Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Business

Taxpayers spent $15 million on Fauci’s private security, chauffeur after he left government

Published

5 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Matt Lamb

“Our country is $33 trillion in debt. Taxpayers shouldn’t be paying for Dr. Fauci’s security detail, especially when Fauci was one of the highest-paid federal employees in the U.S”

American taxpayers spent at least $15 million on security and a private driver for Dr. Anthony Fauci after he left his government job.

Open the Books obtained “memorandum of understanding” covering January 4, 2023 through September 20, 2024 along with independent journalist Jordan Schachtel.

The government watchdog group said it is seeking information on if the contract is still in force. Fauci retired at the end of 2022.

The highest-paid federal employee, Fauci left the government after decades of work. For almost two years, if not longer, taxpayers spent money so he could have a private driver. This despite the fact that Fauci has an estimated net worth of $11 million and continues to profit off his experience in the government, including writing a book and speaking at events.

The exact specifics of the agreement are new. However, Republicans have previously criticized the special arrangement, after it came to light last year that Fauci continued to receive perks despite ostensibly retiring.

“When I discovered that Dr. Fauci still had a taxpayer-funded driver and personal guards after he stepped down, I felt that it was another example of Washington bureaucrats putting themselves above the American people,” Congressman Dale Strong said last year. He introduced legislation to end the special agreement.

“Our country is $33 trillion in debt. Taxpayers shouldn’t be paying for Dr. Fauci’s security detail, especially when Fauci was one of the highest-paid federal employees in the U.S,” Strong said.

The special deal comes after Fauci botched the handling of COVID-19, including by downplaying concerns it leaked from a lab in China. He also made misleading statements about the National Institutes of Health and its connection to a controversial lab in Wuhan, China.

He also made incorrect, and incredibly damaging, statements to the American public about the need for widespread lockdowns and other social restrictions and claimed that the COVID shots were both “safe” and “effective” against the spread of the virus. Faced with criticism, Fauci claimed that the attacks on him were really assaults on “science.”

But his detractors recall a government official who led the fight to implement years-long draconian restrictions upon the American people, which devastated the fabric of U.S. society, greatly harmed the economy and caused all kinds of additional negative repercussions – including widespread learning loss among America’s youth. Fauci was never shy to advocate for lockdowns, social distancing, school closures, business closures, mask mandates, and vaccine passports from his powerful federal perch during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Senator Rand Paul, a frequent critic of Fauci, criticized Fauci’s taxpayer-funded arrangement.

“No more $ for the guy who funded dangerous research in Wuhan.,” he wrote on X (formerly Twitter).

Open the Books spokesman Christopher Neefus said the NIH has a “pattern of obfuscation when it comes to the NIH’s financial arrangements.”

“Whether it’s Dr. Fauci’s contract and full compensation, or the NIH’s multibillion-dollar royalty complex, we’ve been working for years to get full transparency,” Neefus told National Review.

Fauci’s support for the shot included going door-to-door with D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser to browbeat residents into taking the jabs.

A PBS profile showed Bowser, who broke her own forced masking rules, going door-to-door with a crowd of people inquiring about their personal choices concerning shots.

“They need a push, a push, and a drag,” Mayor Bowser says in one clip, to Fauci’s approval, as LifeSiteNews previously reported.

Fauci, who retired at the end of December 2022, can be seen on the documentary criticizing Republican states and the people in those states in particular who declined to take the abortion-tainted jab.

“[Red states] are going to keep the outbreak smoldering in the country [because they won’t get jabbed],” he tells Bowser, who is part of the canvassing crowd. The video is from June 2021. “It’s so crazy. They’re not doing it because they say they don’t want to. They’re Republicans. They don’t like being told what to do. We need to break that.”

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

2025 Federal Election

Next federal government should end corporate welfare for forced EV transition

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill and Jake Fuss

Corporate welfare simply shifts jobs and investment away from other firms and industries—which are more productive, as they don’t require government funding to be economically viable—to the governments’ preferred industries and firms, circumventing the preferences of consumers and investors. And since politicians spend other people’s money, they have little incentive to be careful investors.

General Motors recently announced the temporary closure of its electric vehicle (EV) manufacturing plant in Ontario, laying off 500 people because its new EV isn’t selling. The plant will shut down for six months despite hundreds of millions in government subsides financed by taxpayers. This is just one more example of corporate welfare—when governments subsidize favoured industries and companies—and it’s time for the provinces and the next federal government to eliminate it.

Between the federal government and Ontario government, GM received about $500 million to help fund its EV transition. But this is just one example of corporate welfare in the auto sector. Stellantis and Volkswagen will receive about $28 billion in government subsidies while Honda is promised $5 billion.

More broadly, from 2007 to 2019, the last pre-COVID year of data, the federal government spent an estimated $84.6 billion (adjusted for inflation) on corporate welfare while provincial and local governments spent another $302.9 billion. And crucially, these numbers exclude other forms of government support such as loan guarantees, direct investments and regulatory privileges, so the actual cost of corporate welfare during this period was much higher.

Of course, politicians claim that corporate welfare benefits workers. Yet according to a significant body of research, corporate welfare fails to generate widespread economic benefit. Think of it this way—if the businesses that received subsidies were viable to begin with, they wouldn’t need government support. So unprofitable companies are kept in business through governments’ support, which can prevent resources, including investment and workers, from moving to profitable companies, hurting overall economic growth.

Put differently, rather than fuelling economic growth, corporate welfare simply shifts jobs and investment away from other firms and industries—which are more productive, as they don’t require government funding to be economically viable—to the governments’ preferred industries and firms, circumventing the preferences of consumers and investors. And since politicians spend other people’s money, they have little incentive to be careful investors.

Governments also must impose higher tax rates on everyone else to pay for corporate welfare. In turn, higher tax rates discourage entrepreneurship and business investment—again, which fuels economic growth. And the higher the tax rates, the more economic activity they discourage.

GM’s EV plant shut down once again proves that when governments try to engineer the economy with corporate welfare, workers will ultimately lose. It’s time for the provinces and the next federal government—whoever it may be—to finally put an end to this costly and ineffective policy approach.

Tegan Hill

Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Business

Hudson’s Bay Bid Raises Red Flags Over Foreign Influence

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Scott McGregor

A billionaire’s retail ambition might also serve Beijing’s global influence strategy. Canada must look beyond the storefront

When B.C. billionaire Weihong Liu publicly declared interest in acquiring Hudson’s Bay stores, it wasn’t just a retail story—it was a signal flare in an era where foreign investment increasingly doubles as geopolitical strategy.

The Hudson’s Bay Company, founded in 1670, remains an enduring symbol of Canadian heritage. While its commercial relevance has waned in recent years, its brand is deeply etched into the national identity. That’s precisely why any potential acquisition, particularly by an investor with strong ties to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), deserves thoughtful, measured scrutiny.

Liu, a prominent figure in Vancouver’s Chinese-Canadian business community, announced her interest in acquiring several Hudson’s Bay stores on Chinese social media platform Xiaohongshu (RedNote), expressing a desire to “make the Bay great again.” Though revitalizing a Canadian retail icon may seem commendable, the timing and context of this bid suggest a broader strategic positioning—one that aligns with the People’s Republic of China’s increasingly nuanced approach to economic diplomacy, especially in countries like Canada that sit at the crossroads of American and Chinese spheres of influence.

This fits a familiar pattern. In recent years, we’ve seen examples of Chinese corporate involvement in Canadian cultural and commercial institutions, such as Huawei’s past sponsorship of Hockey Night in Canada. Even as national security concerns were raised by allies and intelligence agencies, Huawei’s logo remained a visible presence during one of the country’s most cherished broadcasts. These engagements, though often framed as commercially justified, serve another purpose: to normalize Chinese brand and state-linked presence within the fabric of Canadian identity and daily life.

What we may be witnessing is part of a broader PRC strategy to deepen economic and cultural ties with Canada at a time when U.S.-China relations remain strained. As American tariffs on Canadian goods—particularly in aluminum, lumber and dairy—have tested cross-border loyalties, Beijing has positioned itself as an alternative economic partner. Investments into cultural and heritage-linked assets like Hudson’s Bay could be seen as a symbolic extension of this effort to draw Canada further into its orbit of influence, subtly decoupling the country from the gravitational pull of its traditional allies.

From my perspective, as a professional with experience in threat finance, economic subversion and political leveraging, this does not necessarily imply nefarious intent in each case. However, it does demand a conscious awareness of how soft power is exercised through commercial influence, particularly by state-aligned actors. As I continue my research in international business law, I see how investment vehicles, trade deals and brand acquisitions can function as instruments of foreign policy—tools for shaping narratives, building alliances and shifting influence over time.

Canada must neither overreact nor overlook these developments. Open markets and cultural exchange are vital to our prosperity and pluralism. But so too is the responsibility to preserve our sovereignty—not only in the physical sense, but in the cultural and institutional dimensions that shape our national identity.

Strategic investment review processes, cultural asset protections and greater transparency around foreign corporate ownership can help strike this balance. We should be cautious not to allow historically Canadian institutions to become conduits, however unintentionally, for geopolitical leverage.

In a world where power is increasingly exercised through influence rather than force, safeguarding our heritage means understanding who is buying—and why.

Scott McGregor is the managing partner and CEO of Close Hold Intelligence Consulting.

Continue Reading

Trending

X