Transcript of Trump Witness Quickly Collapses Under Cross Exam at Hearing!! New

Vertrauen ist immer die Basis. Vor allem, wenn's um deine Gesundheit geht. Das ist die Überzeugung von Shop-Apotheke. Und deswegen sind sie immer für dich da. Mit pharmazeutischer Beratung per Rückrufservice. Und dem Chatbot, der 24/7 verfügbar ist. Bei Shop-Apotheke gibt's eben alle Vorteile des Onlinehandels mit der Seriosität einer richtigen Apotheke. Plus dem vielleicht einfachsten E-Rezept einlösen. Probier's jetzt aus! Alle Infos gibt's in der App und auf shop-apotheke.com.

Finally, this is how it's done. Democrats in the House and Senate cross-examining Donald Trump's director from the Office of Management and Budget and the author of Project 2025, Russ Vought. After Vought had dodged any congressional hearing since the beginning of Donald Trump's term, he finally came to testify. And he arrived and he was prepared to just spew his MAGA talking points and say, Donald Trump is the king of affordability. Look how great the American people have it. Prices are going down. Things are amazing. Well, that's his script, but fortunately the Democrats took him off that script and started doing some incredible cross-examination, really exposing what a despicable human being he is and making him look quite pathetic during his testimony. So first I want to show you the talking points that he was trying to spew just for a quick moment. So you see how he started off and then boom, Democrats came in hard. So he says, uh, you know, look, what we've seen is an explosion of affordability. The author and architect of Project 2025 saying right now, as Americans can't afford anything, groceries, gas, rent, people are struggling, inflation is surging. And here is what the MAGA architect of Project 2025 said.

Play this clip.

This this particular budget committee has not. They have been successful in conjunction with the President of the United States. I hope that continues. We're in the midst of passing— and we passed the extension of the president's tax cuts. Many of those were aimed at working-class individuals. They're now going through their first season of seeing what changes that will make on their bottom line, and I think that's going to lead to an explosion, uh, in, in affordability for the American people.

Then Democratic Congresswoman Ballantyne went in and she was saying, look, it seems pretty obvious to me that your entire strategy here is to take revenge on blue states and anyone who doesn't vote for Donald Trump. You're using your position as the director of the Office of Management and Budget to punish them and to try to inflict pain. Watch as he tries to squirm and she doesn't let him. Here, play this clip.

$7.6 billion in clean energy grants based on whether the recipient lived in a blue state. Yes or no?

I don't recall what that judge said, but we have not made determinations based on—

In fact, in fact, Mr. Voigt, on January 12th, 2026, U.S. Judge Amit Mehta said, quote, defendants, meaning you, Mr. Voigt, freely admit that they made grant determination decisions primarily, if not exclusively, based on whether the awardee resided in a state whose citizens voted for President Trump in 2024. Mr. Voight, yes or no? Federal judges said OMB's freeze of $10 billion in child care and family assistance funding, quote, appeared designed to punish communities that the administration agreed with. Yes or no? Was that something that federal judges said about you and your leadership?

I think the judge's characterization is getting at the degree to which we are focused on states that we think are mismanaged.

Okay. That is not, in fact, the case. In fact, US District Judge Trina Thompson found the administration broke the law and froze funds as a politically motivated move disguised as fraud prevention. So your characterization actually is false. Other courts have said that withholding congressionally approved funding is, quote, vindictive and unlawful. Courts have found that freezing funds create, quote, irreparable harm against the American people. And the GAO, the Government Accountability Office, the watchdog agency that investigates how federal agencies spend taxpayer dollars, has reported that you broke the law multiple times. And they have said that you have refused to spend money that was dedicated for Americans. The Constitution gives Congress, Congress the power to spend money and not the president. Mr. Voight, your actions clearly show that you want to cut federal funds from anyone who didn't vote for Donald Trump. Are you trying to get revenge on states that did not vote for your boss?

No, of course not. What's interesting about the question is that Joe Biden withheld—

Oh, for goodness sakes, can we please bring it back to my question? It was a yes or no question. Are you trying to get revenge against blue states because they did not support the president. Courts have said that, in fact, you did do that, that in fact, you are being vindictive. In fact, you are punishing because of political persuasions. It's not members of Congress who suffer when you do an en-run around Congress. That's not what I'm angry about. It's not about you taking the power away from us. It's that it's their money. It's their power. Of the people, by the people, and for the people. The House is closest to the people. So when you do an en-runaround Congress, you're taking Americans' power.

Next, I'll show you Democratic Senator Merkley, who says, why don't you tell us how expensive this war in Iran has been? Do you know the figures? Do you know how much money the United— tell us, that's your role. You are literally the director of the Office of Management and Budget. How expensive is the war? The American people demand to know. And guess what? Russ Vought, frozen, did not even know how to answer the— I don't know, I can't tell you how much it is. Here, play this clip.

Would I be in the ballpark to say we've already spent at least $50 billion?

I wouldn't want to make a characterization of that at this point.

Okay.

I would say as the most knowledgeable person in the executive branch on the budget, I would expect you to have pretty good numbers on that. So I'm a little disappointed in that answer.

Democratic Senator Murray. Here's what she had to say. Play this clip.

You and President Trump are asking for $450 billion in new defense spending. To be clear, that is the largest increase since World War II. And that does not include money that you reportedly still plan to request for the war in Iran. What is the total dollar amount requested for defense spending in FY27, including annual appropriations and reconciliation funds?

$1.5 trillion, Senator, a combination between the appropriations and the mandatory. We are trying to increase the amount that you would fund through the appropriations, but we don't want the full increase to have to be borne in the appropriations process.

So $1.5 trillion. What is the total dollar amount requested for non-defense spending?

$660 billion.

Okay, and what is the overall cut to non-defense programs that you're proposing?

10%.

$70 billion.

$70 billion. We look at that as about $81 billion, frankly. So let me just say this, Director Wolt, you count yourself as a spending hawk, and here you are arguing for a gobsmacking $1.5 trillion defense budget. I read that you disagreed with the president on that $1.5 trillion request, warning him that it would explode the deficit. Did you warn the president or administration officials that spending this much on defense would explode the deficit?

Senator, I fully support this budget.

$1.5 trillion, right? These are the people who refer to themselves as, I'm a fiscal hawk. I'm a hawk, right? The hawk. I'm a deficit hawk. No, you're not. You're a bunch of Bernie Madoff frauds on steroids is what you are. $1.5 trillion to the military. A 40% increase year over year and like a 90% increase from 3 years ago. What the hell is even going on here?

Longevity is all the rage these days, but with so many supplements making all kinds of promises, it's hard to know who to trust. How about a product that sold over 2 million bottles, over 5,000 5-star reviews, and powered by Nobel Prize-winning science? Juvenon's Blood Flow 7 helps boost nitric oxide levels by up to 230% and open arteries by 62%, improving blood flow and circulation. You'll feel the effects in as little as 30 minutes, including support for healthy blood pressure, steady energy throughout the day, sharper mental clarity, warmer hands and feet, and even improved bedroom performance. And for longevity, it can't be beat. Powerful blood flow is the river of life, and Blood Flow 7 helps transport oxygen and nutrients that heal and renew to all parts of the body. All it takes is 2 easy-to-swallow capsules every morning. Every Juvenon product is made in the USA, third-party tested for purity, and backed by their 60-day unconditional guarantee. See why over 500,000 happy customers trust Juvenon. Head to bloodflow7.com/mitis and use code MITIS for 30% off your order. Once again, that's bloodflow7.com/mitis for 30% off. And make sure you use my promo code MITIS so they know that I sent you.

Next up, you have Democratic Congressmember Coleman Take a look at what went down.

What would you say right now to the mothers of the kids who died because of your dismantling of US aid? Harvard study says there are more than 100,000 of them. Can you give me a quick response to what you would say to those mothers? Just don't talk to me about the study. Talk to me about how you— what you would say to the mothers of the children. Who died.

Congresswoman, with great respect, I would just contest that the extent to which institutions that benefit from federal largesse put out studies that say that the world has ended, that the world has not in fact ended.

Well, it's going there. I didn't—

USAID spending last year to the tune about $8 billion. There was far more that we could have done, Congressman.

Then you have Democratic Senator Kaine going in with some great cross-exam. Let's play it.

There's been some discussion about the bill that the DHS funding bill that the Senate passed unanimously now twice. The House, the votes are there in the House to pass it. The leadership will not take it up. You were before the House yesterday. Did you encourage the House to finally pass the DHS bill?

My interaction— we want the bill passed. My interactions yesterday were to remind one side of the aisle—

you do want the bill passed?

We want the bill passed.

Did you say that during the hearing?

Yes.

I wasn't asked it.

Well, you said a lot of things during the hearing.

If it was a priority in response to Democratic politicians that were saying that we were responsible for shutdown—

hold on, our shutdown— hold on. You had the opportunity to tell the House yesterday to pass a bill that you say you support, that 100% of the Senate supports, and you didn't bring it up. That's faster.

You had the opportunity to fund DHS without a month shut down.

Congresswoman Jayapal did a great job at this. Hearing play this clip.

Do you know, Mr. Voigt, how many of the largest corporations in America paid absolutely nothing in federal income tax in 2025?

Not off the top of my head, but our view is that the tax policy—

Well, let me, let me just tell you, let me just tell you, Mr. Voigt, reclaiming my time, let me just tell you, the number of corporations, large corporations that paid absolutely zero in federal tax was 88, at least that we know of. Including Tesla, which paid zero on almost $5.7 billion of income, as well as Coinbase, Citigroup, CVS Health, and Palantir.

Now, the Democrat ranking member, meaning the Democrats' leader of the Budget Committee, who will become the chair if the Democrats take control of the House, Congressmember Boyle. You've seen him on the Midas Touch Network a few times. Take a listen to his cross-examination. Play this clip.

Said that single piece of legislation adds more to our deficit and debt than any other piece of legislation passed by Congress in American history. In addition to the over $4 trillion it adds to our national debt, it eliminates healthcare coverage for more than 15 million Americans, according to the CBO. The Kaiser Family Foundation says it's actually more than 17 million Americans who will lose their health care. Are they really all, according to you, really, you're going to sit here with a straight face and say they're all illegals, they were all defrauding the system? That's actually your position?

Yes. With regard to the people that have lost that— I mean, that's laughable.

That's laughable. I'm sorry. I'll give you a chance to respond.

A number of issues with regard to your comments there.

Well, wait, let me just— number one, reclaiming my time. I just want to be clear. I'm citing— we acknowledge the CBO figure. That's where I'm getting the $15 million from. And the Kaiser Family Foundation says $17 million. You're saying none of them are legitimately on this, even though we had one of them actually testify before us?

I didn't say all of them are illegals. I said there's also the benefit of people returning to the workforce because they're able-bodied individuals or they should not have been on the system regardless because of the inability to address fraud in the aftermath of—

Okay, so they're all either illegals or defrauding the system.

Well, we certainly— that's certainly not a provocative statement that we have fraud all over the country, is it, Mr. Anderson?

Why are— I imagine there are fraud in all sorts of private and public sector areas. But the idea that 15 million Americans are about to lose their health care, the single biggest loss of health care in American history, mind you. Not even during the Great Depression did 15 million Americans lose their healthcare coverage. The idea that all of those people who are about to lose their healthcare are defrauding the system or are illegal immigrants, that is not supported by any facts whatsoever.

And now are now working and getting the benefit of a job with employer-sponsored healthcare coverage. Look, that these, these assessments by CBO and others are often very static. But what's the reason?

I mean, it's right-of-center groups as well. It's— well, reclaim my time. I only have a few minutes, so excuse me. But it's not just CBO. I mean, right-of-center groups, left-of-center groups, nonpartisan groups. You're saying they're all wrong.

I'm saying that the budget community typically relies on static thinking, static scoring, current law baselines. And so you don't get an accurate picture of the extent to which the reforms that are being made are going to have a dynamic impact with better programs, more healthcare funds. Since $50 billion—

well, let me— before you get to the French, I only have a couple minutes, right?

Isn't that absurd right there? So that is what they're claiming, that 15 million people or whatever them are all committing fraud. That's why they had to take away Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security from 15 million people because everyone's a fraudster, says the fraud criminal war criminal regime. Donald Trump, a literal felon, a literal fraud, is the guy who's gonna be like, well, I think that anybody on Medicare and Medicaid is committing fraud. These are such sick human beings. More from Congresswoman Ballantyne. Let's play it.

Now to wasteful government spending, particularly the $350 billion set aside for this. Yes, war of choice against Iran included in this president's budget. His budget asks for a shocking surge in Pentagon spending, up to $1.5 trillion. We have never in the history of this country seen spending like this, paid for by slashing, slashing healthcare, education, and housing. Donald Trump has said, as my colleagues have said earlier, we're fighting wars here, we can't take care of daycare. Mr. Vote, yes or no, is $350 billion for the war in Iran lowering costs for Americans? Those Americans who ask us in every single town hall why they can't afford to live in this country. Is the war lowering costs for Americans?

It is certainly not defunding childcare. We fully fund childcare in this.

Is it lowering costs for the American people?

But doesn't that get at the premise of your question?

You can find money for illegal wars in Iran. You can find money for all the pet projects of this administration, and yet we can't find money to alleviate the cost of food and housing and gas on the home front.

But according to you, fully funded childcare, fully funded Head Start.

Mr. Vote, Mr. Vote, with the money that is set aside in this budget, the additional funding for the war in Iran, $350 billion, we could fund the ACA, tax credits for 10 years, for a decade. And I can tell you what my constituents want to know. How is it that we can continue to spend money on foreign wars and yet we cannot find a solution to the fact that people can't afford healthcare? And again, in closing, I just want to say again, it's— we're not so angry because you're taking our power. We're angry because you are taking the people's power. I yield back.

The gentlelady's time has expired. If the gentleman wants to respond, I would just say this president has been a person who has campaigned and led for peace and against endless wars. He is.

Is it— is it—

gentlemen, the gentleman— war?

Is that— is that where we are right now?

Peace? I'm giving the—

I'm giving our witness the time to respond to your question, and then I'm going to yield 5 minutes to Mr. Estes.

So finish the response uninterrupted, and then let's go to Mr. Estes.

The president has also been equally clear that he is not going to allow a nuclear Iran.

He is not going to allow them to have nuclear weapons. He is not going to allow them to have missiles and a navy that impacts our national security. And so he is doing what is necessary to keep us safe while at the same time to pursue diplomacy so that we can get out of wars and lower those, those costs over time.

This was a great line of questioning right here about NIH. Let's play it.

Under your direction, Mr. Vogt, at the National Institutes of Health Last year, grants for Alzheimer's and aging research were cut almost 50%. Mental health, 47%. New grants for cancer research, 23%. And as I read the budget that you're here presenting today, the Trump regime's response is that medical research has not yet been cut sufficiently. Doesn't your budget propose another 12% cut at the National Institutes of Health?

Most of what you said is untrue. NIH was not cut at all last year. We proposed a series of reforms to lower the cost. We continue, although not as much, to lower—

Reclaiming my time, my question to you is, don't you propose to cut the National Institutes of Health by another 12%?

We propose to have a cut to the National Institutes of Health.

Thank you, sir. Reclaiming my time.

That goes after specific programs.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Reclaiming my time.

Let's talk about your—

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman, if the gentleman will please yield. He can filibuster when he's in the Senate. What we do know as far as the truth is that there were fewer grants for new cases last year at NIH than at any time in the last 30 years. Is it your feeling in proposing further cuts at NIH that there are just not enough worthwhile projects out there, or that we cannot afford to invest more in doing something about Alzheimer's, cancer, Parkinson's, HIV, other great concerns.

There are many worthy health investments out there. I think post-COVID, for an institution that contributed to the pandemic itself with the funding of gain-of-function research, to give that institute $42 trillion, which is more than it got under the COVID pandemic, the kinds of— is very generous. The kinds of things that we're trying to do with the National Institutes of Health, indirect cost rates. We don't think when Bill Gates gives 10% for parkings and administrative— Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman.

After giving last year fewer grants than at any time in the last 30 years, you are proposing further cuts there. And of course, the cuts are not only to medical research, but is it correct that in your budget you would cut the National Science Foundation? Which has in the past provided grants that helped on artificial intelligence, on laser eye surgery, on MRI technology, among others, that you propose to cut it by 55%.

We have a sizable cut to National Science Foundation.

Yes, over half of the funding.

But it will not impact our investments on artificial intelligence.

Well, that's good to know because you may be the only person along with President Trump who believe that. A reading from the director of a consortium of research universities. He says your budget cuts are the equivalent of working in a company that feels like it's on the verge of bankruptcy. Another one says slow scientific progress threatening the nation's position in the world economy.

More from Senator Kaine. Let's play it over here.

The second question, without a month, second question.

I was interested in the revenues in the budget that you've sent over. One, Revenue in particular interested me was tariffs. What you're assuming for tariffs. You can see that the numbers on tariffs were sort of bumping around at less than $100 billion a year, $100 billion in 2022, $195 billion in 2025 when the tariffs started to kick in and IEPA tariffs have been determined to be illegal by the Supreme Court, the IEPA tariffs. Next week you're starting to refund $166 billion dollars of tariffs. So I was interested to see what your tariff projection was going to be. And actually, what I see is far from going down as you're refunding illegal tariffs, you're predicting dramatic increases in tariffs. What is President Trump going to tax next?

Senator, what you're looking at is your— we had 10-year assumptions for the IEPA tariffs, and those should be shaded a different way. Obviously, the Supreme Court changed our strategy on that, and we were going through a process to replace those, but we do not believe that the tariffs will be less than under AIPA.

So if you're going through the process, tariffs are a tax. I'd like to introduce, Mr. Chair, two documents from the New York Federal Reserve. 90% of the cost of the tariffs last year fell on American consumers and businesses. And another from the Tax Foundation: the average in 2025 was $1,000 per American tax household. If I could introduce—

objection.

So you're going through a process to decide what are you going to tax next, who are you going to tax next. To reach these astronomical tariff numbers?

We don't think they're a tax on the American people. They have not raised prices.

90% of the cost is falling on the American consumers.

By a Tax Foundation paper that doesn't support tariffs.

But who are you going to impose the tariffs on next?

Look, tariffs are imposed on the foreign importers, right? We've seen that. They've only impacted—

What industry sectors are you going to hobble? Do you know yet? It's not hobbling.

It's ensuring that we have American manufacturing.

So I'm assuming you don't know. You don't yet know who the next tariffs are going to hit. You're just projecting all this money.

Our agreements with countries, Senator, have been out there for ever since Liberation Day.

Liberation Day. Yeah, that's the one that you did right before Tax Day that took $1,000 out of American families' pockets. Let me go to the next one.

More from Congressmember Coleman. Let's play it.

I was just trying to figure out where could I find a needle large enough to burst the bubble that you guys live in because you're not living in reality. And you're creating a narrative. And just because you say it, you think it's true. And so I've sat up here and I've listened to a whole bunch of explanations that don't in any way, shape, or form relate to reality. I got a couple of questions to ask you, sir. I'm going to start with one that's going to give you a moment to speak. And then I'm going to ask you a series of yes and nos. And when I say yes or no, I want yes or nos. What would you say right now to the mothers of the kids who died because of your dismantling of USAID? Harvard study says there are more than 100,000 of them. Can you give me a quick response to what you would say to those mothers? Just don't talk to me about the study. Talk to me about how you— what you would say to the mothers of the children who died.

Congresswoman, with great respect, I would just contest that the extent to which institutions that benefit from federal largesse put out studies that say that the world has ended, that the world has not in fact ended.

Well, it's going there.

USAID spending last year to the tune about $8 billion. There was far more that we could have done, Congressman.

Reclaiming my time. If a mother came before you who told you that her child died because she didn't have access to healthcare or medicine that usually would be available because of the kindness of the United States of America that you and this administration have eliminated, Would you have anything of empathy, compassion, and humanity to say to her? Would you say to her, I am sorry, that was a mistake?

I always have empathy for individuals, including those that get improper and false information from the media that pumps this, this false and ignorant information out to the American people.

You know, I am so sorry to hearing false fraud and abuse. From any of my colleagues and even from you, because if we wanted to eliminate abuse and fraud, we eliminate the president of the United States from the office right now and the rest of the sycophants in his administration that are allowing him to do so many illegal things.

And more from Congressmember Jayapal right here. Let's play this clip.

Now, let me turn to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, since you're also the acting director there. This was an agency that was established to protect consumers from financial predation, deception, fraud, and abuse from the biggest banks, biggest corporations. And the CFPB has stepped in and really done that work under the last administration. CFPB put real money back in consumers' pockets, returned over $21 billion to consumers who were cheated or scammed by big banks, giant corporations. It ordered Wells Fargo to pay over $2 billion and Bank of America to pay $727 million to consumers who were harmed. But you have a mission to eliminate the CFPB. Why are you protecting big corporations instead of consumers, Mr. Voigt?

I'm not. CFPB caused $350 billion of added costs on consumers.

Mr. Voigt. You are asking to reduce the CFPB's workforce to just one-third of its 2025 level, which means that the department that oversees the banks and other financial companies that hold trillions of dollars in mortgage, auto, credit card, and student loan debt would drop from 500 employees to just 77, and the enforcement department would only have 50 workers. What do you have to say to the millions of service members, veterans, older adults, and students that are seeing costs rise. And now, because of your unprecedented rollback of consumer protection staff, have nobody at the agency that is actually policing those big corporations.

That's scamming consumers. Time has expired.

So tell me what you think in the comments below. But I thought good cross-examination right there, exposed him. $1.5 trillion. And just the way he says it so cavalierly, that money could be spent on healthcare, making housing more affordable, making education more affordable, making people's lives better. But we're going to spend the money instead buying missiles to blow up elementary schools so that Donald Trump can engage in more war crimes. Hell no. And the American people are fed up with this disgusting, despicable regime that frankly, they, they're not public servants. They hate this country. Anyway, tell me what you think. Hit subscribe. Let's get to 7 million.

Love this video? Support independent media and unlock exclusive content, ad-free videos, and custom emojis by becoming a paid member of our YouTube channel today. You can also gift memberships to others. Let's keep growing together.