USAID was a vehicle for US intelligence. That said, it also helped a lot where it operated. Especially helped logistics and local administration tasks for NGOs which could be extremely bad at those two tasks.
Also USAID existing prevented NGOs to have too much local political power and the corruption that goes with it.
My opinion is that overall, USAID was a net positive, although in some specific cases it wasn't.
USAID was absolutely a net positive and if nothing else its elimination has completely ceded almost all soft power to China and Russia, something that will have repercussions for decades to come.
I would be interested in reading some reporting about USAID's role in support of the CIA (or DoD intelligence?). Please recommend some that helped form your opinion.
I have, luckily, read a personal account of the logistical assistance that a USAID contractor had [0]. Doug Muir wrote about improving customs practices in Rwanda and training locals to take over for him. Improving, in this case, means standardizing inspections of trade goods to decrease holding time.
Also declassified files about mkultra and mknaomi mentioned USAID but I didn't read the specifics so it might not be that bad.
But yeah, I've never read the book you're talking about, but USAID usefulness wasn't so much in medicine and food (which are still important), but in organisational, logistics and administrative support to NGOs that really increases their effectiveness, and especially small NGOs like libraries without borders or OLSF( my cousin directed this one for a few years, that's how I know how useful USAID was)
The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
This is appalling to think career appointees are trying to override the democratically elected president. USAID, etc., have zero constitutional independence or authority, and cannot be granted any by the legislature, except only as an agent of the executive.
The amount of wasteful spending USAID has done is crazy. Sex changes in Guatemala? It honestly was very polarizing reading about all the garbage they gave money towards.
If you judge everything by the worst thing it ever did, you will come to.the conclusion that most things do not deserve to exist. Yourself included.
If you judge things based on whether they have had a net positive effect on the world, you'll find that both yourself and USAID are in the same category.
Love to see HN political bot comment graph like if and when there was a surge of them over time (US elections or other countries elections). Like did the Ukraine blowing up Yandex's data center(s) have any effect?
This type of strategy is almost the only way to get rid of these kinds of agencies. You'd end up with a million raodblocks being tossed up if you tried it any other way.
Right, because there shouldn't be any roadblocks when you're taking an action that has a high probability of resulting in hundreds of thousands of people dying.
We’ll be reading about the crimes of dodge for years, similar to secrets of the CIA coming out in the 1970s. Wish politicians in US weren’t so spineless about going after them.
Its the curse of the two-party system. Politicians are not risking splitting from their party, because that would mean the end of their political career.
Whether or not you agree or disagree with the merits of USAID is beside the point. A single unelected and unqualified person must not be given the authority to dismantle a massive US government program.
elections have consequences. We have a representative democracy and administrative employees serve at the pleasure of the head of the administration. "shoulds" and "musts" only go as far as the political will to enforce them. The overwhelming majority of the electorate seems to care about how expensive their personal lifestyle is with various takes on individual liberty vs enforced morality used as wedge issues (neither party is consistently on one side or the other of this balance, fwiw.)
as an institutionalist myself, I agree with you that this is terrible governance.
When it comes to government spending programs, according to our constitution the elections that have consequences are those for seats in Congress. The executive doesn’t have the authority to cancel USAIDs funding, nor the funding of specific programs within it.
On top of that, the executive has a responsibility to plan its work ahead of time and make such plans known before enacting them.
There are many cases currently in litigation regarding these failures.
> The executive doesn’t have the authority to cancel USAIDs funding, nor the funding of specific programs within it
But funding is provided in annual appropriations bills, and Congress has since enacted appropriations bills that allocate funds directly to the state department.
That’s why the USAID litigation has not been very successful. The best legal argument is that the executive can’t cancel funding Congress has specifically allocated to an agency. But Congress eliminated that argument.
No, those are the talking points you are fed. The appropriation act assigns specific dollar amounts to specific program types and countries or regions. US AID would allocate to specific providers/NGO programs but its not like there were any substitutions made. They just stopped the flow of dollars with no warning. More than 81% of programs were simply stopped and the funds expired without being spent.
For 2025 there was a continuing resolution to keep funding at 2024 levels.
The 2024 bill[1] section 7019 references the state division document[2], which has the spending by category, the tables start on page 20.
Elections certainly have consequences, and I wish acting outside constitutional scope had consequences, too. (maybe this specific issue is within scope or there is a reasonable question about it, but so many other issues seem unreasonably out of scope, IMHO)
Rubio dismantled the program, as the Senate confirmed political appointee of the duly elected head of the executive branch.
You can debate whether the President has the power to dismantle USAID under the relevant statutes. But if he does have the power, then it would be perverse if he couldn’t exercise the power due to HR rules. That puts the HR tail in charge of the elected official dog.
There was a recession bill passed in 2025 July 2025 for already appropriated monies.
Moreover, the impoundment rules don’t require congress to act first before the president acts. They require the money to be spent, but if the budgetary authority is provided over a year it’s hard to say when the president must spend that money within the year. (Unless there’s specific requirements in the statute.)
It's absurd to argue the executive can intentionally delay and shuffle money earmarked specifically for certain purposes, like USAID. Why not just give the executive all power over the Treasury? Why have Congress at all?
That was only passed a year _after_ DOGE had already gutted USAID entirely, so the Executive branch was acting outside the authority of Congress (or in contravention with Congress) when it gutted USAID in early 2025.
There was a few months of overhang, but the Supreme Court ruled that the administration had to pay out billions of dollars that were already allocated to contracts during that period.
"A few months of overhang" was thousands of people starving or dying of malaria. Also, they didn't rescind all the funding, $4B was just left to expire.
But again DOGE acted before that was in place. All I’m saying is I expect a future DOJ to find legal grounds for going ofter those involved for exceeding their authority.
What makes you think the impoundment process requires the executive to wait until Congress acts? Impoundment is a rule that says “you have to spend this money.” The appropriations bills give budget authority over a year or multiple years. Why can’t the executive act first then ask congress to rescind money he isn’t going to spend for the rest of the year?
No, I’m talking about the article, which is focused on literal HR rules. USAID still exists on paper but Congress reallocated its budget to the State Department.
So, per your interpretation, the president can just ignore any law created by Congress by simply allocating zero funds to any agency carrying out the law?
USAID was created by Congress when it formally codified USAID into statute through the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act in 1998.
So, how is the president allowed to simply ignore a law passed by Congress?
> It's not even established that he has the power.
Sure, I agree with that. But the President doesn’t need a court ruling giving permission before he exercises his powers. The President is the chief executive in charge of government operations, not the courts. If he’s acting outside his authority, you can sue him and then the courts can figure it out.
> When you're firing thousands of people, some due diligence is in order, no
Not when those people work for the government. This is one of the few things I agree with FDR on: the nature of democracy means that government employees must have less employment protections than private sector workers, not more. Even if you have an expansive view of what the constitution allows in terms of Congress providing for independent executive branch agencies, at most that means the President can’t ignore Congress’s intent in funding certain programs. But that still doesn’t allow the bureaucracy invoking HR rules to protect itself against the actions of the elected branches. That effectively gives a small class of people more say over the operation of the government than the electorate as a whole.
> The President is the chief executive in charge of government operations, not the courts. If he’s acting outside his authority, you can sue him and then the courts can figure it out.
I love this. Yes, and then several years later, the courts can declare his order was in fact illegal when it's already far, far too late to reverse any of it.
That kind of "oversight" is no oversight at all. If you believe this is just how things should be, then you want a king with unrestricted power, not a president.
That’s just how litigation works. If the issue comes down to the payment of money, courts assume that it can be sorted out eventually by ordering money to be paid or returned. The government can destroy your business with an illegal regulation, and they don’t have to ask courts for permission first. I’m such cases, you probably won’t even get money back from the government. It would be bizarre to impose a higher standard of oversight for the government to restructure its own operations than for the government to regulate private conduct.
The President isn’t a “king” he’s a CEO. A CEO doesn’t need permission from a court to spend the company’s own money or to take executive actions about the company’s own operations.
That's such a total misunderstanding of the US constitution that I'll assume you're not a USA-ian, and explain it in simple terms. In the USA the people are sovereign; they delegate their power to Congress, who are first-among-equals within the three branches of government; the executive branch's role is to "faithfully execute" the laws that Congress passes. So, yeah: a president "behaving like a CEO" and deciding on his own how to allocate money is patently and obviously un-Constitutional.
Now, the US legislature has, in recent decades, delegated so many of its prerogatives, and overlooked so much executive overreach, that your misappropriation is completely understandable. In fact, though, the current situation is exactly what the framers of the US Constitution most feared. (You can read their discussions at the time collected in a volume called "The Federalist Papers".) Their inability to devise a system to meet a threat they fully anticipated argues against their much-heralded "genius".
Total side-note: CEO as sovereign within "their" company is, arguably, also a perverse interpretation of the US corporate governance model. Feel free to argue that point without me, HN - I know that's just how that works nowadays - but it's totally wrong to import that model into government, where it's explicitly not intended.
The common presumption that when the electorate expresses their will to change things, the elected will still not be able to change anything due to entrenched bureaucracy, and this is good, is one of the reasons Trump won twice.
> on March 20, two days after Rubio placed Lewin atop the USAID hierarchy
> By March 26, the emails show, Lewin still hadn’t accepted the job offer, and had not filed his OF-306, the federal government's standard pre-employment background screening form; without this document, a federal agency cannot lawfully issue a final job offer or consummate an appointment
> A detailing agreement between the GSA and USAID dated February 14—two weeks after Lewin says he began at USAID—specifes that “commencement of the detail is contingent upon the Detailee’s successful adjudication and receipt of any necessary security clearances and other pre-employment screening required by USAID.
More serious issues than "HR" should have barred him from working, for at least some of the time he did.
Even if it was legal for Trump or Rubio to shut it down, they still have to do it through authorized agents and legal processes.
That's how it should be. But they counted on the courts being slower to catch up with stuff than that they could destroy it and by and large that proved to be correct. The checks and balances in the USA are not prepared to deal with people at this level of power that are as malicious as this. The founders more or less left that as an exercise for the future to figure out and may have presaged such a thing happening in some of their writings.
> Even if it was legal for Trump or Rubio to shut it down, they still have to do it through authorized agents and legal processes.
Yes, but the paperwork that decides who is the President or his appointee’s lawful agent is different than the civil service paperwork for employment. Lewin was appointed as an SGE. This article is about the HR details of his internal transfer into USAID. But there is no rule that says someone must be an employee of an agency to assist in shutting down the agency under delegated authority from the cabinet official that oversees the agency.
> If a "police officer" conducted a search without paperwork on file that establishes their authority to search, it would be illegal, right?
Yes. But if he was transferred within the department from vice into homicide and hadn’t done all his paperwork yet, would that be illegal? And also, doing a search is a potential impingement on individual rights. Very different from a doing an internal reorganization within a department. If a CEO pulls in someone from one department to clean house in another department, how much HR paperwork do you really need?
I don't understand the outrage about filling out a form. It's not an argument from any principle. That the president could not exercise his will because someone down the chain didn't fill out a form that otherwise serves no real purpose and would be read by no one of import sounds like a Kafkaesque nightmare.
I think appointing people who absolutely should not be doing the jobs they are appointed to is a way of sidestepping all law. They want to destroy all government and what better way to do it than through sheer incompetence with a layer of plausible deniability.
The Administrator of USAID is a presidentially appointed and senate confirmed position. Under the Vacancies Reform Act the President can appoint another Senate confirmed official from anywhere else in the government to fill that spot for up to 210 days. Trump appointed Rubio to that role.
An acting administrator or agency head can then generally “detail” an employee from anywhere else in the government to serve as a deputy in a temporary basis, which Rubio did here. Agency heads generally have broad discretion to hire their deputies.
But he was elected, which qualifies him. The voters voted for this sort of thing. Not in the exact details, but that's why it's a representative democracy instead of a direct one.
I worked as a contractor for USAID. A lot of the people that worked there were spies. They shut it down because they weren't 'their' spies. Some people voted in the president to dismantle the deep state, and he did, but he just replaced them with the deeper state who probably eat children.
I'd like to see them all rounded up and put in prison indefinitely. Denied bail and left there while their crimes are documented. Everybody connected to DOGE should be in prison, all the way up to Elon.
There's something about the trick of abusing a process set up to hire temporary staff quickly for overseas disasters and pandemics to take over and destroy a government department you don't like that feels LLM-like to me.
I wonder if Musk's team is using AI to find loopholes in laws he can abuse.
Actively stopping something that prevented a death is causing a death. If you cut the brakes on somebody's car, you caused a death by interfering with its prevention.
It will be interesting to see whether in the next Admin/Congress , if Democrat, will investigate and declare these actions unlawful (done without Congressional approval) and whether a new DOJ will investigate the individuals like this DOGE dude as having broken the law for operating outside their authority because the proper procedures weren’t followed. It’s going to be interesting to see whether/who winds up in jail.
DOGE was such a missed opportunity. If only they could use their smarts to actually improve government efficiency. Also focusing on where majority of spending occurs where we could get biggest bang for the improved efficiency. After this good luck selling someone on another round of efficiency improvements.
I know it sounds extreme, but this is my takeaway.
Tech billionaires have a twisted view of the world. They openly talk about how US and Europe is lagging behind in birth rate compared to developing nations. They openly encourage people to create more babies. Conversely, while they don't openly vouch for it, DOGE and the gutting of USAID has directly resulted in higher child mortality in developing nations.
> DOGE was such a missed opportunity. If only they could use their smarts to actually improve government efficiency.
I used to think that, but given how things unfolded I'm pretty convinced it was never intended to be anything more than a slash-and-burn purge of "DEI" and "disloyal" gov employees combined with a taxpayer-data-heist.
There is a book about DOGE, "Blockers: Rebels in the Deep State" by Michael Lewis. In a recent interview he said, that after researching DOGE and its actions he believes something similar what you said, that DOGE was only a smoke screen or distraction for a larger transfer of executive power.
> DOGE was such a missed opportunity. If only they could use their smarts to actually improve government efficiency.
No. A bunch of kids are not going to be able to come in and improve a system they do not understand the least. Government can be improved, but its not a 1 or 2 year program, it will need deep, proper understanding. There is no lack of "smarts", these kids have nothing to contribute. There is lack of time and mandate.
130 comments
[ 0.21 ms ] story [ 28.3 ms ] threadsuch a bummer /s
Also USAID existing prevented NGOs to have too much local political power and the corruption that goes with it.
My opinion is that overall, USAID was a net positive, although in some specific cases it wasn't.
This reminds me of the standard USA tech startup model, where you do something useful to get the users, while secretly exploiting them.
I have, luckily, read a personal account of the logistical assistance that a USAID contractor had [0]. Doug Muir wrote about improving customs practices in Rwanda and training locals to take over for him. Improving, in this case, means standardizing inspections of trade goods to decrease holding time.
[0] https://crookedtimber.org/2025/03/08/usaid-my-next-to-last-p...
Also declassified files about mkultra and mknaomi mentioned USAID but I didn't read the specifics so it might not be that bad.
But yeah, I've never read the book you're talking about, but USAID usefulness wasn't so much in medicine and food (which are still important), but in organisational, logistics and administrative support to NGOs that really increases their effectiveness, and especially small NGOs like libraries without borders or OLSF( my cousin directed this one for a few years, that's how I know how useful USAID was)
This is appalling to think career appointees are trying to override the democratically elected president. USAID, etc., have zero constitutional independence or authority, and cannot be granted any by the legislature, except only as an agent of the executive.
See: https://www.usaspending.gov/award/ASST_NON_72052024FA00001_7...
If you judge things based on whether they have had a net positive effect on the world, you'll find that both yourself and USAID are in the same category.
HN doesn't have the kind of filters that the big social media platforms do, either.
I know their tendancy to have wiring faults could certainly stand to be improved but jeez, that's a bit harsh
When undocumented temporary-employee friends of Trump allies do whatever they want: This is fine.
as an institutionalist myself, I agree with you that this is terrible governance.
On top of that, the executive has a responsibility to plan its work ahead of time and make such plans known before enacting them.
There are many cases currently in litigation regarding these failures.
But funding is provided in annual appropriations bills, and Congress has since enacted appropriations bills that allocate funds directly to the state department.
That’s why the USAID litigation has not been very successful. The best legal argument is that the executive can’t cancel funding Congress has specifically allocated to an agency. But Congress eliminated that argument.
For 2025 there was a continuing resolution to keep funding at 2024 levels.
The 2024 bill[1] section 7019 references the state division document[2], which has the spending by category, the tables start on page 20.
[1] - http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20240318/WDI39597.PDF
[2] - https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20240318/Division%20F%2...
I'd honestly rather have someone hired for the purpose of doing such tasks than to have the result of any election doing it.
You can debate whether the President has the power to dismantle USAID under the relevant statutes. But if he does have the power, then it would be perverse if he couldn’t exercise the power due to HR rules. That puts the HR tail in charge of the elected official dog.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/4779...
Moreover, the impoundment rules don’t require congress to act first before the president acts. They require the money to be spent, but if the budgetary authority is provided over a year it’s hard to say when the president must spend that money within the year. (Unless there’s specific requirements in the statute.)
It's absurd to argue the executive can intentionally delay and shuffle money earmarked specifically for certain purposes, like USAID. Why not just give the executive all power over the Treasury? Why have Congress at all?
There was a few months of overhang, but the Supreme Court ruled that the administration had to pay out billions of dollars that were already allocated to contracts during that period.
USAID was created by Congress when it formally codified USAID into statute through the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act in 1998.
So, how is the president allowed to simply ignore a law passed by Congress?
It's not even established that he has the power. The fact that they do something doesn't mean they have that power.
And given that, it doesn't mean that you get to ignore all other rules.
> You cannot put HR in the way of the duly elected President exercising his powers.
When you're firing thousands of people, some due diligence is in order, no?
Sure, I agree with that. But the President doesn’t need a court ruling giving permission before he exercises his powers. The President is the chief executive in charge of government operations, not the courts. If he’s acting outside his authority, you can sue him and then the courts can figure it out.
> When you're firing thousands of people, some due diligence is in order, no
Not when those people work for the government. This is one of the few things I agree with FDR on: the nature of democracy means that government employees must have less employment protections than private sector workers, not more. Even if you have an expansive view of what the constitution allows in terms of Congress providing for independent executive branch agencies, at most that means the President can’t ignore Congress’s intent in funding certain programs. But that still doesn’t allow the bureaucracy invoking HR rules to protect itself against the actions of the elected branches. That effectively gives a small class of people more say over the operation of the government than the electorate as a whole.
It's not hr writing the rules here. It's them enforcing what they were given.
Also, they're not saying he cannot do what they want to do. It's that the law prescribes that certain things need to happen first.
Those rules were given to them by elected people in Congress.
I do not believe this is true historically
100%, just not in the direction you think. They would be apalled at Trump's blatant, in your face corruption all while the MAGA base cheers him on.
I love this. Yes, and then several years later, the courts can declare his order was in fact illegal when it's already far, far too late to reverse any of it.
That kind of "oversight" is no oversight at all. If you believe this is just how things should be, then you want a king with unrestricted power, not a president.
The President isn’t a “king” he’s a CEO. A CEO doesn’t need permission from a court to spend the company’s own money or to take executive actions about the company’s own operations.
Now, the US legislature has, in recent decades, delegated so many of its prerogatives, and overlooked so much executive overreach, that your misappropriation is completely understandable. In fact, though, the current situation is exactly what the framers of the US Constitution most feared. (You can read their discussions at the time collected in a volume called "The Federalist Papers".) Their inability to devise a system to meet a threat they fully anticipated argues against their much-heralded "genius".
Total side-note: CEO as sovereign within "their" company is, arguably, also a perverse interpretation of the US corporate governance model. Feel free to argue that point without me, HN - I know that's just how that works nowadays - but it's totally wrong to import that model into government, where it's explicitly not intended.
It's like byzantine faults, no system can protect you if you don't have some minimum of correctly functioning legislators, judges, and executives.
Given the Supreme Court decisions in Citizens United, Loper Bright, and Hobby Lobby I find this notion obscene.
> By March 26, the emails show, Lewin still hadn’t accepted the job offer, and had not filed his OF-306, the federal government's standard pre-employment background screening form; without this document, a federal agency cannot lawfully issue a final job offer or consummate an appointment
> A detailing agreement between the GSA and USAID dated February 14—two weeks after Lewin says he began at USAID—specifes that “commencement of the detail is contingent upon the Detailee’s successful adjudication and receipt of any necessary security clearances and other pre-employment screening required by USAID.
More serious issues than "HR" should have barred him from working, for at least some of the time he did.
Even if it was legal for Trump or Rubio to shut it down, they still have to do it through authorized agents and legal processes.
Yes, but the paperwork that decides who is the President or his appointee’s lawful agent is different than the civil service paperwork for employment. Lewin was appointed as an SGE. This article is about the HR details of his internal transfer into USAID. But there is no rule that says someone must be an employee of an agency to assist in shutting down the agency under delegated authority from the cabinet official that oversees the agency.
> If a "police officer" conducted a search without paperwork on file that establishes their authority to search, it would be illegal, right?
Yes. But if he was transferred within the department from vice into homicide and hadn’t done all his paperwork yet, would that be illegal? And also, doing a search is a potential impingement on individual rights. Very different from a doing an internal reorganization within a department. If a CEO pulls in someone from one department to clean house in another department, how much HR paperwork do you really need?
There are other theories of course.
If he ordered a dog to dismantle USAID, would the ineffectiveness of that simply be due to the dog being incompetent and not be legally challengeable?
An acting administrator or agency head can then generally “detail” an employee from anywhere else in the government to serve as a deputy in a temporary basis, which Rubio did here. Agency heads generally have broad discretion to hire their deputies.
https://youtu.be/zhsmHxo0nvE
If the GOP loses big in the midterms, we might finally see MAGA and the GOP turn on each other in an internecine frenzy.
they are, in all likelihood, foreign agents or acting on behalf of them.
You misspelled "complicit."
I wonder if Musk's team is using AI to find loopholes in laws he can abuse.
[0] https://www.impactcounter.com/dashboard?view=table&sort=proj...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_genocide
I know it sounds extreme, but this is my takeaway.
Tech billionaires have a twisted view of the world. They openly talk about how US and Europe is lagging behind in birth rate compared to developing nations. They openly encourage people to create more babies. Conversely, while they don't openly vouch for it, DOGE and the gutting of USAID has directly resulted in higher child mortality in developing nations.
I used to think that, but given how things unfolded I'm pretty convinced it was never intended to be anything more than a slash-and-burn purge of "DEI" and "disloyal" gov employees combined with a taxpayer-data-heist.
No. A bunch of kids are not going to be able to come in and improve a system they do not understand the least. Government can be improved, but its not a 1 or 2 year program, it will need deep, proper understanding. There is no lack of "smarts", these kids have nothing to contribute. There is lack of time and mandate.
Chesterton's Fence is no joke.