With nearly $904,000, the grant could have paid for 602 to 753 full-time female alpaca farmers for an entire year. This raises questions about how the funds were allocated—was the money used to directly employ farmers, or did it go toward administrative costs, middlemen, or external organizations?
The Inter-American Foundation (IAF), once an active grant-distributing agency with a $60 million budget, has been reduced to a single employee. This restructuring resulted in the cancellation of several foreign grants, including:
$903,811 for alpaca farming in Peru
$364,500 for reducing social discrimination of recyclers in Bolivia
$813,210 for vegetable gardens in El Salvador
$323,633 for cultural integration programs in Brazil
$731,105 for marketing mushrooms and peas in Guatemala
$677,342 for fruit and jam sales in Honduras
$483,345 for artisanal salt production in Ecuador
$39,250 for beekeeping in Brazil
Who approved these grants? What oversight existed? The sums raise concerns. Nearly a million dollars for alpaca farming? Over half a million for mushrooms and peas? Were these initiatives essential, or were they convenient vehicles for unchecked spending?
David R. Miller, an economist specializing in public expenditures, sees a pattern: “These projects often lack clear metrics. If taxpayer dollars are funding them, the burden of proof should be on the grantmaker, not the skeptical public.”
Pauline Chavez, a former USAID program auditor, echoes this concern. “Many of these grants have little accountability. Funding often flows through layers of intermediaries before reaching the intended beneficiaries, if it reaches them at all.”
The IAF justified these grants as tools for economic development. Yet, U.S. taxpayers might question the necessity. Were these funds directed to projects with real economic impact, or were they mere placeholders in a ledger?
The grant for cultural integration of Venezuelan migrants in Brazil raises additional concerns. Was nearly $325,000 spent on tangible assistance or awareness campaigns with minimal effect?
The issue extends beyond waste—it’s about intent. Are these grants fostering economic independence in recipient nations, or are they funding bureaucratic exercises detached from measurable results?
We are examining these grants in depth. We are requesting documentation on the approval process, allocation methods, and actual outcomes. Our investigation will determine:
Who made these funding decisions?
How were the grant amounts calculated?
What measurable outcomes did these programs achieve?
The IAF’s closure leaves an important question: Should the U.S. continue funding foreign aid programs with limited transparency? The numbers demand scrutiny, and we intend to provide it.
Government’s Dirty Little Secret: “Wasteful Spending” Is Just a Cover for Kickbacks and Covert Ops
Let’s drop the polite fiction that our tax dollars always go toward legitimate programs. The real story behind much of this so-called “wasteful spending” is more insidious than mere incompetence or bureaucratic bloat: it’s a labyrinth of payoffs and hush money. These grants and special funds reek of carefully disguised kickback initiatives—where the pockets of key officials and connected donors get lined under the banner of “public service.” And if that isn’t chilling enough, let’s consider the other possibility: covert operations using fake programs to funnel cash into secret agendas.
Too often, we see multi-million-dollar allocations for “research” that never produces a final report. Or inflated contracts that burn through funds faster than a rocket launch, yet somehow deliver fewer results than a student’s weekend science project. When watchdogs and journalists dig deeper, they’re met with stonewalling and redacted documents that scream “move along, nothing to see here.”
Why the secrecy? It’s simple: money laundering for insider deals is easier when you pass it off as “economic development” or “community outreach.” Imagine a lucrative contract paying five times the going rate to a friendly consulting firm that, surprise, donates heavily to political campaigns. Or an infrastructure grant that magically disappears into shell companies, all traced back to a handful of powerbrokers who make sure every document is conveniently stamped “confidential.” And if that’s not shady enough, consider that “untraceable” funds may be diverted to under-the-radar operations. Think black-budget intelligence projects, corporate espionage, or international meddling—where plausible deniability is just as valuable as the money itself.
We’re not dealing with a few rogue bureaucrats. We’re witnessing a culture of collusion, where high-ranking officials and favored contractors play a twisted game of “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours.” If you’re shocked, you haven’t been paying attention. This is business as usual for the political class—a rigged system that masquerades as government “efficiency” while secretly stuffing cash into the right hands. The term “wasteful spending” barely captures the scale of intentional misdirection. It’s designed to keep taxpayers looking at ballooning invoices instead of the private jets and offshore accounts being funded by our hard-earned money.
Let’s stop pretending these are innocent oversights or bureaucratic slip-ups. It’s high time we called out wasteful spending for what it truly is: laundering schemes, political bribes, and fronts for covert agendas that no one wants the public to see. The next time some elected official waves off a $10 million “oopsie” as a negligible fraction of the overall budget, remember this: that money didn’t just vanish into thin air—someone got paid, and it sure as hell wasn’t you.
The Inter-American Foundation (IAF) was established by the U.S. Congress in 1969 as an independent agency to provide grant support to grassroots organizations and non-governmental entities in Latin America and the Caribbean. The agency’s creation aimed to offer an alternative to traditional foreign aid programs by directly investing in community-led development initiatives.
The IAF is headquartered at 1331 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 1200, Washington, DC 20004. As of fiscal year 2021, the agency employed a staff of 49 individuals based in Washington, D.C.
The current President, and only employee, is Sara Aviel, who appears to be somewhat of a career Washington bureaucrat.
The Inter-American Foundation (IAF) has reported varying average salaries for its employees, depending on the source and year:
GovSalaries indicates that in 2023, the IAF had 55 employees with an average annual salary of $120,897 and a median salary of $123,216. govsalaries.com
Based on this, around $6,000,000 was spent on IAF Salaries – not including office space, benefits, or other random office expenses.
Highest salary at INTER-AMERICAN FOUNDATION in year 2024 was $191,900. Number of employees at INTER-AMERICAN FOUNDATION in year 2024 was 48. Average annual salary was $131,188 and median salary was $135,658. INTER-AMERICAN FOUNDATION average salary is 180 percent higher than USA average and median salary is 212 percent higher than USA median salary.
A 2016 Associated Press report highlighted that over 120,000 families involved in alpaca shearing earned approximately $1,200 annually, which is less than half of Peru’s minimum wage. apimagesblog.com
A white paper on Peru’s alpaca industry noted that farmers receive around 15 Peruvian soles per kilogram of fiber (approximately $4 USD). Additionally, it stated that 45% of alpaca producers are classified as poor.
Based on the reported earnings of $1,200 to $1,500 per year for a female alpaca farmer in Peru, we can calculate the number of farmers that $903,811 could support:
At $1,200 per farmer per year:
903,811÷1,200=753 farmers903,811 \div 1,200 = 753 \text{ farmers}
At $1,500 per farmer per year:
903,811÷1,500=602 farmers903,811 \div 1,500 = 602 \text{ farmers}
With nearly $904,000, the grant could have paid for 602 to 753 full-time female alpaca farmers for an entire year. This raises questions about how the funds were allocated—was the money used to directly employ farmers, or did it go toward administrative costs, middlemen, or external organizations? If only a small fraction of the funds reached the farmers, it would be important to investigate where the rest went.
Thank you for subscribing to the newsletter.
Oops. Something went wrong. Please try again later.
Read untrusted, non-award-winning journalism. Just a few dollars.
