‘Spreading atheism': Vance warns religious efforts abroad ‘corrupted' by US bureaucracy amid USAID controversy
Vice President JD Vance slammed U.S. bureaucracy that has "corrupted" aid programs to foreign nations amid the Trump administration's investigation into USAID waste, directing his ire at a recent revelation that the government had funded a program to promote atheism — or disbelief in God or gods — in Nepal.
"In recent years, too often has our nation's international engagement on religious liberty issues been corrupted and distorted to the point of absurdity," Vance, who is Catholic, said at the International Religious Freedom Summit in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday. "Think about it: How did America get to a point where we're sending hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars abroad to NGOs that are dedicated to spreading atheism all over the globe? That is not what leadership on protecting the rights of the faithful looks like."
Vance did not mention the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) by name in his speech to the religious crowd and those working to advocate for religious liberty in the U.S. and around the world.
The forum was held as USAID faces an apparent dismantling as Elon Musk and his team at the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) pore over the agency's financial records to suss out government overspending and corruption.
USAID's website was shut down in early February, replaced with a message on Tuesday evening outlining how "direct-hire personnel" will be placed on leave Friday, except those on "mission-critical functions, core leadership and specially designated programs."
'Sesame Street In Iraq': Usaid's 'Wasteful And Dangerous' Spending Exposed By Senator
Read On The Fox News App
Vance's comment focusing on nongovernmental organizations using taxpayer funds to promote atheism around the globe is likely referring to a $500,000 grant solicited by the State Department in 2021, under the Biden administration. The grant hit the nation's radar in 2024, when Republican House lawmakers sounded the alarm that the State Department was participating in a "pattern of obfuscation and denial" related to efforts to promote atheism on the world stage.
'Viper's Nest': Usaid Accused Of Corruption, Mismanagement Long Before Trump Admin Took Aim
Reps. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, Chris Smith, R-N.J., and Brian Mast, R-Fla., wrote in a letter sent to then-State Department Deputy Secretary Richard Verma in May 2024: "We write to address what the Department has now acknowledged were its misrepresentations made to Congress about the scope and nature of programming that – for the first time in US diplomatic history – has sought to promote atheism overseas under the guise of 'religious freedom.'"
The lawmakers were referring to the State Department's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor grant for $500,000, titled "Promoting and Defending Religious Freedom Inclusive of Atheist, Humanist, Non-Practicing and Non-Affiliated Individuals." Fox News Digital reviewed an archived web link for the grant on Thursday, which detailed that the U.S. was working to "support Religious Freedom globally," including to "combat discrimination, harassment and abuses against atheist, humanist, non-practicing and non-affiliated individuals of all religious communities."
The State Department's announcement for the grant reads: "DRL's goal is to ensure everyone enjoys religious freedom, including the freedom to dissent from religious belief and to not practice or adhere to a religion. By not adhering to a predominant religious tradition, many individuals face discrimination in employment, housing, in civil and criminal proceedings, and other areas especially in the context of intersectional identities."
The grant was awarded to Humanists International, a UK-based group that works to promote secularism and humanism, a philosophy that does not include a belief in God.
The State Department's funding announcement opportunity detailed how the program was expected to increase "capacity among members of atheist and heterodox individuals to form or join networks or organizations."
Feds Spent Millions Studying Trans Menstruation, Strengthening Gay Rights In The Balkans, Database Reveals
Fox News Digital reached out to Humanists International on Thursday morning regarding the grant and Vance's comments but did not immediately receive a reply.
Gop Hardliners Rally Around Trump, Musk Scaling Back Usaid
"But this administration is intent on not just restoring, but on expanding the achievements of the first four years, and certainly in the last two weeks," he continued. "And in this short period, the president has issued orders to end the weaponization of the federal government against religious Americans."
"Pardon pro-life protesters who were unjustly imprisoned under the last administration," he said. "And importantly, stop the federal censorship used to prevent Americans from speaking their conscience and speaking their mind, whether it's in their communities or online."
"Now, our administration believes we must stand for religious freedom, not just as a legal principle, as important as that is, but as a lived reality both within our own borders and especially outside," he continued.
Flashback: Biden Admin Repeatedly Used Usaid To Push Abortion In Africa
Vance's speech was followed by a virtual address from actor Rainn Wilson, who played Dwight Schrute in "The Office," to discuss his Baha'i faith and the persecution of fellow adherents in Iran.
Government funding directed to left-wing initiatives through agencies such as USAID or the State Department has come under the microscope recently, as DOGE launched investigations to cut government fat. Secretary of State Marco Rubio took over as acting director of USAID on Monday, telling the media that the agency needs to fall in line with Trump's "America First" policies, which includes using taxpayer funds to strengthen U.S. communities rather than sending cash overseas.
Democrats have seethed over DOGE's work, holding protests outside government offices in Washington, D.C., and across the country to declare that they will fight the efforts tooth and nail.
Usaid Employee Says Staffers Hid Pride Flags, 'Incriminating' Books When Doge Arrived
"What we are witnessing here is the biggest heist in American history," Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., said on Tuesday during one rally.
"This is the most corrupt bargain we've ever seen in American history: Elon Musk gives $250 million to elect Donald Trump, and Donald Trump turns over the keys to United States government to Elon Musk and his billionaire friends and his cronies," Van Hollen continued in his remarks outside the Treasury Department.
"We have to fight this in the courts, we have to fight this in the Congress, we have to fight this in the streets. We need to fight this all over America."
Rep. LaMonica McIver, D-N.J., added, "Shut down the city! We are at war!"
Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., said during a news interview of DOGE's work at USAID, "The level of disrespect actually is criminal, because there are crisis-response teams that are around the world that really rely on having access to their emails – having access to apps that they can utilize if there's danger to them."
Protesters have slammed Musk as a "fascist" who was not elected to federal office yet holds sway with the White House in his role at DOGE.
Musk trolled Democrats and government employees amid the protests on Wednesday when he changed his X bio to state that he is working as "White House Tech Support" as his DOGE team reviews the federal government's various computer systems.Original article source: 'Spreading atheism': Vance warns religious efforts abroad 'corrupted' by US bureaucracy amid USAID controversy
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Oil tanks 6% as Iranian retaliation against US spares energy supply
Oil futures slid 6% on Monday as Iran appeared to spare the energy market while the country launched missiles targeted at a US air base in Qatar in retaliation for US bombings on Iranian nuclear sites. Brent crude (BZ=F), the international benchmark, dropped to $72 per barrel. West Texas Intermediate (CL=F) also fell roughly 6% to trade below $70 per barrel. The declines came after Iranian state media said it launched missile attacks against a US air base in Qatar, matching the number of bombs dropped by the US over the weekend, in a move the Associated Press said signaled "a likely desire to deescalate." Prior to the retaliatory move, Wall Street weighed various scenarios after President Trump announced on Saturday that the US struck three Iranian nuclear facilities, including the threat of Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint for oil flows. On Monday morning, President Trump posted on social media: "To The Department of Energy: DRILL, BABY, DRILL!!! And I mean NOW!!!" "The main reason for this stability is that energy infrastructure has largely been spared from direct attacks, with number of oil tankers transiting through the Strait of Hormuz remaining steady," JPMorgan's Natasha Kaneva and her team wrote on Monday morning. On Sunday, futures spiked after Iran's parliament voted to close the Strait of Hormuz, but the final decision rests with Iran's Supreme National Security Council and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The oil market is now factoring in "a one-in-five chance of a material disruption in Gulf energy production flows, with potential for crude prices to reach the $120-130 range," Kaneva wrote. "Yet, beyond the short-term spike induced by geopolitics, our base case for oil remains anchored by our supply-demand balance, which shows that the world has enough oil," she added. She also noted that "with fewer reliable partners in the Middle East and limited regional appetite for a broader conflict, Iran faces a constrained set of options and a heightened set of risks as it deliberates its course of action." Other possible retaliatory moves from Iran could include supporting Yemen's Houthi rebels in renewed attacks on commercial shipping, or going after energy infrastructure in neighboring countries. If crude climbs into the $120 to $130 range, analysts predict gasoline and diesel prices could rise by as much as $1.25 per gallon. "Consumers would be looking at a national average gasoline price of around $4.50 per gallon — closer to $6.00 if you're in California," Lipow Oil Associates president Andy Lipow said in a Sunday note. The key issue isn't just the potential for supply disruption, but how long it lasts, Rebecca Babin, senior energy trader at CIBC Private Wealth, told Yahoo Finance on Sunday. "If infrastructure is hit but can be quickly restored, crude may struggle to hold gains," she said. "But if Iran's response causes lasting damage or introduces long-term supply risk, we're likely to see a stronger and more sustained move higher." Last week, JPMorgan analysts noted that since 1967 — aside from the Yom Kippur War in 1973 — none of the 11 major military conflicts involving Israel have had a lasting impact on oil prices. In contrast, events directly involving major regional oil producers, such as the first Gulf War in 1990, the Iraq War in 2003 and the imposition of sanctions on Iran in 2018, have all led to meaningful and sustained moves in oil markets. "During these episodes, we estimate that oil traded at a $7–$14 per barrel premium to its fair value for an extended period," JPMorgan's Kaneva wrote. They added that the most significant and lasting price impacts historically come from "regime changes" in oil-producing countries, whether that be through leadership transitions, coups, revolutions, or major political shifts. "While demand conditions and OPEC's spare capacity shape the broader market response, these events typically drive substantial oil price spikes, averaging a 76% increase from onset to peak," Kaneva wrote. The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and its allies (OPEC+) had raised output in the months leading up to Israel's strike on Iran on June 13. Ines Ferre is a Senior Business Reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow her on X at @ines_ferre. Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Fed officials are starting to break rank and join Trump
Some Federal Reserve officials are joining President Donald Trump in calling for lower interest rates as soon as July. Fed Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle Bowman on Monday downplayed the potential impacts of Trump's tariffs on prices and said the US central bank should swiftly lower rates to preserve the labor market's health. 'It is time to consider adjusting the policy rate,' Bowman said. 'Should inflation pressures remain contained, I would support lowering the policy rate as soon as our next meeting in order to bring it closer to its neutral setting and to sustain a healthy labor market.' Bowman is the second Fed official to join Trump in calling for lower borrowing costs. On Friday, Fed Governor Christopher Waller said tariffs will likely only result in a 'one-off' increase in inflation. Both Bowman and Waller are Trump appointees. For months, Fed officials have said they prefer to wait to see how Trump's major policy shifts affect the US economy first before considering further rate cuts. At its policy meeting earlier this month, the Fed kept its benchmark lending rate unchanged for the fourth consecutive time. But that strategy hasn't sat well with Trump, who has relentlessly lashed out at the central bank and its leader, Fed Chair Jerome Powell, for not lowering rates. Trump has hurled various insults at Powell, describing him as a 'fool' and a 'numbskull.' Now, the Fed's wait-and-see posture is slowly crumbling, even as tensions in the Middle East heat up, which raises the risk of higher global energy prices. And the jury is still out on the ultimate impact of Trump's tariffs. Bowman said it's possible the Israel-Iran conflict — which escalated over the weekend with the US striking at three Iranian nuclear sites — results in higher commodity prices. And there's still the lingering possibility of Trump's trade war also pushing up prices, she said. Still, that may not even result in higher consumer prices because businesses don't have much leverage to hike prices this time around, Bowman said. 'I am certainly attentive to these inflation risks, but I am not yet seeing a major concern, as some retailers seem unwilling to raise prices for essentials due to high price sensitivity among low-income consumers and as supply chains appear to be largely unaffected so far,' Bowman said. Bowman isn't the only Fed official seemingly not worried about the potential economic impact of the Israel-Iran conflict. Powell has said higher energy prices spurred by the conflict will likely be short lived. 'When there's turmoil in the Middle East, you may see a spike in energy prices, but it tends to come down. Those things don't generally tend to have lasting effects on inflation, although of course in the 1970s, they famously did,' Powell said in a news conference following the Fed's June 17-18 policy meeting. 'But, we haven't seen anything like that now. The U.S. economy is far less dependent on foreign oil than it was back in the 1970s,' he added. Economists have said the economic impact of the current conflict largely depends on how out of hand it gets. A forecast from analysts at EY-Parthenon shows that the US economy could contract by a massive 1.9% annualized rate if the Middle East plunges into an all-out regional war. But in a 'contained' scenario, the US economy could contract only slightly. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
USA Today
18 minutes ago
- USA Today
Iran strikes US base after Trump bombing. Are you concerned about war? Tell us.
Last week, we asked you if the US should go to war with Iran. It looks like President Trump decided for us. We want to know how you feel about that. Last Thursday, on June 19, President Donald Trump said he would decide 'within the next two weeks' whether the United States would engage directly in the escalating conflict between Iran and Israel. Two days later, Trump announced the completion of a 'successful' attack on Iranian nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. On Monday, June 23, Iran responded by striking a U.S. military base in Qatar. And thus begins, perhaps, another U.S. 'forever war' in the Middle East. If you, like me, spent your entire life with America entrenched in Middle East conflicts – where friends and community members have laid down their lives for wars based on lies – then perhaps you, like me, are less than thrilled at this prospect. (Scroll down or click here to share your opinion with us.) And we're not alone. Do you think the US should have bombed Iran? In an Economist/YouGov poll released before the bombing, 60% of respondents said the U.S. military should not get directly involved. A majority – 56% – said that negotiations should continue. A Washington Post poll conducted June 18 found a similar pattern, with the majority of respondents opposing air strikes. And when USA TODAY conducted our own reader survey, we received an overwhelming response saying the United States should not get involved and America should refrain from official intervention. Previously: Should US go to war with Iran or support Israel from afar? Take our poll. | Opinion In the aftermath of the bombing, Americans – and the world – seem as divided as ever on the decision. Trump ally Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, applauded the move and even encouraged it, telling The Wall Street Journal that he told the president, 'This will reset our relationship with the rest of the world.' Meanwhile MAGA faithful Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Georgia, took to X on Monday to break with Trump, writing, 'It feels like a complete bait and switch.' Less than a week later, we want to know if that feeling has changed. Do you think Trump was right to bomb Iran? Do you think he should have waited for approval from Congress? What do you think Iran – and America – will do next? Are you concerned about the threat of nuclear war? Why did Trump strike Iran? Will it change anything? Questions have swirled in the immediate fallout from the June 21 bombing. In a speech that evening, Trump claimed Iran's three major sites had been 'obliterated.' But less than a day later, the picture was much less certain, with weapons experts, Iranian officials and even Russia contesting the true impact of the attack. These new developments beg the question: Was it worth it? And, with countries pledging to arm Iran with nuclear weapons anyway, did it even change anything? We want to know what you think. Take our poll below, or send us an email with the subject line "Forum US Iran war" to forum@ We'll publish a collection of responses from all sides of the conversation in our next installment of the Opinion Forum. Janessa Hilliard is the director of audience for USA TODAY Opinion and Opinion at Gannett.
