Follow us on social

Festivus Rand Paul

Rand Paul 'Festivus' grievances: US millions for Ukraine TikTokers

Some will go hungry this holiday but at least we’re fighting the PR battle in Eastern Europe

Analysis | Washington Politics

Every December 23, Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) releases a “Festivus Report” based on the spoof holiday featured in the 1990s television show “Seinfeld.” On this made-up holiday, people would engage in an annual “airing of grievances,” and when it comes to wasteful government spending, each year Paul always has a very long list of beefs.

But this year, in finding over $1 trillion in wasteful, stupid spending, like $12 million for a pickleball complex, $15 million in new furniture for empty federal offices, $873,000 for film making in Jordan, and over $400,000 to study lonely rats, there appears to be some substantial spending related to Washington's ongoing role in the Ukraine-Russia conflict.

Th 2024 ‘Festivus Report’ reveals that, “despite American taxpayers providing nearly $174 billion in aid and military assistance to Kyiv since the beginning of Russia’s war in Ukraine, someone over at State thought it was a brilliant idea to drop an additional $4.8 Million for ‘KYIV, Ukraine public affairs - Influencer Staff.’”

That’s right. Apparently the U.S. government was bankrolling Ukrainian TikTokers and Instagram personalities. To the tune of $4.8 million.

From Paul’s report:

“Apparently, what we really need in a war zone are more Instagram stories and TikTok dances. The dangers here are more than just cringeworthy content; this kind of spending opens the door to disinformation, propaganda, and international PR disasters. And don’t even get me started on the potential to escalate tensions with other nations.”

Sen. Paul proceeds to mock the funding’s aim: “after all, nothing says ‘peacekeeping’ like a viral video.”

More “Festivus” airing of the grievances: “But the absurdity doesn’t end there. The State Department also splurged $15,220 on an ‘influencers event’ and another $22,231 on a ‘USAID Social Media Influencers Campaign.”

Think of the billions the U.S. has sent to fuel this war and so many of the lives lost. So many needlessly.

Now think of those at the State Department who thought it so important to prolong the war that they were going to concentrate on and fund some of the most insignificant propaganda actors in the conflict.

“At a time when Americans are scraping by, it’s baffling to see our government burning through taxpayer dollars on what amounts to a glorified selfie-fest,” Paul surmises.

“We need to remind the government that taxpayer dollars should be used to protect our nation’s interests, not to fund the next viral sensation,” the senator added. “Let’s leave the Instagram fame to someone else and get back to serious diplomacy.”

The State Department declined the comment over the weekend as it had not yet seen Sen. Paul's report.

In September, federal prosecutors accused Russia of funding right-wing influencers in the United States to produce pro-Kremlin content. The validity of that claim isn’t important here. The fact that, at least according to Paul’s report, the United States appears to be doing essentially the same thing, only from a pro-Ukraine and/or pro-U.S. perspective, indicates that engaging in this level of propaganda is now seen as necessary by all involved.

But the senator is correct: How many Americans would be comfortable with their tax dollars going to Ukrainian TikTokers?

That’s a question you shouldn’t expect to hear from the U.S. government. But it’s a question you could reasonably expect to hear in the future from Sen. Rand Paul to the State Department.


Top photo credit: 'Festivus' from the TV series 'Seinfeld' (Screenshot/NBC)
Analysis | Washington Politics
US Marines
Top image credit: U.S. Marines with Force Reconnaissance Platoon, Maritime Raid Force, 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit, prepare to clear a room during a limited scale raid exercise at Sam Hill Airfield, Queensland, Australia, June 21, 2025. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Alora Finigan)

Cartels are bad but they're not 'terrorists.' This is mission creep.

Military Industrial Complex

There is a dangerous pattern on display by the Trump administration. The president and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth seem to hold the threat and use of military force as their go-to method of solving America’s problems and asserting state power.

The president’s reported authorization for the Pentagon to use U.S. military warfighting capacity to combat drug cartels — a domain that should remain within the realm of law enforcement — represents a significant escalation. This presents a concerning evolution and has serious implications for civil liberties — especially given the administration’s parallel moves with the deployment of troops to the southern border, the use of federal forces to quell protests in California, and the recent deployment of armed National Guard to the streets of our nation’s capital.

keep readingShow less
Howard Lutnick
Top photo credit: Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick on CNBC, 8/26/25 (CNBC screengrab)

Is nationalizing the defense industry such a bad idea?

Military Industrial Complex

The U.S. arms industry is highly consolidated, specialized, and dependent on government contracts. Indeed, the largest U.S. military contractors are already effectively extensions of the state — and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick is right to point that out.

His suggestion in a recent media appearance to partially nationalize the likes of Lockheed Martin is hardly novel. The economist John Kenneth Galbraith argued for the nationalization of the largest military contractors in 1969. More recently, various academics and policy analysts have advocated for partial or full nationalization of military firms in publications including The Nation, The American Conservative, The Middle East Research and Information Project (MERIP), and The Seattle Journal for Social Justice.

keep readingShow less
Modi Trump
Top image credit: White House, February 2025

Trump's India problem could become a Global South crisis

Asia-Pacific

As President Trump’s second term kicked off, all signs pointed to a continued upswing in U.S.-India relations. At a White House press conference in February, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi spoke of his vision to “Make India Great Again” and how the United States under Trump would play a central role. “When it’s MAGA plus MIGA, it becomes a mega partnership for prosperity,” Modi said.

During Trump’s first term, the two populist leaders hosted rallies for each other in their respective countries and cultivated close personal ties. Aside from the Trump-Modi bromance, U.S.-Indian relations have been on a positive trajectory for over two decades, driven in part by mutual suspicion of China. But six months into his second term, Trump has taken several actions that have led to a dramatic downturn in U.S.-India relations, with India-China relations suddenly on the rise.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.