Heavy howitzer fire continued in the American Blob, as the Trump administration’s DOGE team set about regime-changing the United States Agency for International Development, or USAID. Following a day-one executive order temporarily freezing all US international aid pending a review to ensure it was consistent with the President’s “America First” policy, CNN has reported that top security officials at the agency have been put on administrative leave after refusing to comply with DOGE requests for information. At the time of writing, USAID’s website remains down.
Elon Musk has been combative in his statements, posting on X yesterday that USAID is “a criminal organization”. Trump left only slightly more room for manoeuvre, telling Fox News that USAID is “run by radical lunatics” and that “we’re getting them out, and then we’ll make a decision.”
It’s difficult to overstate how revolutionary this is. The United States provides some 40% of the world’s humanitarian assistance, and with an annual budget of over $50 billion USAID is one of the biggest development agencies in the world. Founded by John F. Kennedy in 1961, it was intended to follow in the footsteps of the Marshall Plan by using aid to advance US foreign policy interests. It employs around 15,000 people in Washington, DC, with thousands more overseas and a great many more indirectly via grant funding.
USAID has long been criticised by the international radical Left as “a tool of U.S. capitalist and imperialist interests”. These critics claim its purpose isn’t helping foreign states on their own terms, but instead creating opportunities for American businesses, as well as funding NGOs that foment political unrest abroad in line with US interests. Russia expelled USAID in 2012, blaming its “attempts to influence political processes through its grants”. And China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs accuses US international development practice of “using aid as a bargaining chip” to compel political and economic changes overseas in America’s interest.
El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele, a Trump ally, echoed this critique yesterday. He declared that most governments don’t want USAID money flowing into their country because while “marketed as support for development, democracy, and human rights”, most of the money received is “funneled into opposition groups, NGOs with political agendas, and destabilizing movements”.
Much Western reporting on the freeze focused on famine relief and other humanitarian projects. However, some coverage tacitly acknowledged the aspect of USAID critiqued by Bukele and others. In Moldova, for example, ABC reported that “pro-democracy groups, independent media, civil society initiatives and local governments” are now “scrambling to make ends meet”. In other words: liberal political activists funded by American “development” money have abruptly been left exposed.
It seems, then, that Trump is now doing within USAID what USAID-funded groups do abroad: using politically aligned funding and personnel changes to transform the body’s overall political orientation. But why would the “America First” President be at war with a body which stands accused of always prioritising the US?
Trump is regime-changing USAID in response to profound intra-elite domestic disagreement over what it means to put America first. USAID has hitherto operated on a broadly shared consensus in this respect: open markets, business-friendly regulations, and democratic regimes. In other words: the America-led globalisation that has formed the backdrop to all of international politics and economics since the end of the Cold War. Now, though, this programme is being contested not just outside “the West” but within it. It’s not yet entirely clear what “America First” will mean in practice, but Trump has evidently concluded that unless he radically reforms America’s principal vehicle for overseas soft power, it won’t mean anything at all.
It’s a reasonable bet that, notwithstanding Musk’s declaration that it’s “Time for it to die”, USAID — or at least something broadly resembling it — will survive the 90-day freeze and personnel shake-up. “The smiling face of imperialism” is surely too potent a tool to discard entirely. But if Trump’s internal colour revolution succeeds, the values and people that order this institution will surely march to a different drum for much longer than the next four years.
There is a lesson here for the British Right. The recently-departed Tory regime whined endlessly about “the Blob”, without ever so much as lifting a finger to change any of its entrenched personnel, institutions, or regulatory structures. Any prospective Right-wing administration in Britain should be studying the Trumpian approach to regime change closely, and working on equivalent plans.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThere is plenty of evidence of the distorting and detrimental effect of US aid on recipient countries. About time a radical reappraisal was undertaken.
A proper Conservative government would have followed through with the promised bonfire of Quangos and left leaning Quangocrats. Only when the legacy media is squealing will we know a Conservative government is in place whatever it is called.
The problem with USAID is not political or ideological. It is exactly what Musk alluded to: colossal mismanagement of resources due mainly to corruption. In this system, only very large organizations are awarded contracts, firstly because they can afford to keep on staff professional grant-writers and secondly because the process overtly requires that, for reasons that make little sense. We all know that smaller boots-on-the ground organizations can often be more agile and more committed, but they are excluded from the start. The behemoths are called the “primes”, and they don’t actually do any of the work. They in turn hire sub-contractors, the “subs”.Typically, those don’t do the work either, but find some local company to implement. Not unusually, that one subs it out as well. By the time everyone has taken their cut, there is hardly any budget left to do the actual work. Second problem, DC Headquarters has no clue about the actual situation in the places they are supposed to operate. Case in point, one day USAID announced that they were not going to fund primary education in Afghanistan anymore because all young women were now already educated and the new task was to train them for leadership positions. And that’s before we get to the corruption part. It is common knowledge that an optimal career path is to join USAID and then make friends with the large Primes by giving them grants. Then you take early retirement and go to work for that Prime, and your network of friends at USAID gives grants to you, because then when they retire you will hire them, and on it goes. This needed to be blown out of the water, godspeed Elon.
Wow. Thank you for this explanation. I didn’t know. I just know from my own experience that the main beneficiaries of overseas aid are not the destined recipients.
This claim that foreign aid doesn’t make anyone wealthier is a flat out lie. Just look at Switzerland.
100% agree
Very interesting insight. I am sure it is the same in the UK government and its overseas aid budget, albeit on a more modest scale.
Irrespective of the merits of the cuts, what the World will remember is the callousness in cutting the funding before the review rather than afterwards. It will wake the world up not to rely on the US.
The ‘world’ should not rely on the U.S. to fund its corruption.
The US relies on the world to fund its largesse. If people lose trust in America and the dollar drifts away from being the gold standard they’ll be bankrupt
…not so Jon. Most people on the notionally recipient end of things, know perfectly well who the main beneficiaries of USAID are. The same applies to the “aid” directed from the Bretton Woods institutions. Aid has now become a drug which dulls emerging states and economies, but makes the drug dealers super wealthy.
Not disputing what Cheryl says, but, reading through the comments I couldn’t see any supporters of USAID. So, I’ll just say that I think the Peace Corps is a great idea: it doesn’t cost much more than airfares and health insurance for the volunteers, but creates a lot of mutual respect and understanding – really, both sides gain a lot.
Yes, the corruption across not just USAID, but many of the other organizations that comprise the Federal Government is apparent to anyone who is paying attention. Change is needed. Let’s see how it works out.
This is an extraordinary move.Seismic. I wonder who stands to benefit from it. Certainly not the aid officials on comfortable salaries, or the local administrators who took their slice of the funding. I understand that USAID, as is the case with any other so-called aid programme, had strings attached to its funding, which ultimately supported US businesses. Plus, how many regimes will fall or opposition movements fade away when deprived of this funding?
So, who stands to benefit from this regime change?
I do hope that, having shunted one gravy train into the sidings (assuming they succeed), it isn’t replaced by another.
USAID is a CIA cutout for US global hegemony. It’s essentially the department of color revolutions and overthrowing of global governments that we don’t like. There is very little AID that comes from USAID, but if you need to rent a mob, if you need to hire journalists to write against a political person, if you need to fund NGOs that fund and empower the most radical groups in a country to help bring instability, well then USAID along with the US State Department, along with other global organizations such as the Soros backed National Endowment for Democracy are there to help do that.
As Mary said this is America first, but it’s much bigger than that. It’s the US determining to no longer be the global hegemon, the global unipower, but has determined on its own terms to be just one of many nations with its own sphere of influence in a multi-polar world.
Who is caught off guard are Americas vassals in the EU. They can’t even conceive of a world that isn’t shaped like it has been, and they have no clue what to do, and no idea how screwed they are to be cut adrift, so they are propping up the old policies and hoping that this nightmare scenario they are seeing will end soon. If you look at it from the right vantage point, it’s really humorous,but also much more hopeful for a world that will be returning to more of a meritocracy, and more national sovereignty.
The “Colour Revolution” racket is actually more the bailiwick of the National Endowment for Democracy, not so much USAID. But there is synergy.
“The recently-departed Tory regime whined endlessly about “the Blob”, without ever so much as lifting a finger to change any of its entrenched personnel, institutions, or regulatory structures.”
Happens here in Canada as well. There’s a very much “you can’t fight City Hall” resigned attitude towards the bureaucracy blob. Maybe a few slight tweaks depending on if the governing breezes are gently wafting Left or Right but no existential changes. Governments change. Bureaucracy is forever. As the article says, Trump isn’t buying that anymore. You don’t tweak – you trash. Is the criticism of Trump’s policy valid or simply self-serving?
This is why we need Trump. Westerners have come to accept incompetent govt that gets nothing done.
“We have dreams. We can see what is possible, unburdened by what has been,” I wonder what visionary said that? Seems to apply to the current US government at least.
I have been ranting for years about the UK government’s wasted expenditure on overseas development aid. It spends between £7,000-£8,000 annually on dishing out largesse to countries ranging from India (FFS!) to Zimbabwe (FFS!) and a huge range of Woke programmes in these geographies.
At a time when, for example, Starmer & Co have removed the annual winter fuel allowance from elderly people, is to increase taxes on pensions and is starving the public services of funds, nothing much of substance can justify this monstrous waste of resources. Yes, one can accept that the ‘soft power’ of foreign aid can have some positive benefits for the UK (e.g. in facilitating bi-lateral trade). But overall, how any politician can support this ongoing financial feast (much of it ending up in private Swiss bank accounts for the likes of the late-lamented, formerly Sir (‘Arise, Sir Robert!’)), Comrade Robert Gabriel Mugabe of Zimbabwe, for example; or paying huge salaries to executive civil servants in Whitehall or the field, or to free-loading employees of NGOs driving around their patches in their Toyota Land Cruisers and paying the low wages of their domestic servants) is beyond me.
The whole system is rotten to its cynical core, as are the politicians (like Call-me-Dave Cameron, who substantially increased the UK foreign aid budget) who espouse and protect it.
I wish Trump and Musk every success in their endeavours to kick their much bigger equivalent into the long grass! I guess re-investing that 50 billion elsewhere in the US economy or simply saving it would make a discernible difference!
I can’t envisage Two-Tier Smarmer tackling the UK budget any time soon!
It was never about development though. It was access for agent recruitment and finance control. Do you know to get funding, one must actually give up development for society, health and education? US can use that capital for its own development now! It will create pain in developing countries but it is better, all contracts are off now. They can be free to pursue their own treaties and also alignments!
Yes, what makes Trump stand out among his peers is that he just doesn’t talk he also acts.
And China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs accuses US international development practice of “using aid as a bargaining chip” to compel political and economic changes overseas in America’s interest.
An excellent example of the pot calling the kettle black.
Pol Pot won’t be turning in his grave.
(Sorry, couldn’t resist!)
Say what you want of the Chinese, but they’re quick learners and have taken to the lessons they were taught with aplomb.
From the Americans they learned the value of providing “aid”, though their take on it comes without a side of moralizing lectures, which has made them many friends in Africa.
The British, on the other hand, showed them how effective (or destructive) it can be to hook your adversaries citizenry on drugs, although the chinese are at least circumspect about this gambit.
Getting a taste of your own medicine can be bitter like that…
Exactly. Once upon a time, quite a few years ago, I worked in development finance and I recall a lot of hand-wringing about countries in the Balkans preferring Chinese investment over European investment precisely because the Chinese didn’t go for all the moral lectures and weren’t bothered about things like sustainability or international labour standards. On the surface of it, there were far fewer strings attached…but the Chinese were obviously smart enough to bake in their “strings” in other ways.
“…to compel political and economic changes overseas in America’s interest.” But if you change that to “the interests of American taxpayers” (as opposed to millionaires and corporations) you would get a very different USAID.
It’s the cost that really bothers Trump. And the voters, too.
Of course you’re right about the CCP. They’re almost as tin-eared and flat-footed as our progressives.
“There is a lesson here for the British Right.”
Yes. We’ve had 14 years of fake Tory ConLabLib Uniparty govts that got us into this state. We need a real right of centre govt. The only party that will give us that is Reform: Join Reform, Support Reform, Vote Reform.
Breitbart reported two days ago that a team of Trump/Doge/Musk people has taken over the Office of Personnel Management which holds all records of federal agency employees. Passwords have been changed and the previous management frozen out. The team, led by a Musk exec are now best placed to sort out the useful from the ornamental people. They are already offering payoffs for voluntary severance.
Remember that when Musk bought Twitter he fired more than three quarters of its staff (possibly an overreaction).
Perhaps change is necessitated, however the new paradigms of $$$ deployment will be harshly cruel, thanks to all you yahoos riding DEI into the ground. How many countries in the near future will make being gay a fatal crime?
And there is always 2028 looming there beyond your raging denial when Emperor Don again raises his seditious head and proclaims himself king for life. The only thing saving us from this human disaster is his age and health. All Hail Emperor Don, may you croak swiftly and go back into the dark mire you came from.
So an entirely new realm of corruption can now be sanctioned where we do not even pretend to care for the world’s poor because Emperor Don has declared them all losers unless they genuflect wildly at his feet. A new age of revenue sharing is shaping up with the world’s wealthiest man in charge. How can it go wrong?
And what proportion of those $$ will be directed to Emperor Don’s Bestie friends, who desperately need to have their billions bolstered. I am sure one of Emperor Don’s underlying tenants is f**k the poor, They are Loosers.
Tenets; FFS!
Loosers; FFFFS!
Welcome to democracy in action. Sorry that the totalitarianism of the past is not working out for you any longer.
The “totalitarianism of the past” may be nothing compared to the “totalitarianism of the future “
Well we won’t know until it too is the past, will we. You would, perhaps, prefer stasis.
The totalitarianism of the future looks like very expensive food and heat, to “reduce our carbon footprint,” bizarre sexualities and lifestyles inflicted on and promoted to our children, race based socialism with a side order of riotous looting, ubiquitous censorship and propaganda, and failures in basic governance such as in providing drinking water, law enforcement, firefighting, public health, and air traffic control.
It would make Maoist China seem preferable.
The world’s poor should be of no concern of America’s while there are still poor Americans.
Heavy howitzer fire continued in the American Blob
Great opening line. I love it. I think Mary’s a little jealous…
Argentine too.
I am struck by the fact that you couldn’t name a specific NGO that is doing something you object to, nor any specific examples. You are a journalist, right. This is a news organization, right. This is just more sloppy, empty invective from the Right!
Oh Benjamin,
USAID couldn’t name the NGO’s and probably wouldn’t want to. Sorry Mate, try harder next time.
How would you know? Trump took down their website. Think better next time.
USAID is 3rd world country IMF and CIA covert operations. People will suffer but like any addiction recovery , they will survive.
Now though, will US survive without funding terrorism aka humanitarian without financial access?
I am all for protectionism and isolationism but strategically not haphazardly!
How to correct USAID for the long-term. 1.) Trump understands that “People are Policy.” Thus, rejigging policy will fail; replacing people will succeed. 2.) ZBB – Zero-based Budgeting. Every year begins with a zero-budget. Every cent must reviewed, validated, and approved by elected officials, NOT lifelong swamp apparatchiks. No automatic annual budget increases are allowed. End of the “use it or lose it” culture.
These practices are a remedy for all govt agencies. Congress won’t like it because they will have to do their jobs, actual work.
Right on! The trouble with having 50 Billion is that 50 Million becomes funny money, especially if it is going to Gaza to distribute rubbers. Maybe it was for mini water storage, I don’t know but it certainly wasn’t going to be used for its intended purpose. This is a lesson for taxpayers. They should be demanding an accounting of where the money is going. If folks really knew how much of their hard-earned money went for Bullshit, there would be a real shift who we elect. I can dream. Thank you Mary for another great piece.
Although I’m not Trumps biggest fan, I have to say that this freeze in USAID funding is already noteworthy for changing the perpetual state of American interventionism the world over and a positive first step towards a more realistic (and hopefully peaceful) foreign policy.
The Americans should be turning their priorities inward and dealing with the massive domestic issues they’ve been ignoring for decades, instead of distracting their citizens with foreign crises, which they generally fabricate themselves (intentionally or not).
Ironic that someone as belligerent as Trump might well turn out to be Americas first peace President in half a century!
But is Trump really “belligerent”?
To those of us who understand the value of straight talking, devoid of ‘niceties’ and the class-based subtleties of the progressive blob, he just comes across as someone who cuts through the crap in a way that we’ve been deprived of for a very long time. In a sense, an apolitical politician and we need to find someone similar in the UK.
Farage may be up to the job. The way he spoke ‘truth to power’ in the European parliament when an MEP, despite the open ridicule which that brought down upon him, suggests he might but how far he can carry that is another matter.
Trump is setting the template for action, as MH suggests, and i believe the wider population would support similar measures in the UK, especially after further damage to our social fabric likely in the next couple of years.
He’s certainly considered belligerent within the West (which I personally find very amusing, because the Europeans are used to looking down at others from their perch on daddy Americas shoulders and now they’re on the naughty step themselves), though I am on the same page as you insofar as I prefer Trumps hardnosed directness over the usual waffling about the “international order and human rights” while still doing anything to dominate the globe.
I have a slight feeling that Farage has started to crave respectability. We really need someone more like Trump – an absolute bulldozer who doesn’t care what the great and good think.
Not ironic in the least. The best way to avoid war has always been to make it clear to your enemies that if they provoke a war, they will lose it.
There’s a lot of Sun Tzu in Trump’s methods. And it’s completely bewildering his opponents.
“Although I’m not Trumps biggest fan …”
I’ve given you an uptick as I think you’ve made a really good point here. But what a shame you had to preface it with a virtue signal. Your comment would have been much better without it!
And that is at least part of the reason why the Conservatives lost heavily in the last General Election… and they still have not promised a new bonfire of the QUANGOs’. By the next general election there will be far more new kindling lying around thanks to Labours regulatory instincts.
Perhaps Trump is doing us all a big favour, even if some people find his language blunt.
I recall many governments ago and in another time, Heseltine promising a ‘bonfire of quangos and red tape’. What happened with that?
All governments to some extent parrot this line. And the results are pretty much always the same.
Except this time, perhaps. Over the other side of the pond things are looking interesting and there could well be a different outcome.
Be interesting to see how much of this ‘aid’ went to radical leftist ‘NGO’s’ and other extreme open border, anti-white groups in Europe?
I believe most will be shocked when they eventually learn about who was receiving graft from this organization. $50B is an enormous amount of money.