4 ms·

Is USAID mainly serving US interests? (2013)

16 points by isolli 2y ago

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
delichon 2y ago
https://ronpaulinstitute.org/audit-usaidthen-shut-it-down/ https://ronpaulinstitute.org/audit-usaidthen-shut-it-down/ http://unrollnow.com/ http://unrollnow.com/
- delichon 2y ago
  USAID was created by an executive order, but then established by Congress in the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998. Simple impoundment of funds violates the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. So Trump does not have the authority to just shut down USAID. But here's the thing. He doesn't care. He has complete immunity for it. He isn't running for re-election. He believes that it is a political advantage for his legacy. He is effectively immune from impeachment until the midterm elections. If the court orders it re-funded, he re-hydrates it under his control, and is still politically ahead. And this informs most of his executive actions.
  - apetrov 2y ago
    This is what chatgpt suggested to make it minimal viable agency (align with aforementioned acts): Staff: 10-50 employees, mostly in HQ Budget: ~$1-2M for core staff & admin, rest funneled through grants Field Presence: 1-3 priority countries, skeleton operations Mission Execution: Reduced to policy advising, reports, & strategic partnerships This would keep USAID legally operational while effectively neutering it.
    - GenerocUsername 2y ago
      "Minimum Legal operation" should probably be the target for many government programs.
      - apetrov 2y ago
        could not disagree with that
      - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
        Yes, I too go to the DMV and think 'why doesn't every government agency only have two people working with a line of 200 waiting'.
    - stonogo 2y ago
      Fifty employees is about eight million dollars per year, fully loaded costing. ChatGPT does not know how to budget for labor.
  - lesuorac 2y ago
    > Simple impoundment of funds violates the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. So Trump does not have the authority to just shut down USAID. IIUC, the current administration is running with that the Impoundment Control Act itself is unconstitutional [1] so they do have authority to shut down USAID or any other congress appropriations. [1]: https://www.npr.org/2025/02/02/nx-s1-5281438/understanding-the-law-at-the-heart-of-confusion-over-trumps-federal-funding-freeze https://www.npr.org/2025/02/02/nx-s1-5281438/understanding-t...
  - rhinoceraptor 2y ago
    > He isn't running for re-election I see you're an optimist!
    - goosedragons 2y ago
      Or an extreme pessimist...
  - ddawson 2y ago
    He's eager to get before the Supreme Court and has people whispering in his ear that the Impoundment Control Act is unconstituional. I think the shock and awe campaign has politician gains at deployment and any fights can be turned to his favor in public, too. He's very good at getting people to play on his terms.
rasz 2y ago
While its still up: "USAID AND THE POLISH DECADE" https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pdabs562.pdf https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pdabs562.pdf >Could Poland have done what they did without Western assistance asks Zbigniew Brzezinski, Polish-born national security adviser under President Jimmy Carter and author. - "I'd have to say no." Result is absolutely highest US approval of all European nations. 91% positive with miniscule 3% negative in 2022 https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2022/06/22/international-public-opinion-of-the-u-s-remains-positive/ https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2022/06/22/international-... Clearly wasted money ...
- apetrov 2y ago
  Unfortunately, there is only a ‘treatment’ group but no control group (aka non-repeatable treatment), so it's hard to draw conclusions from it. Also, the Poland location could be another explanation: if your neighbor is Russia, with whom you have (let’s put it mildly) a long history, but you’re also a NATO member under the U.S. nuclear umbrella, you have plenty of reasons to appreciate the aforementioned country. Disclaimer: just another possible explanation.
- LittleTimothy 2y ago
  And one of the strongest militaries in Eastern Europe with a whopping 4.7% of GDP providing an independent bulwark against Russian aggression - fulfilling the exact role that Trump claims to want in Nato.
  - ddawson 2y ago
    Poland is very clear advocate for Trump's new target of 5%.
- Avshalom 2y ago
  https://medium.com/usaid-2030/my-fathers-story-89ba193cf06e https://medium.com/usaid-2030/my-fathers-story-89ba193cf06e
beardyw 2y ago
Foreign aid is never the kind of altruistic giving you and I might do. There is always a quid pro quo.
aredox 2y ago
https://www.axios.com/2025/02/03/usaid-musk-trump-what-to-know https://www.axios.com/2025/02/03/usaid-musk-trump-what-to-kn...
dedzu 2y ago
[dead]
ddawson 2y ago
Certainly depends on what you mean about US interests. I'm a US citizen and am very pleased with what they have done enhancing trade, feeding people, addressing malaria and TB, education, sanitation, and lots more. It's easy to connect this with promoting democracy, paving the way for Pax Americana, and other things which are pro-American.

16 points by isolli 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

https://ronpaulinstitute.org/audit-usaidthen-shut-it-down/ https://ronpaulinstitute.org/audit-usaidthen-shut-it-down/ http://unrollnow.com/ http://unrollnow.com/

delichon 2y ago
USAID was created by an executive order, but then established by Congress in the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998. Simple impoundment of funds violates the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. So Trump does not have the authority to just shut down USAID. But here's the thing. He doesn't care. He has complete immunity for it. He isn't running for re-election. He believes that it is a political advantage for his legacy. He is effectively immune from impeachment until the midterm elections. If the court orders it re-funded, he re-hydrates it under his control, and is still politically ahead. And this informs most of his executive actions.
- apetrov 2y ago
  This is what chatgpt suggested to make it minimal viable agency (align with aforementioned acts): Staff: 10-50 employees, mostly in HQ Budget: ~$1-2M for core staff & admin, rest funneled through grants Field Presence: 1-3 priority countries, skeleton operations Mission Execution: Reduced to policy advising, reports, & strategic partnerships This would keep USAID legally operational while effectively neutering it.
  - GenerocUsername 2y ago
    "Minimum Legal operation" should probably be the target for many government programs.
    - apetrov 2y ago
      could not disagree with that
    - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
      Yes, I too go to the DMV and think 'why doesn't every government agency only have two people working with a line of 200 waiting'.
  - stonogo 2y ago
    Fifty employees is about eight million dollars per year, fully loaded costing. ChatGPT does not know how to budget for labor.
- lesuorac 2y ago
  > Simple impoundment of funds violates the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. So Trump does not have the authority to just shut down USAID. IIUC, the current administration is running with that the Impoundment Control Act itself is unconstitutional [1] so they do have authority to shut down USAID or any other congress appropriations. [1]: https://www.npr.org/2025/02/02/nx-s1-5281438/understanding-the-law-at-the-heart-of-confusion-over-trumps-federal-funding-freeze https://www.npr.org/2025/02/02/nx-s1-5281438/understanding-t...
- rhinoceraptor 2y ago
  > He isn't running for re-election I see you're an optimist!
  - goosedragons 2y ago
    Or an extreme pessimist...
- ddawson 2y ago
  He's eager to get before the Supreme Court and has people whispering in his ear that the Impoundment Control Act is unconstituional. I think the shock and awe campaign has politician gains at deployment and any fights can be turned to his favor in public, too. He's very good at getting people to play on his terms.

rasz 2y ago

While its still up: "USAID AND THE POLISH DECADE" https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pdabs562.pdf https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pdabs562.pdf >Could Poland have done what they did without Western assistance asks Zbigniew Brzezinski, Polish-born national security adviser under President Jimmy Carter and author. - "I'd have to say no." Result is absolutely highest US approval of all European nations. 91% positive with miniscule 3% negative in 2022 https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2022/06/22/international-public-opinion-of-the-u-s-remains-positive/ https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2022/06/22/international-... Clearly wasted money ...

apetrov 2y ago
Unfortunately, there is only a ‘treatment’ group but no control group (aka non-repeatable treatment), so it's hard to draw conclusions from it. Also, the Poland location could be another explanation: if your neighbor is Russia, with whom you have (let’s put it mildly) a long history, but you’re also a NATO member under the U.S. nuclear umbrella, you have plenty of reasons to appreciate the aforementioned country. Disclaimer: just another possible explanation.
LittleTimothy 2y ago
And one of the strongest militaries in Eastern Europe with a whopping 4.7% of GDP providing an independent bulwark against Russian aggression - fulfilling the exact role that Trump claims to want in Nato.
- ddawson 2y ago
  Poland is very clear advocate for Trump's new target of 5%.
Avshalom 2y ago
https://medium.com/usaid-2030/my-fathers-story-89ba193cf06e https://medium.com/usaid-2030/my-fathers-story-89ba193cf06e

beardyw 2y ago

Foreign aid is never the kind of altruistic giving you and I might do. There is always a quid pro quo.

aredox 2y ago

https://www.axios.com/2025/02/03/usaid-musk-trump-what-to-know https://www.axios.com/2025/02/03/usaid-musk-trump-what-to-kn...

dedzu 2y ago

[dead]

ddawson 2y ago

Certainly depends on what you mean about US interests. I'm a US citizen and am very pleased with what they have done enhancing trade, feeding people, addressing malaria and TB, education, sanitation, and lots more. It's easy to connect this with promoting democracy, paving the way for Pax Americana, and other things which are pro-American.