Department Alert: The Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has generated hundreds of Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) related to ActBlue.

19 State Attorneys General Investigating:

Texas (AG Ken Paxton) – Criminal referral to DOJ
Virginia, Arkansas, Florida, Missouri, South Carolina, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and 10+ others

Congressional Subpoena:

House Administration Committee issued subpoena to ActBlue (October 30, 2024)
Demand for records on donor verification and foreign money laundering
FBI Director ordered to investigate

Trump Administration Action:

Presidential Executive Order (April 2025) authorizing AG Pam Bondi to investigate
180-day timeline for comprehensive report
Focus on “straw donors” and foreign funding

ActBlue’s Suspicious Behavior

1. No CVV Requirement Until 2024:

CVV (Card Verification Value) is the 3-digit security code on credit cards
Standard fraud prevention measure for ALL online transactions
ActBlue admitted it didn’t require CVV codes until August 2024
Only changed policy after Texas AG investigation

Translation: Anyone with a name and address could make donations using someone else’s identity, and ActBlue had no way to verify the person making the donation actually possessed the card.

2. Accepted Prepaid Gift Cards:

Prepaid cards are untraceable
Commonly used for money laundering
ActBlue accepted them for years
237 donations from foreign IP addresses using domestic prepaid cards detected in just 30 days (Sept-Oct 2024)

3. Deliberately Weakened Fraud Prevention (2024):

Internal Documents Revealed:

ActBlue made fraud-prevention rules “more lenient” twice in 2024
Training guide instructed employees to “look for reasons to accept contributions” rather than flag suspicious donations
Chief fraud-prevention official willing to accept 10% more fraud while focusing on DEI
Attempted to hide the changes to avoid sparking fraud discussions

Congressional Report:

“At best, ActBlue’s conduct displays a profound disrespect for the principle that only Americans should decide American elections. At worst, it may violate the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA).”

4. Mass Resignations and Legal Team Collapse:

Multiple ActBlue executives resigned amid allegations of “internal retaliation”
Last remaining lawyer on staff went “on leave” without access to email/internal systems
After appearing to make allegations of “internal retaliation”
ActBlue’s union: “those of us who work with our legal team… do not have clear direction on how to proceed with our work in their absence”

This is consciousness of guilt.

The Foreign Connection

Congressional Findings:

Chairman Steil’s Letter to ActBlue:

“I write today to demand information on ActBlue’s donor verification policies and the potential for foreign actors, primarily from Iran, Russia, Venezuela, and China, to use ActBlue to launder illicit money into U.S. political campaigns.“

Documented Foreign Activity:

237 donations from foreign IP addresses using domestic prepaid cards (30-day window, Sept-Oct 2024)
Congressional request for all Suspicious Activity Reports mentioning Iran, Russia, Venezuela, and China
Treasury reviewing “hundreds of potentially responsive records”

The Mechanism:

Foreign government/entity wants to fund Democrats
Uses VPN or proxy to access ActBlue from foreign IP
Uses prepaid domestic card (untraceable)
Makes donations under stolen American identities
Money flows to Democratic campaigns
Foreign influence purchased with zero accountability

Pennsylvania Case Study: 141,000 “Smurf” Donations

Restoration News Investigation (Pennsylvania):

Identified Smurfs:

At least 25 smurfs in Pennsylvania
Age range: 70s and 80s
Listed as “retired” or “not employed”

Donations to Senator Bob Casey:

3,761 donations totaling $60,952

Donations to ActBlue:

141,126 donations totaling $1,195,203

Pattern:

Multiple donations on the same day to the same entity
Located in: Yardley, Chesterbrook, Wayne, Lower Gwynedd, Columbia Cross Roads, Blue Bell, Philadelphia

Wisconsin Example:

24 smurfs identified
3,500 donations to Kamala Harris in 2024 alone
$41,000+ in just one election cycle

Biden Example (National):

21 smurfs across the country
6,804 donations to Biden campaign ($124,172)
87,132 donations to ActBlue ($900,000)

The NGO-ActBlue Connection: Closing the Loop

Here’s how the complete money laundering operation works:

STEP 1: FEDERAL GRANTS TO NGOs

DHS grants: $363 million (FY2024) to immigrant advocacy groups
CAP funding: $2.65 billion (FY2021-2024)
ORR contracts: Billions to refugee resettlement NGOs

STEP 2: NGO BUILDS CAPACITY

Hire staff (including political operatives)
Establish “community relationships”
Create database of names/addresses
Build organizational infrastructure

STEP 3: NGO ENGAGES IN POLITICAL ACTIVITY

Voter registration drives
“Civic engagement” (Democratic voter mobilization)
“Community organizing” (political activism)
Anti-ICE protests and riots

STEP 4: MONEY LAUNDERING THROUGH ACTBLUE

NGO has access to thousands of names/addresses (from service recipients)
NGO has money (from federal grants)
NGO makes thousands of small donations through ActBlue using client/community member names
Often without their knowledge or consent
Creates appearance of “grassroots” support
Money flows to Democratic candidates

STEP 5: DEMOCRATS GET ELECTED

Tout “grassroots small-donor support”
Win elections
Appropriate more money to NGOs
Cycle repeats

This is a criminal enterprise.

The “Unemployed” Donor Red Flag

Multiple state AGs flagged this pattern:

South Carolina AG Alan Wilson:

“Alarmingly, some of these individuals list their occupations as ‘unemployed’ or report jobs that could not be reasonably commensurate to the total amount of financial contributions made.”

Connecticut Data Analysis:

Majority of ActBlue donations came from individuals listed as “unemployed” or “retired”
Massive spike in July 2024: From $56,886 (July 20) to $585,996 (July 21)
Similar spikes in August, October, December
Across all 12 months analyzed: Unemployed/not employed individuals made up the MAJORITY of donors

This is the smoking gun:

If you’re running a legitimate fundraising platform, why would the majority of your donors be unemployed? The answer is simple: They’re not real donors. They’re identities being used to launder money.

How NGOs Access the Names

NGOs have unprecedented access to personal information:

Service Recipients: Names, addresses, birthdates Often vulnerable populations (elderly, immigrants, low-income) Provide information to receive benefits Trust the NGO
“Community Database” Building: Voter registration drives collect information “Civic engagement” programs build contact lists “Know Your Rights” trainings gather names All funded by taxpayer grants
No Oversight: Federal grants don’t audit how NGOs use personal information No verification that “donors” actually consented NGOs claim “privacy” to avoid scrutiny
Political Protection: Anyone questioning practices labeled “racist” Investigations dismissed as “voter suppression” NGOs claim “community trust” to deflect

ActBlue’s $16 Billion Question

Since 2004, ActBlue has processed $16 billion for Democratic campaigns.

Key Questions:

How much of that $16 billion came from real grassroots donors?
How much came from foreign governments using prepaid cards?
How much came from dark money groups using smurfing?
How much came from NGOs laundering federal grant money?

We don’t know. Because ActBlue fought every measure that would allow us to find out.

What We Do Know:

ActBlue opposed CVV requirements
ActBlue opposed prepaid card restrictions
ActBlue opposed donor verification improvements
ActBlue weakened fraud prevention in 2024
ActBlue’s legal team collapsed amid retaliation allegations
Treasury has hundreds of SARs flagging suspicious activity
19 states are investigating
Congress issued subpoena
FBI is investigating
Texas AG made criminal referral to DOJ

The Kamala Harris $46.7 Million Mystery

July 21, 2024: Biden withdraws from presidential race

Next 41 hours: Kamala Harris raises $46.7 million through ActBlue

The Washington Post: “Weeks of pent-up Democratic panic” giving way to a “historic flood” of donations from 1.1 million donors.

Or…

Connecticut ActBlue Data from July 2024:

July 20: $56,886 in donations
July 21: $585,996 in donations
10X increase in one day

Coincidence? Or coordinated smurfing operation activated the moment Biden stepped aside?

The “Bernie Kane” Case: Proof of Concept

Mark Block (Republican Strategist):

Received phone calls asking why he donated to Bernie Sanders
He never donated to Bernie Sanders
FEC records showed donations made in his name through ActBlue
All donations made using alias “Bernie Kane”
Someone was using his publicly available information to make micro-donations

Block’s Statement:

“This isn’t just about me or Bernie Sanders. It’s about the integrity of the system. If anyone can just plug your name and address into a form and make donations in your name, what’s stopping bad actors from laundering millions through fake identities?”

Answer: Nothing was stopping them. Until investigations started.

The Soros-Wyss Connection

George Soros: $153 million to Arabella Advisors network (2020) Hansjörg Wyss: $283 million to Arabella Advisors network (2020)

Arabella Advisors expenditures (2020): $410 million

That’s $436 million in… and $410 million out.

Where did the money go?

FEC records show no direct wire transfers from Soros or Wyss to ActBlue. But their money still fueled the machine.

The Theory:

Soros/Wyss donate to Arabella network (dark money hub)
Arabella network funds Sixteen Thirty Fund and other pass-throughs
Pass-throughs fund voter turnout operations, ballot initiatives
Operations use “smurfing” to break money into tiny donations
Donations flow through ActBlue under stolen identities
$436 million becomes millions of “small-donor grassroots contributions”

Without bank records, this remains a hypothesis. But the numbers align suspiciously well.

The USAID Theory: Taxpayer Money to ActBlue?

Allegation (Unconfirmed):

USAID’s $40 billion budget secretly funded ActBlue via NGOs
Taxpayer money laundered through international development grants
Routed through NGOs back to Democratic campaigns

Current Status:

No grant records or FEC filings confirm direct link
But the mechanism exists: USAID funds international NGOs NGOs operate in U.S. NGOs have “partnership” with domestic groups Domestic groups funnel money to ActBlue Chain is intentionally obscured

What We Know For Sure:

Federal grants flow to NGOs
NGOs engage in political activity
ActBlue processes suspicious donations
Pattern is consistent with laundering

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence—it’s evidence of a system designed to hide the money trail.

Criminal Referrals and Investigations

Texas AG Ken Paxton Criminal Referral to DOJ:

“My investigation uncovered evidence showing that bad actors are likely using ActBlue’s platform to make illegal campaign contributions. It is illegal to engage in election fraud and it is illegal to obscure one’s identity to flout election rules.”

South Carolina AG Alan Wilson:

Requested SLED (State Law Enforcement Division) investigation
Potential violations: Charitable law, regulatory law, criminal law, campaign finance law

Virginia AG Jason Miyares:

“My office has become aware of multiple serious allegations that ActBlue… [has] engaged in fraudulent, deceptive, and/or otherwise illegal activities… This includes hundreds of thousands of dollars of contributions through individual donors… in volumes that are facially implausible and appear suspicious.”

Federal Investigations:

House Administration Committee (subpoena issued)
House Judiciary Committee
House Oversight Committee
FBI (per Trump Executive Order)
Treasury Department (hundreds of SARs)

The NGO Names They Won’t Tell You

Which NGOs are doing this?

We don’t have the smoking gun documents (yet). But we have patterns:

NGOs Most Likely Involved (Based on Available Evidence):

Organizations receiving both federal grants AND connected to political organizing: CHIRLA ($34M/year, organized LA riots) Catholic Charities ($350M+, advocacy activities) Various CAP recipients
Organizations with access to large databases of names: Voter registration organizations “Civic engagement” groups Immigrant services providers “Community organizing” networks
Organizations with suspicious financial patterns: Rapid growth in federal funding Political activity disguised as “education” Resistance to transparency “Privacy” claims to avoid audits

The Investigation Continues: Congressional subpoenas and AG investigations will eventually reveal which specific NGOs are using federal grant money to fund ActBlue donations. The pattern is too clear to hide forever.

The Statistical Proof

Let’s do the math:

Assumption 1: Average “Unemployed” American

Income: $0 (unemployed)
Discretionary income for politics: $0
Rational donation amount: $0-$50/year (if highly motivated)

ActBlue Reality:

Connecticut “unemployed” donors: Majority of all donations
Individual unemployed donors: $10,000-$20,000+
Frequency: Multiple donations per day

Assumption 2: Elderly Retiree on Fixed Income

Social Security: ~$1,900/month average
Disposable income after expenses: ~$200-500/month
Rational political donation: $20-100/year

ActBlue Reality:

Individual retirees: 1,000+ donations
Amounts: $13,000-$20,000+
Frequency: 4+ donations per day

Assumption 3: Foreign National Wanting to Influence U.S. Elections

Goal: Fund preferred candidates
Constraint: Illegal for foreign nationals to donate
Solution: Use prepaid card + VPN + stolen American identity
Detection risk with CVV: High
Detection risk without CVV: Low

ActBlue Reality:

No CVV requirement until 2024
Prepaid cards accepted
237 foreign IP donations detected in 30 days (just what they caught)

The statistics don’t lie. This is fraud.

What This Means for Every Investigation in This Report

The ActBlue connection completes the circle:

Obama built the NGO grant infrastructure (ORR, Wilson-Fish, per-capita funding)
Biden removed the guardrails (CAP, citizenship requirements, “equity” prioritization)
NGOs received billions in federal grants ($2.65B+ CAP, $1.45B DHS, etc.)
NGOs built databases of names/addresses (service recipients, voter registration)
NGOs engaged in political activity (organizing, advocacy, riots)
NGOs laundered money through ActBlue (smurfing using stolen identities)
Democrats got elected (claiming “grassroots” support)
Democrats appropriated more money to NGOs (cycle repeats)

Meanwhile:

Foreign adversaries (China, Iran, Russia, Venezuela) use the same ActBlue vulnerabilities
Singham’s CCP network funds the same NGOs receiving federal grants
Organized crime (Minnesota Somali fraud) exploits the same lack of oversight
All using the infrastructure Obama built

This is the largest coordinated fraud, money laundering, and foreign influence operation in American history.

The Solution: Cut Off The Money

Legislative Actions Required:

SHIELD Act (Already Introduced) Require CVV for all online donations Ban prepaid cards for political donations Criminal penalties for violations
NGO Political Activity Ban No federal funds to organizations engaging in political activity Strict definition (includes voter registration, “civic engagement”) Immediate funding cutoff for violations
ActBlue Transparency Act Require real-time public reporting of all donations Independent audits of donor verification Criminal penalties for accepting illegal donations Personal liability for executives
Victim Notification Requirement Anyone whose name appears in FEC filings must be notified Consent verification required Easy reporting mechanism for fraud

The Trillion-Dollar Question

How much money has been laundered through this system?

Conservative Estimate:

ActBlue total (2004-present): $16 billion
Estimated fraudulent percentage: 20-40% (based on investigation findings)
Fraudulent amount: $3.2 – $6.4 billion

Just in recent years:

Federal grants to NGOs (2021-2024): $4+ billion
Potential ActBlue smurfing (2021-2024): $1-2 billion
Foreign money laundering (2021-2024): $500M – $1B (estimated)

Combined fraud: $5.5 – $7.4 billion

And that’s just what we can document so far.

The Final Proof: ActBlue’s Own Behavior

If ActBlue were innocent, they would:

Embrace CVV requirements
Ban prepaid cards
Welcome investigations
Cooperate fully
Improve verification

Instead, ActBlue:

Fought CVV requirements for years
Only changed after AG investigations
Accepted prepaid cards (untraceable)
Weakened fraud prevention in 2024
Trained employees to “accept” suspicious donations
Legal team collapsed amid retaliation allegations
Opposes transparency measures
Calls investigations “disinformation”

This is not the behavior of an innocent organization. This is the behavior of a criminal enterprise being exposed.

CONCLUSION:

We now have the complete picture:

THE INFRASTRUCTURE (Obama):

ORR pass-through grants
Wilson-Fish single-source model
Per-capita incentives
Minimal oversight

THE EXPANSION (Biden):

CAP removes citizenship requirements
“Equity” prioritizes politics over competence
DHS grants to advocacy groups
Explicit funding for political activity

THE EXPLOITATION (Multiple Actors):

Organized Crime (Somali networks): $675M+ fraud in Minnesota Feeding Our Future: $250M Treasury organized crime warnings
Foreign Influence (CCP/Singham): $275M global network $44.3M to People’s Forum Anti-ICE riot coordination
Taxpayer-Funded Riots (CHIRLA, etc.): $34M/year to LA riot organizers Federal grants funding violence FBI investigations
Money Laundering (ActBlue) : $16B processed since 2004 $3-6B estimated fraud 19 state investigations Treasury SARs Congressional subpoena DOJ criminal referral

THE CIRCLE: Federal grants → NGOs → ActBlue smurfing → Democrats elected → More federal grants → Repeat