Speaker 1: And we are back with another edition of the Federalist
Radio Hour. I'm Matt Kittle's senior elections correspondent at The
Federalist and your experienced Shirpa on today's quest for Knowledge.
As always, you can email the show at radio at
the Federalist dot com, follow us on x at FDR LST,
make sure to subscribe wherever you download your podcast, and
of course to the premium version of our website as well.
Our guest today is Stuart Whitson, Senior director of Federal
Affairs at the Foundation for Government Accountability. We discussed today
the age of accountability in government. Stewart, thanks so much
for joining us in this edition of the Federalist Radio Hour.
Speaker 2: Thanks for having me on AM.
Speaker 1: I overstating that the age of accountability in government is
are we making America American government at least accountable again?
Speaker 2: I think that's absolutely right. I think as President Trump
would characterize it, we are definitely entering a golden era
or America when it comes to accountability. The DOGE effort
obviously a lot of the things that DOGE is uncovering
already are some things that had already surfaced. There's some
things that other people had flagged in the past, but
it just was never able to get the kind of
attention and energy behind it to actually not just identify
the wasteful spending, but do something about it. And so
I think that's what's so great about the DOGE effort,
about President Trump's leadership behind it, is things are actually
getting done and Americans love it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the polling does show it, indeed that Americans as
opposed to what the left, the Democrat Party is saying,
that Americans are beside themselves. They're tearing their clothes over
federal bureaucrats being sent packing, that foreign aid to absolutely
criminally insane programs is being ended. Now, you spoke before
the DOGE committee last month. It was the House Oversight
Committee's subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency, and you said
some interesting things. First and foremost, I always love the
facts the updates of what DOGE is doing the Department
of Government Efficiency. But more than anything, you said the
next target should be medicaid, noting that one out of
every five dollars is an improper payment, costing US taxpayers
more than a trillion dollars perhaps over the next ten years.
How did we get here?
Speaker 2: Well, I think there's kind of a confluence of factors
that came together, but if you want to go back,
it would really have started during the Obama administration. And
so basically what they did is they tried to transform
what it historically been a program medicaid program for the
truly needy. What they've tried to do is push as
many able bodied people as they can onto the program
to kind of create a type of government dependency. And
so under the Obama administration, what we saw is new
regulations that basically made it harder for states to kick
people off the program who are ineligible for the program.
And so what does that mean. It's people that either
earned too much money to be on the program, people
that maybe have died, people that may be trying to
collect the program in multiple states. And so what they
did is they put these requirements said, you know, states
can't check more than one per year to make sure
people are still eligible, and they suspended some other rules.
Fast forward, Trump administration came in, obviously knocked those rules down,
tried to bring some accountability back to the program. Then
COVID hit, and so when COVID hit, massive amounts of
money went in to a number of different programs to
try to help, you know, because basically the government pushed
a lot of people out of the workforce overnight, and
so that push, a lot of people got pushed into
the program that maybe shouldn't have been in the program
because states primarily weren't able, you know, to monitor the
programs and make sure only eligible people were there. But
then once they got in the program and Biden came
into office, then he exacerbated the problem through a number
of actions. And one of the biggest things he did
was a thing called the Medicaid Streamlining Rule. And so basically,
in the nutshell, what that rule did is it created
this new requirement for the states that prohibited things like
in person or phone interviews to verify that people are
actually eligible for the benefit.
Speaker 1: Amazing.
Speaker 2: It also did this it required these quote reconsideration periods
for people that are deemed ineligible. So even when the
states would identify people that they knew didn't belong on
the program, the Biden administration would require them to keep
them on the program anyway, wow, to make to do
a reconsideration to make sure that was accurate. But get
this all this together, the Congressional Budget Office, which actually
has a record of underestimating the cost of government programs.
But even they estimate that that rule alone cost taxpayers
two hundred and twenty four billion dollars. Wow, the next decade.
Speaker 1: That's that is That is criminal waste, That is criminal
abuse of what this program was intended for. Isn't this
just really I'm asking a question. I think I know
the game answer too, But isn't this really just the
attempt of the Obama heights and the Biden folks to
socialized medicine, make a nationalized socialized medicine system?
Speaker 2: Absolutely, I mean, there's no other explanation as to why
they would try to push so again, able bodied people
onto a program that's designed to benefit you know, truly
needy folks, elderly disabled, children in extreme poverty. And so
instead of helping those groups, they're pushing, you know, the
twenty year old who's sitting on the couch plane xbox
all day, pushing them onto medicaid and basically discouraging them
from entering the workforce at the same time. So there's
a number of problems that creates besides just draining the
Medicaid program.
Speaker 1: So how did Doge highlighting all of this waste and
folks like you government watchdogs saying, hey, we need to
change this. How did this become, at least according to
the left in this country, President Trump going after medicaid
for the people who really need it, cutting medicaid as
they say, well.
Speaker 2: I think it's basically for the left, they're being asked
to defend an indefensible position. And what's that. It's there's
all this litany of wasteful spending, uh there, as you
described it, and rightfully so criminal, you know, handing out
of medicaid benefits that actually is hurting the program. And
so the left is caught between a rock and a
hard place. They can either admit that the President's right.
They can admit that this wasteful spending is happening. But
if they do so, that creates two political problems for them.
One is it makes it harder, you know, with the
mid when the mid terms come up, to recognize that
the president was right and he fixed a problem. But
it also is a tacit admission on their part that
all this waste, fraud, and abuse has and when it
happened on their watch. And so I think that's the problem.
And so and that's why you see, even with the litany,
you know, you know, you can rattle off the list,
whether it's the thirty two thousand dollars Transgender comic Book
to Peru, another one, this one from yesterday, Additional Institutes
of Health seven hundred thousand dollars grant to study cannabis
use among quote sexual minority, gender diverse individuals. And so
all this litany of way, I don't even know what
that is, but I don't either all and I don't
think they do. All this list though, is problematic. And
then it actually creates a third problem. And that's the
problem that you know, we're just scratching the surface here
of but it is the corruption. So right now, DOGE
has uncovered massive amounts of wasteful spending, stuff that any
American no matter what political party they're from, they can
look at it on its face and know it's harmful,
wasteful spending. But they haven't gotten yet to the corruption.
And so you know we're going to find that too,
where it's you know, who are these groups that are
receiving this grant? Are there any connections between the people
you know who are running these groups and folks in
the Biden administration who approve the funding. Are there any
kind of kickbacks going back to the you know, to
the Democratic Party? And so I think the left knows this,
They know this is all coming down the pike, and
so they're kind of scrambling to back up a little
bit on your question. So why so aggressive against medica,
you know, Medicaid? Uh, this is kind of classic. So
there's a big bill coming up called the Reconciliation Bill
that they're going to pass in Congress, and one of
the areas that they're you know, so in order to
extend the Trump tax cuts and do a bunch of
other good policy, they also want to cut a bunch
of wasteful spending. And so the instructions for that big
bill have told the Energy and Commerce Committee, which oversees Medicaid,
to find eight hundred and eighty bill million dollars worth
of savings to be part of that package. And so
they've so Republicans have already found a huge list of
great things just like that that Biden's you know, Medicaid
streamlining rule. Like I said, if you get rid of that,
you get a ton of savings just from that alone.
And so you can easily reach that eight hundred and
eighty million dollar figure without touching benefits at all, without
even cutting benefits, actually benefits would still grow. And so
the Left is panicking, and what they're doing is they're
basically just lying to the American people and trying to
condense Americans that, you know, in order to reach those
cuts that they're going to go after these programs. But
it's just inherently untrue.
Speaker 1: There it is, there it is. But before we get
back to that, I just want to say, as you
as you noted, soon we're going to start taking a
look at a closer look at the corruption, who was involved,
who made these decisions, And I might suggest that based
on the seven hundred hundred thousand dollars grand program that
you mentioned before, how these decisions were made, And it
would seem to me that a lot of these decisions
were made while people were very high on some sort
of drug that that absolutely distorted their sense of reason, rationality, proportion.
You can't look at some of these programs and say
these were decisions based on good mental health. That said,
let's go back to the medicaid situation.
Speaker 2: Can I add some today?
Speaker 1: Yeah? Absolutely.
Speaker 2: I also think it's just a dereliction of duty. Yeah,
it's not being so when you're spending other people's money,
you don't care the same about yours, And sure lack
of being a good steward of taxpayer money. And then
the other thing I'd say besides and I grew, but
I agree with your point. The other the other thing
is the timing of the funding. And so people heard
about this in the media and Lee Zelden's doing a
great job at EPA uncovering this, but they literally this
was a Biden person characterizing it as throwing gold bars
off the ship as it's And so that's the other
thing is how much of this wasteful spending came in
the waning days of the Biden administration after the election.
So they knew Biden, the Biden administration knew they were
out of power. They knew that starting January twentieth that
President Trump was going to come in and that they
would all need to find new jobs. How much of
this funding was pushed to benefit NGOs that many of
these folks are ultimately going to land jobs in So
that's where you're going to see a lot of corruption.
Speaker 1: That is to me, and it goes back to the
whole Medicaid issue. When you have the facts of the matter,
you have this reconciliation bill to be able to pay
for tax cuts that American absolutely deserve. They deserve their
money back, particularly after what we've been talking about, and
they have for a long time, and they should well
into the future. But you know, the whole position of
the left, the Democrat Party, which is screaming over basically,
and please correct me if I'm wrong, what they're screaming
over with this streamlining situation under the Biden administration is
their argument is the twenty year old playing xbox is
going to lose his Medicaid?
Speaker 2: Is that?
Speaker 1: I mean, is that really what? That's what the hill
that they're dying on.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and well, the argument they're making is untrue. They're
trying to make it seem as if benefits are going
to be taken from the truly needy. Yeah, and which
is inexcusable because it's actually the total opposite. You know,
when you have a program that has a finite amount
of dollars invested in it, if you were the able
bodied people off of that program and encourage them to
go back into the workforce where they can get their
own health insurance that frankly is better quality and more
suited for them individually. But when you get them out
of that entitlement program, that frees up resources and dollars
for the truly needy. And so that's the great irony
here is they are actually hurting the very people that
they're claiming they're trying to help. And so, and this
is what I don't need to tell you this too,
is when they have the left wing corporate media on
their side as well, they can just re you know,
hit the same false narrative and the same false talking
point over and over and over, and it just convinces
everyday Americans, you know, like most Americans don't know the
difference between Medicare or Medicaid. They just you know, think
about benefits for healthy people. And so if they hear
that same talking point all day long from the corporate media,
then then they start to believe it. And so that's
that's what the left is gambling on, is they can
use that to sway public opinion. But I don't think
that's going to work.
Speaker 1: Our sponsor today addresses a major concern, identity theft. If
you're worried about keeping your personal information secure. We've got
just the solution, introducing in Cognate, your digital shield that
stands guard against even the most sophisticated online threats. Whenever
you shop online, start a digital subscription, or download an app,
you end up releasing personal information which can be sold
or worse yet stolen. Thankfully, in Cogny is your digital
shield against even the most sophisticated online threats. And Cogny
reaches out to data brokers on your behalf and request
your personal data removal with a firm, professional hand tackling
any pushback they might try to throw your way. And
Cognate provides unmatched identity protection, guarding your sensitive information such
as social security numbers and login details like a high
security vault, protecting you from potential identity theft and ensuring
your personal information remains confidential. Why delay act now? Within
Cognate your go to solution for keeping data brokers at bay,
got a network of friends or family, Visit in Cogni
dot com to start safeguarding your digital life today. And
here's the bonus. You can try it in Cognate risk
free for thirty days with a full refund if it
doesn't meet your expectations. Take your personal data back within
Cognate use code Federalist at the link below and get
sixty percent off an annual plan. And I want to
talk about that, but that's the word, isn't it entitlement?
And that's entitlement programs you're entitled to this, which first
and foremost is problematic, and it comes it comes as
a loaded word because people who are really deserving, who
have fallen through the cracks. We have the vast majority
of Americans who said, yeah, I can see helping out
for a time, particularly in a transitional period, to help
people get back to where they need to be. What Americans,
of course, are sick of is the sense of entitlement
that comes from expanding medicaid to people who truly do
not deserve it, who are able bodied that can go
out and work. And so that ties into that accountability
question what you're talking about with the accomplice media over
and over again, they are pushing these narratives in these
stories of the person who's about to lose their health
care under the mean, nasty Trump and Republicans in Congress
couldn't be further from the truth for people who really
need these programs. As you mentioned, but will they ultimately
be successful? Where do things stand on the accountabilit front
for not only the liberal politicians, but for their water
carriers in the so called mainstream media.
Speaker 2: So I think in recent years really with I mean,
and honestly it's it's Elon Musk keeps coming back to
the forefront. But his purchase of Twitter changed the world
for the left wing media and started to you know,
revolutionize the way people get information. And so I think
the left are still operating off the old playbook that
if the corporate if they can get the corporate media
to all sing from the same you know, left wing hyminal,
that they could just kind of pull the wool over
the eyes of Americans and kind of do whatever they
want to do. But with social media now with other
you know, the Federalists leading the way on giving you know,
accurate reporting and in depth, you know, investigative reporting that
people couldn't have had access to before. The average American
just you know, has the truth at their fingertips and
ways they didn't. And so I think at the end
of the day, there because you know the other you know,
in a backup too, we're on the side or right
on this so we are on the winning side. This
isn't a winning argument for them if all the facts
can get in front of Americans and so I do
I think with the way media has changed, I think
Americans are going to get those facts in front of
them and so, and they're going to be able to
kind of neutralize this effort by the left and minutes
parachize what Republicans are trying to do.
Speaker 1: Our guest today is Stuart Whitson, Senior director of Federal
Affairs at the Foundation for Government Accountability. As we talk
about the age of accountability in the federal government at
the very least, you said something very interesting at last
month's House Oversight Committee Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency.
You said that we need to ensure entrenched partisan bureaucrats
don't stand in the way of reform. Personnel is policy.
I thought that was very well put. I think it
gets to the heart of the matter of the Trump administration.
The president looking at these entrenched bureaucrats who have forever
stood in the way of good, you know, good governance,
of being respectful of the taxpayers' money. But the courts,
the leftist led courts, are blocking that. Where does this
fight go from here, well.
Speaker 2: I think, you know, and that's kind of predictable. That's
one thing the left has always been good at is
using the courts to try to get in the way
of good policy change. And so this is where, you know,
kind of in my testimony a point I was trying
to really hammer home is, you know, everything that the
president is doing through the dose effort is great. Cutting
wasteful spending, identifying the wasteful spending is great. Removing in
trench bureaucrats that will get in the way of this
change is great. But the problem is anything the president
does through executive action can be undone by executive action
by a future intration. Yeah, the courts can get in
the way. They can you know, they can slow roll
things that I think is are inevitable. So I think
a lot of these legal challenges eventually the Trump administration
is going to be able to win. But the left, nos,
it's kind of a long game. They can drag this
out long enough and get past you know, that first
one hundred days, which are crucial for any administration, that
they can you know, prevent a lot of good things
from happening. And so I think so my point I
was hammering, hon, is this is where Congress needs to
come in and try to codify some of these things.
You know, give the president some power to be able
to do things that I think everyday Americans would agree to.
You know, the president should be able to fire unproductive
or in subordinate employees. Federal employees shouldn't have more protection
than employees in private sector or employees and other you know,
even in Congress, people that work for members of Congress
are at will. They can be fired if they're insubordinate
or if they don't show up to work. So what
we've kind of over time this you know, federal workers
have been given this special protection that what it does
is it allows them to entrench themselves and become resistant.
And one of the things too, I kind of mentioned
in my testimony as well, is the federal workforce is
so disproportionately part of one political party, the Democrat Party,
that when they try to entrench, when you put these
kind of protections on them, That's why it causes so
much problems for Republicans is they're coming in, you know,
to a new administration and it's literally populated with people
all of the opposite part. So it's just extremely difficult
to get anything done.
Speaker 1: I think a lot of Americans, this American included, want
to know why. I'm talking to you from the Des Moines,
Iowa area, and this state has seen a lot of
job cuts in recent months at one of its keystone
manufacturing employers. That's a deer in company, hundreds of jobs lost.
You know, families' lives disrupted. Where were the Democrat politicians
with their signs and their protests and their weeping and
their gnashing of teeth over those private sector jobs? Why
is it just the all of this show for these
federal employees who have enjoyed really an insulated safety of
employment for such a long time.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, the simple answers, it's because it's their base,
you know, a lot of these voters. By one of
my colleagues, Hayden de Bloyce, did a study that we
published recently that showed kind of what is the political
makeup of federal employees and real quick before I mentioned that,
so you know, here's a fact. Eighty four percent of
political donations from federal employees went to Kamala Harrison twenty
twenty four. And so that's not surprising to people. You know,
they know that. But what's interesting his study found he
looked at federal executive branch employees and just said, what
is their actual political makeup? And he found that they
Democrats have a thirty point advantage over Republicans in terms
of identification. But what's crazy is if you go to
the DC area, it rises from thirty point average advantage
to forty And if you shift focused to just the
welfare agencies, it rises to nearly sixty six zero six
percentage point favor to Dems. And so that's why when
you see so these groups, these welfare agencies, if they're
getting you know, mass firings, that is all that is
their base, and so that's why they're coming to their defense.
But look, you're right on to you know, this is
something that private industry faces all the time, you know,
routinely to run an efficient, you know, organization, you have
to come in and kind of look and say, you know,
do we still need these functions we needed before? Is
there any redundancy within the company? Are there you know,
two different departments that are essentially doing the same job
as one another, Should we you know, combine those together?
And so all these kind of things that everyday Americans understand.
Of course, this is what you have to do, you know,
to keep a business competitive. On the federal government side,
they don't worry about this. And the reason they don't
worry about this is is there's an efficiency or you know,
if they're they have a mission they were supposed accomplish
and they failed to accomplish it. Their solution is always
the same, more money, right, more resources, give them more employees.
And so what happens is over time, so they're not
they don't have the market forces, you know, pushing on
the government. And so what does that mean. It means
over time, it naturally grows and expands. And I saw this.
I spent a decade in the FBI before I joined
the Foundation for Government Accountability, and you could see like
even I you know, and for the most part, the
FBI was a you know, pretty efficient and well run organization.
But the sprawl and growth, I mean you could see
it yourself. Like even buildings that were in the DC
area that you know, so they're in the same area,
but they're separate buildings, you would see the same missions
start to pop up in those two separate buildings, and
so and That's just one example, but that's going on
across the government. And so that's what's so great about
the Doze effort about what the president's doing, is he
really is, you know, we've been on a reckless spending
spree for the last four years, and so if we're
going to get control of our government and our budget,
we have to come in and look at all this
stuff and try to fix it. And so and I
think because of the entrenched bureaucracy, in a sense, the
president's hand is kind of forced to do these more
aggressive you know, removal of federal employees in areas. Then
you might you know that as you you know, some
people characterize it as more of a hatchet versus a scalpel.
It's I think the president in a sense is kind
of forced to go with that route because of the
entrenched bureaucrats.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I don't doubt that at all. And you raise
a good point with all of the sprawl, with the
have never ending growth of the federal government in one
particular area of the country. This is a big country. Uh, yes,
we know. And the question is do we need to
continue to have a all of these agencies, these many
unaccountable agencies and do they need to operate in one
centralized location and with that, ultimately, is that good governance
to have them all in one centralized location.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I think it's not. And I think especially
when that one centralized location is so predominantly part of
one political party, Because what happens is if you put
these agencies in the heart of an area like DC,
then all the support employees, the employees that actually run
that the headquarters building, if you will, they're all drawn
from the local population because they have to be able
to commute to the building. What you do is you
populate that entire agency, you know, the permanent folks, with
people of just one political party, and then that the
leadership is kind of coming in and out, like most
of the leadership in an organization like the fbii're on,
they call them t whys, and so they're kind of
coming into headquarters for a little bit and moving to
another assignment. And so you create this kind of permanent
culture within the headquarters element that leans very far to
one political party. So it just makes sense to kind
of push those out. And again, the great advantage if
you do something like this, you know, the drain the
swamp type movement where you're moving all these headquarters elements out.
It also gives you this moment to pause and say,
do we need this group? You know, this unit we're
about to move to Huntsville, Alabama? Should we move them?
Do we already have someone else doing that job somewhere?
Is this function even needed anymore? And that's not an
indictment on the people, you know, all the You know,
certainly some of the people need to be removed quickly,
but there may be solid people that are in a
department that just isn't needed. And so what do you do.
You get rid of that department and you find a
home for those good people. You put a hiring freeze,
you don't hire any new people, and you find the
good people another spot they can land so they can
do great work. You know, The solution isn't to just
keep that unit going that's serving no purpose, that's not
good for the country or good for the people. And
then the other thing is an area like DC is
what it's expensive? Right? Yeah, it costs a lot of
money to put a building and to have people traveling
in and out of DC. Why not put it, you know,
somewhere else where. The cost of living is a little
lower and where it's you know, just more efficient for
the government. So Elon Musk and Doge need help.
Speaker 3: The Watchdot on Wall Street podcast with Chris Markowski. Every
day Chris helps unpack the connection between politics and the
economy and how it affects your wallet. Doge is only
highlighting the spending problems, but Congress controls the per strings.
Congress needs to follow through and step up to control
this spending or we'll be back where we started. Whether
it's happening in DC or down on Wall Street, it's
affecting you financially.
Speaker 1: Be informed.
Speaker 3: Check out the watch Dog on Wall Street podcast with
Christomercwski on Apple, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: Well to the politics of it, it's effective. The electoral map.
Look at Virginia. Virginia is you know, a somewhat a
battleground statement. It's been taken over by the left in
so many ways because all of those liberal Democrat positions
in the federal government. Maryland is the same way. You know,
it could be certainly a much more competitive state in
the electoral map. But you know, it's amazing how much
politics has played into this. Power has played into this,
and that is why we have seen so much resistance
to change. Ultimately, this should all be done for the
best interest of the people of this country, and unfortunately
a lot of the growth and development in government, expansion
in government has been done for the sake of political power.
Speaking of which I know that the Foundation for Government
Accountability has done some excellent work, particularly on the legal front,
on the whole notion of Biden Bucks Executive Order fourteen
zero one nine, as it is officially known under former
President Joe Biden. This was, as you have noted, as
you have found through some very arduous work on this
front legal work, that this was nothing more. It was
billed as expanding access to voting. Sounds all nice and
democracy base, but really what it was was a massive
get out the vote machine for the left and the
Democrat Party. The President rightly immediately rescinded that executive order
because of the many problems it faced constitutionally for one thing,
to federalize get out the vote efforts. But how much
of the DOGE efforts do you think will come through
in looking at the sweetheart deals for all of these
NGOs under Biden Bucks.
Speaker 2: I think that'll definitely come into play. And I think
the other thing I would say too, so the organization
I work for, the Foundation for Government Accountability, we actually
sued the Department of Justice, as you know, because I
know you've you've reported a lot on the on the
Biden Bucks and on the our lawsuit as well and others.
H but we sued the Department of Justice to get
to the bottom of what you know, they were doing
and other organizations were doing to help carry out that EO.
Our lawsuit is still moving forward, and so obviously we're confident,
you know, with the new administration that's devoted to transparency,
that we're going to be able to help get some
of the answer we'd sought from what the Biden administration
was doing behind closed doors to help carry out this
unconstitutional and illegal order. That we're going to be able
to get some of that information and help promote transparency
around that. As you rightfully noted, President Trump on day
one rescinded that EO, which is pretty amazing and I
love it because you know, the left always accuses the
right of doing what they do U and so literally
one of his first acts was to get the federal
Executive Branch out of the business of elections, which he
totally He could have just used that same program that
Biden tried to use to try to keep himself in power.
And what did President Trump do. No, on day one,
he literally he rescinded that and called it out for
what it was.
Speaker 1: That's that's a stewart. That's a very important point that
I think is lost. And you know, I've I've written
on that, and I think I didn't hammer that point
home enough. The President could continue this and use this
at least constitutionally suspect executive order for the benefit of
himself and for his fellow Republicans, but he said no,
this was an absolutely unconstitutional order and it definitely benefited
one political party and that's not what the federal government
should be in the business of doing.
Speaker 2: That's absolutely right, and so the good and so that's
the big point it too, is I feel like that
threat has been neutralized, at least temporarily. But the key
now is accountability. And so if there are employees still
within federal agencies, you know, burrowed in who are trying
to help carry that out, I think it's important to
identify those folks and make sure the new leadership that
has come in knows you know, who those folks are
and and you know removes them, you know, through proper
means from the from the agencies. But also just to
let future administrations know too that if you do this
kind of stuff, if you just ignore the Constitution and
you try to do something as unprecedented as the buyind
Bucks executive order was, that there's going to be accountability.
So that's so we're trying to continue to do that
and we'll definitely keep you posted on any new developments
on that front.
Speaker 1: That's great because that has been so vital to you know,
waking up the American people to the political operation that
was entrench that the taxpayers are paying for. They shouldn't
have to pay for this stuff. It was the same
argument with Zuckbucks, of course twenty twenty. It's just it's
more massive, certainly with federal tax payer dollars. These were
leftist groups, again, like in Zuckbucks, entrenched in government offices,
pushing voter registration mobilization to targeted liberal audiences. If that
isn't a prop an election integrity problem, I don't know
what is. We just have a few minutes left and
you you brought up the fact before that before you
joined the Foundation, you were you served in the FBI
as a supervisory special agent leading a large section in
the FBI's Directorate of Intelligence. I wanted to get your
take as you've observed it. What do you think about
the changes coming to the FBI with a new director,
Cash Pattel, and what the FBI is attempting to do
in terms of reforming an agency that has quite frankly,
gotten quite a black eye over the last several years.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I know, there's no question that the FBI has broken.
And it's not just you know, leadership changes that needed
to be made or structural changes or other things like that,
but it's also a loss of trucks. And so that
is what's you know, as a former FBI agent that
was kind of most you know, painful to hear is
the amount of trust that Americans have lost in the
Federal Bureau of Investigation. And so and I'm so, you know,
obviously we need you know, an ordination of laws. You know,
we need you know, ordered liberty. We can't have one
without the other. And so it's just so important to
have a federal law enforcement agency that that is not
only world class and great at what it does the
way the FBI is, but equally important, it has to
be one that's trusted by the American people. And so
I think the selection of Cash Betel as an next
director was like, I can't think of a better choice,
because I think he brings this wealth of past experience,
not just as a prosecutor, not just you know, on
the national security side with Department of Defense, UH and
ODE and I and other agencies, but also as a
former defense attorney. So I feel like that's a unique
background to come in and kind of understand, you know,
maybe better than a lot of others, you know, the
danger of when you know federal agents at times, you know,
can go beyond their power when the government can. I
also think he's someone that the president trusts. I think
that's important. But I do think he's someone that the
American people like the most, especially the folks you know
on the conservative side, will really trust that if he
comes back and says, I looked into something, there's nothing here,
you know, this is fine, They're going to believe him
when he says that, because they're going to also see
him do things that you know, the UH that the
typical type of person you would see appointed to this
position wouldn't be willing to do. And so the truth
of the matter is like, you've got to do a
lot of things to fix the FBI, but to earn
them that, to re earn the trust of the American people,
you have to do even more. And so that's going
to require sweeping structural changes, sweeping changes to the leadership.
And I feel like he's he's I can't think of
someone better to do it.
Speaker 1: So what about those those Epstein Finals they coming out?
Speaker 2: Oh, I'm sure, I without a doubt. I think anything
that can be released will be released. But that's a
good example too. There may be some things in there
where if it's gonna reveal the identity of a victim,
for instance, I think Cash Pattel is going to be
the type of person that's going to make sure that
doesn't happen, and so you're not going to see so.
But but anything that can be released will uh. And
then and I should say to you know, that decision
will ultimately fall in the Attorney General what gets released.
So I'm sure she's driving that, but saying, you know,
I would sing her praises the same way i'd sing,
uh the new director Patel's praises. So I think I
think the FBI is going to be in good hands,
but it's not gonna He's not gonna be able to
write the ship overnight. And I and I think he,
maybe more than anyone else, is going to face the
same kind of challenge from the entrenched bureaucrats that could resist.
And so that's not to say so ninety nine percent
of the agents and support staff and analysts that work
there are great, amazing people, But all it takes is
that one percent, you know, to get in the way
to slow roll. I mean, you saw the blatant active insubordination,
and then you know in the newspapers with the gentleman
in New York saying it's time to dig in. You
know that kind of in subordination. It's it's easier to
get rid of because you see it right away. But
the other is, you know, he's going to give an
order and try to do a change, and there's going
to be entrenched folks that think they're doing what's best
for the for the agency who are going to just
resist his order. And so I think over time he's
going to figure out who those people are and replace
them with people that will get the job done. But
it's going to be It's not going to be an
easy task to do, but I think he's up for it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you've really answered this quest question. I just wanted
to expound upon it just a little bit more. It's
a big agency and there are a lot of really
good and talented men and women still working in that agency.
But it doesn't take much to corrupt an agency. So
the question is how many more Peters Strucks are there
in the FBI. I know you haven't been there in
a while, but is this something that runs deep in
the FBI?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I wouldn't say, but this kind of goes back
to a point we were talking about earlier. This is
the danger with putting headquarters in d C. I think
DC is the kind of place that in I don't think.
I don't know Peter's stock at all, so I don't
know what he was ever like, I never met him,
but I feel and so I don't think he falls
into this category. But other people could be good solid
agents and good solid people and could come to DC
and just be kind of ruined by that environment.
Speaker 1: Most are not many politicians are, that's for sure.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but I think you come out here and I
think well intentioned people could be looking for their next
job or their next thing, and so again, and yet
another reason to just move that out of DC where
you can. You still would need some headquarters people there
so they can be accountable to the President, and be
accountable to the Attorney General, be accountable to Congress. So
you would need people there to be able to do that,
But most of the support functions and all that, there's
just no reason for them to be in DC.
Speaker 1: Accountability is here, More accountability is coming. That's the promise,
and we've seen the Trump administration the President deliver on that.
And I'm very interested, as a lot of Americans are,
and seeing where all of this goes. Thanks to my
guest today, Stuart Witson, Director Senior Director of Federal Affairs
at the Foundation for Government Accountability, Sir, thank you so
much for joining us, Thanks so much for having me.
You've been listening to another edition of the Federalist Radio Hour.
I'm Matt Kittle, senior elections correspondent at the Better List.
We'll be back soon with more. Until then, stay lovers
of freedom and anxious for the fray,