THE INSTITUTE OF PEACE...OUT. ANOTHER SLUSHFUND FALLS TO DOGE!

LOOKING FOR SOME OFFICE SPACE IN TOWN?

Executive Summary of Allegations, Doctrinal Drift, and Fiscal Noncompliance

Prepared by: [REDACTED]Date: May 2025Classification: Executive and Legislative Oversight Use Only

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), under executive authority, seized operational control of the U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP) in March 2025 amid allegations of internal corruption, mission drift, and fiscal negligence. The agency’s preliminary findings suggest that the Institute had evolved from a neutral peacebuilding entity into a quasi-ideological vehicle for progressive activism, operating with USAID-style opacity, and failing to adhere to basic GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) standards.

DOGE has turned over forensic and testimonial evidence to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), alleging massive file deletions, potential misuse of federal funds, unvetted foreign partnerships, and ideological programming that violates the Institute's congressionally defined mission.

II. BACKGROUND ON THE USIP SEIZURE

• Date of Action: March 17, 2025

• Authority Invoked: Executive Order under revised OMB authority for the restructuring of inefficient or redundant federal entities.

• DOGE Objectives: Financial accountability, ideological neutrality in taxpayer-funded institutions, and alignment with U.S. foreign policy interests.

DOGE operatives, acting under legal advisement and security protection, removed the acting board and administrative staff of the Institute and initiated a top-down review of all assets, data systems, and grant relationships.

III. KEY ALLEGATIONS BY DOGE

1. Wanton Misuse of Government Funds

• Alleged award of over $18 million in unvetted grants to NGOs without rigorous due diligence.

• Payments to foreign NGOs in conflict zones with no identifiable project deliverables.

• Reports of private jet travel, lavish conferences in neutral countries, and inflated consulting contracts.

2. Ideological Subversion and Mission Drift

• DOGE alleges the Institute was pursuing a predominantly socialist-progressive international agenda, under the guise of peacebuilding:

  • Programs centered on gender theory, critical race frameworks, and political restructuring in conservative or conflict-ridden regions.

  • Advocacy for "inclusive governance" models that undermine U.S. strategic partners in the Middle East and Asia.

  • Funding of activist-sympathetic NGOs with ties to destabilizing movements abroad.

3. USAID-Like Structural Opacity

• Similar to long-criticized USAID practices, USIP operated:

  • Without real-time public disclosure of grant recipients.

  • Through intermediaries and subgrantees, obscuring where funds ultimately landed.

  • Without field-based audit systems to verify project completion or legitimacy.

4. Massive Document Erasure and IT Forensics

• DOGE agents recovered terabytes of deleted financial data, which agents allege were wiped in panic after internal alerts of impending investigation.

• Reports of encrypted servers, dual ledgers, and “black budget” grant pools under the direct control of senior USIP officials.

• Loaded weapons reportedly found on premises—under investigation for potential violations of federal property laws.

IV. PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS

DOGE's initial findings paint a picture of an organization that:

• Abandoned its congressionally mandated neutrality.

• Engaged in fiscal behavior incompatible with federal standards.

• Mirrored the ideological expansionism and bureaucratic shroud of USAID, despite its smaller scope and mandate.

V. POLICY AND LEGAL RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Immediate Congressional Suspension of USIP Appropriations

2. DOJ Special Counsel Appointment to Examine Financial Crimes

3. Executive Re-chartering or Dissolution of USIP

4. Creation of a Peacebuilding Oversight Council (POC) with bipartisan supervision

5. Mandatory publication of all past grantees and project outcomes since 2019

VI. STRATEGIC SIGNIFICANCE

The USIP case reveals a broader pattern of federal NGOs evolving into ideologically captured institutions, funded by taxpayers but shielded from scrutiny by academic and diplomatic elitism. The DOGE seizure may mark a paradigm shift in executive accountability over soft-power institutions previously considered off-limits.

THE ABOVE DOCUMENT WAS , IN PART, BASED ON THE DOCUMENT BELOW

INVESTIGATIVE BRIEF

Subject: U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP) Grant Disbursements in Afghanistan Focus: Risk of Payments to Non-Existent or Shell NGOs Post-Taliban Takeover **Prepared for:****XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.   **Date: May 2025

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This brief examines the risk and plausibility that the U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP), a congressionally funded peacebuilding organization, may have disbursed grants to non-existent or fraudulent NGOs operating in Afghanistan between 2021 and 2024. The review finds multiple structural vulnerabilities in USIP's financial oversight and vetting mechanisms, particularly after the fall of Kabul to the Taliban. The investigation raises concerns that U.S. taxpayer funds may have been diverted to shell entities, passive intermediaries, or even indirectly to Taliban-aligned actors.

II. BACKGROUND

• USIP Mandate: USIP’s charter empowers it to promote peacebuilding and conflict resolution in unstable regions. It operates through direct programming and external grant disbursement.

• Post-2021 Context: Following the collapse of the Afghan republic and the Taliban’s return to power in August 2021, USIP shifted to remote and intermediary-led operations.

• Reported Grant Activity: USIP did not release public lists of NGOs funded in Afghanistan post-2021. Select disclosures and evaluations from earlier years mention partners like Afghanistan Watch but no updated grantee registry exists.

III. RISKS IDENTIFIED

1. NGO Legitimacy Verification Failures

• Absence of a publicly available or congressional-facing grant recipient list post-2021.

• No evidence of third-party field audits or in-person verification.

• Taliban controls NGO registration systems; U.S. grantees may not have been legally vetted by impartial authorities.

2. Cash-Based Transfers and Hawala Dependence

• Due to sanctions and lack of banking access, grantees frequently relied on informal money transfer systems (hawala).

• These systems, while common in the region, have low accountability and no paper trail.

3. Use of Intermediaries and Sub-Grantees

• USIP often relied on foreign or diaspora-based organizations to funnel money into the country.

• This layering increased the potential for ghost sub-partners and fund skimming.

4. SIGAR Pattern Echoes

• USIP’s operational model mirrors vulnerabilities previously exploited in other U.S. aid programs documented by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR).

5. No Independent Monitoring Reports

• Unlike USAID or State Department programs, there are no SIGAR-style compliance reports for USIP operations.

• Lack of third-party audits and opaque budgeting process create an accountability vacuum.

IV. HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIOS

Scenario 1: A peacebuilding grant issued to an NGO in Nangarhar is routed through a Dubai-based intermediary. The local implementing group does not exist beyond nominal registration. Deliverables are falsified via generic reporting templates. USIP’s D.C.-based reviewers accept reports without audit.

Scenario 2: A women's dialogue program grant in Herat is real but subject to Taliban extortion. 25% of funds are paid to local authorities as "security fees"—an indirect transfer of U.S. funds to a designated terror regime.

Scenario 3: A youth program in Kabul is never implemented. The subgrantee, newly registered post-Taliban, was formed by former insurgents now posing as civil society actors. USIP lacks in-country presence to verify.

V. RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Congressional Subpoena of All USIP Grantee Records (2021–2024)

2. Independent Forensic Audit by GAO or SIGAR of Afghan Program Spending

3. Implementation of Transparent Grantee Registry With Real-Time Updates

4. Mandatory Public Disclosure of Grant Vetting Standards in Conflict Zones

5. Freeze of Future Grants in Sanctioned Regions Without Third-Party Verification

VI. CONCLUSION

Given the combination of an opaque grant structure, limited field presence, and a hostile operating environment, it is both plausible and increasingly probable that a portion of USIP funds intended for peacebuilding in Afghanistan post-2021 were misallocated or diverted. These findings warrant urgent congressional and inspector-level scrutiny to safeguard taxpayer funds and national integrity.

Prepared by: [REDACTED] Classification: For Internal Oversight and Legislative Review Only