The above was the Washington Blade’s headline on February 12. Elon Musk’s war on government waste has exposed massive D.C. pro-LGBT funding. The Blade continued:

“The Trump-Vance administration’s decision to freeze nearly all U.S. foreign aid spending for at least 90 days has had a devastating impact on the global LGBTQ rights movement [since] Washington funds a third of international advocacy.”

All in all, a piece of rather good news for the traditionally minded.

Examples of the catastrophe cited by the Blade included:

• Outright International, a global LGBTQ and intersex advocacy group, has “had to halt direct funding and capacity-building support to LGBTIQ groups in more than 32 countries” in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, and Latin America. “The community-based groups we support with USAID (the U.S. Agency for International Development) funding carry out critical human rights, humanitarian and development work,” said Outright International. “This includes protecting community members from violence, providing skills training that allows LGBTIQ people to access employment and entrepreneurial opportunities, and essential services, including healthcare services.”

—Your tax dollars at work: not to provide the needs of fellow citizens, but for homosexuals in 32 other countries so they can get job training and healthcare.

• “The Institute on Race, Equality and Human Rights, a Washington-based group that champions LGBTQ and intersex rights in Brazil and elsewhere in Latin America, … lost nearly 80 percent of its funding.”

—Brazil, as FRI discovered a few years ago when approached about testifying there against additional pro-homosexual laws, allows no criticism of LGBTs. Homosexuals and their supporters have changed the law so that you can be sued (and possibly imprisoned) for merely listing the ways homosexuals cost more and contribute less. Even more troubling, a woman in the United Kingdom who posted her “disgust” at homosexual sex acts was “forgiven” of her wrongdoing by UK courts in February. She was also warned, however, that she might be convicted for such public hostility to homosexuals and their activities in the future.

The U.S. taxpayer is supporting a homosexual movement that wants to display the kinds of sex it likes, not only online but in schools and public spaces. LGBTQ proponents want homosexuality to be presented as normal and acceptable; they also want the ability, as in Brazil and the UK, to limit freedom of speech when it concerns homosexuality. This movement knows that if it can reach youth with its message—“just another (sometimes preferable) way to enjoy sex”—it has a good chance of converting many who would otherwise learn to be heterosexual. Currently, about a third of young women in the U.S. identify as homosexual to some degree. Simultaneously, the U.S. is also not producing enough babies to replace its population. Conversions of girls to homosexuality is extremely dangerous—after all, without sufficient babies, the future dries up. Homosexuals want every school child to know about homosexuality and have a “chance” to become LGBT.

Thanks to the U.S. taxpayer, the homosexual movement is sufficiently funded to keep track of homosexual setbacks and advances in just about every political entity across the globe. LBGTs want expansion and control even if their successes threaten mankind’s extinction.

• “The LGBTQ+ Victory Institute works with Caribe Afirmativo in Colombia, Promsex in Peru, VoteLGBT in Brazil, and other advocacy groups outside the U.S. The institute has lost around $600,000—two-thirds of its entire global program budget.”

• Equal Namibia and Namibia Pride received $30,000 from USAID (DOGE has reclaimed at least $10,000). They stated “This comes at the worst time as we will need to challenge the new anti-same-sex marriage act passed by the president in October and the upcoming decriminalization case which our Supreme Court will hear soon.”

—FRI was concerned that Trump’s emphasis on eliminating transgender accommodations from the government might leave the bulk of the homosexual movement unscathed. But it looks like transgenderism is so intertwined with other depravities like cross-dressing and drag shows that all aspects of homosexual expression are getting hammered!

On February 7, Department of Education (DOE) employees were ordered “to end all programs, contracts, policies, outward-facing media, regulations, and internal practices that fail to affirm the reality of biological sex.” They were also told to stop using government property and work time for “employee resource groups that promote gender ideology and do not affirm the reality of biological sex.” On February 14, the DOE forbade discrimination against “race, color, or national origin” in educationA. But the LA Times noted a few days later that discrimination against men and heterosexuals is still allowed since they weren’t mentioned in the announcement!

Are Homosexual Nests Behind the Flood of Pro-Homosexual Grants?

Homosexual nests were discovered in the bureaucracies of pre-Nazi Germany, Nazi Germany, and both the Truman and Eisenhower administrations. Nests begin with hiring a homosexual who acts as a Coukoo bird, working to replace normals with homosexuals. To do so, he gilds homosexuals’ qualifications and minimizes those of normals. Once surrounded by fellow homosexuals, a nest based on sexual preference has been formed within an ostensibly merit-based system. An Air Force nurse told us: “homosexuals have a society within the Air Force Corps. As they get higher in rank they become more dangerous, giving good assignments and ratings to only their own kind; spouses cannot write one another’s ratings but these lovers do it constantly. [Many] young heterosexual potentials leave to avoid being molested.”

The efforts to make Washington D.C. more efficient have exposed another aspect of these nests. So many of the grants given by USAID benefit homosexuals almost or entirely exclusively. The nature and recipients of these grants suggest that they were authorized by homosexuals. Some of the USAID pro-homosexual grants included:

• $47,000 for a “transgender opera” in Colombia.

• $32,000 for a “transgender comic book” in Perú.

• $2 million for sex changes and “LGBT activism” in Guatemala.

• $6.3 million to study men having sex with men and trannies in South Africa.

• $1.5 million to provide support for Jamaican homosexuals.

• $70,000 for a “DEI musical” in Ireland.

• $7.9 M to teach Sri Lankan journalists how to avoid “binary-gendered language.”

• $1.1 million to an Armenian LGBT group.

• $2 M to promote “LGBT equality through entrepreneurship” in Latin America.

• $3.9 million for LGBT causes in the Western Balkans.

• $5.5 million for LGBTs in Uganda (where homosexual activity is illegal).

• $6 million to promote homosexuality around the world.

Since grants are chosen by a team, the above grants are so obviously anti-heterosexual, that they constitute prima facie evidence that a homosexual nest comfortable with wasting and misusing tax money was involved. Thanks to Elon Musk, the public now has access to the truth that “if a homosexual nest can influence funding, it will use some money to expand homosexuality and decrease heterosexuality.”

Similar grants by UK bureaucracies were just uncovered :

• Birmingham City University received £841,830 to document The Europe that Gay Porn Built, 1945-2000

• £20k per year to document: Queerness in nineteenth-century transatlantic spiritualism

• £34,611 to study In Our Own Words: Documenting Everyday Lives of Queer People in Central Asia

• £136,909 for Perverse Collections: Building Europe’s Queer and Trans Archives.

Notice the granularity of what is being funded. Thanks to the internet and constant networking, the homosexual movement knows when it might seek advantage for homosexuality almost anywhere. In poorer countries especially, even if homosexuals are unpopular or despised, or their behavior is outlawed, these grants help to grow homosexuality.

The Lancet, a major British medical journal, editorialized on February 14 that Trump has limited “federal funding for gender-affirming health care, declaring that there are only two biological sexes, and halting diversity programs—a substantial setback for social justice and equity” but rejoiced that “Taiwan allowed joint adoption for same-sex married couples, and in 2025, Thailand became the latest Asian nation to legalize same-sex marriage.” How do the topics of diversity, social justice, equity, legalizing same-sex marriage, or allowing homosexuals to adopt constitute medical science? The Lancet joins several ostensibly scientific journals and associations decrying Trump’s threat to federal funding of homosexuality.

The homosexual life is a maze of contradictions. Homosexuals discriminate against heterosexuals and for their kind when it comes to hiring or gifting tax money. Yet they infect each other with life-shortening diseases (e.g., HIV), and the Musk assault offers a respite, but for how long?

President Eisenhower characterized homosexuals in federal employ as “wickedness in government.” The Musk investigation has also revealed that KyivPride has been well funded by USAID since 2015—including for drag shows and trans “beauty” contests—even as the war with Russia continued. Russian officials with whom FRI met in 2019 cited the following summaries from US publishers approvingly—just before the federal government started working against promotion of homosexuality:

“Contrary to popular supposition, the KGB is not primarily interested in homosexuals because of their presumed susceptibility to blackmail. In its judgment homosexuality is often accompanied by personality disorders…. Being different, the homosexual easily rationalizes that he is not morally bound by the mores, values, and allegiances that unite others in community or society…. To such a person treason offers the weapon of retaliation.”

(John Barron, The KGB: The work of Soviet secret agents. NY, 1974)

Homosexuals see themselves as anarchists and a law unto themselves.

“Members of homophile organizations do not feel they are ‘cripples’ but ‘martyrs’ unjustly discriminated against by wider society ”

(R.T. Sweet. Political and social action in homophile organizations NY, 1975).

Using government funds to promote an immoral and socially problematic lifestyle within the government, country, and around the world takes away from the government’s primary role to protect its citizens. Additionally, these nests within the federal government have been doing so unbeknownst to and against the best interests of American taxpayers. How was Eisenhower wrong?

Homosexual Nest Building Before Supreme Court

A case involving homosexual nests is before the US Supreme Court: Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services. Marlean Ames sued the department, claiming she was discriminated against as a heterosexual woman in favor of other homosexual employees. Ames worked since 2004 at Ohio’s youth services department, first as an executive secretary, then holding various positions before seeking a promotion in 2019. That job went instead to a gay woman who had not even applied for the position and did not as Ames have a college degree. Soon, Ames was demoted and her position given to another gay social worker. This case presents the hallmarks of a homosexual nest at work.

The 1964 civil rights act, in light of the belief that “all men are created equal,"means that ‘minorities’ are assumed victims of discrimination and results in a set of quotas for every position, by race, by sex, etc. It thus gives an advantage to LGBTs over heterosexuals, women over men, blacks over whites, etc. when it comes to appealing to the EEOC [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission] or a federal court. Judicial precedent has held “majority” plaintiffs to a higher standard of proof of their discrimination. The Wall Street Journal reported on February 26th that “A federal appeals court in Cincinnati threw out Ames’s lawsuit, finding that she failed to show the “background circumstances” suggesting the employer was hostile to straight people—a threshold step that would not have been required had a gay employee claimed discrimination.” The Supreme Court will decide whether Ames must meet the “background circumstances” standard or not.

Somehow the homosexual nest phenomenon has escaped legal and legislative notice. Homosexuals are scattered throughout federal, state, and local governments, working away to dominate posts and various offices (and within private organizations as well). They give their own higher ratings in the military, better recommendations in private industry, and are using the principle 'all men are created equal’ and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to their advantage—the more they whine and complain the less evidence they are required to present to gain rulings in their favor. They demonstrate, write, and call in to complain which absolves them of the injuries that homosexuality does to others.

The Court’s ruling could begin to curb the judicial advantages and protections for homosexual nests if it decides in Ames’ favor. Either way, her case highlights how these nests operate and how they have benefited from a legal system that favors minority rights above all.