USAID is a sh!#show

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In simplistic terms, yes the US should be spending that money at home rather than giving money away to poorer countries. But as others have mentioned above, it strengthens the country’s soft power, creates goodwill, or if you’re cynical, buys influence.

I am a USAID contractor. Huge project shipping aid to Africa. I think one huge flaw with the program is that 99.5% of what we buy, billions in tax dollar payments go to foreign owned companies and factories. Give the *literally* billions in purchases to companies manufacturing in the US and keep sending foreign aid. Win/win for workers here and people there.

Cite your source...oh no, you can't because you're making up garbage.

I can't cite my source because speaking from experience of what I see every single day at my job. But let's take this "$50 million in condoms for Gaza" line that's going around now. Who are the companies that taxpayers buy these condoms from? You really think even 5% are based in the US? I would bet there are 100% coming from Asia, as are many/most common pharmaceuticals that global health programs run on.

Perfect example considering that line about condoms was entirely made up 😂

It sounds like you have a line you're pushing and you really couldn't care less if it's true or not. USAID programs that buy condoms are real. They do spend more than $50 million though maybe not in Gaza. And the corporations and factories of these products are in fact all foreign. As is the case for many other drugs, especially generics. It's okay if you don't believe me.

I know there are USAID programs that buy condoms but you specifically cited the idea that we were spending $50 million on condoms in Gaza when there is zero truth to that so I am not really going to take you seriously.

Most condoms are made in Asia because that’s where the raw material comes from and it’s cheaper. If I was going to take you seriously we could discuss whether Buy America requirements make sense for foreign aid or just waste money but I’m not.

NP. There's a lot of nuance in how USAID engages with countries, and circumstances are different across regions and between countries. The PP doesn't need to reject the Gaza condom comment if she wants to talk about some aspect of manufacturing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This whole debate about foreign aid is a distraction. If you don’t like what USAID is doing or where the money is going, take it up with Congress.

I’m shocked that people think these edicts from King Trump (really, Elon) are fine just because they target groups or agencies they dislike. You’re walking right into a dictatorship— and you’re fine with it. Unbelievable.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole debate about foreign aid is a distraction. If you don’t like what USAID is doing or where the money is going, take it up with Congress.

I’m shocked that people think these edicts from King Trump (really, Elon) are fine just because they target groups or agencies they dislike. You’re walking right into a dictatorship— and you’re fine with it. Unbelievable.

+1

Yes it's really scary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:USAID needs to cut down to less than 20% from its current levels and they need to place employees elsewhere if possible. I agree with the contractor bloat which is other reason the current employees seem useless.

20% is ridiculous. You are just pulling that # out of your a&@

Do you know how much bloat there is at USAID? Most of the employees and contractors are on telework status and barely do anything. Also, why we need to spend money in other countries.

Ok, well you're outing yourself as someone who has no idea what goes on at USAID.

Everyone I know -- and I've worked there for 15 years -- is extremely busy all the time. We have big jobs and smart people.

But we're also public servants. There is no secret plot to circumvent the president or whatever. People may not always agree personally with a decision but we get it done.

Worked on what? The mission has changed and now the new administration don't want to put as much money towards USAID and the staff would get cut. How is this any different than someone working for Disney and they decided to change future direction of their company?

Congress appropriated these funds - it’s not within the Executive’s power not to disburse them.

You do understand there is no budget for FY25 and President has a lot of discretion in CR.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:USAID needs to cut down to less than 20% from its current levels and they need to place employees elsewhere if possible. I agree with the contractor bloat which is other reason the current employees seem useless.

20% is ridiculous. You are just pulling that # out of your a&@

Do you know how much bloat there is at USAID? Most of the employees and contractors are on telework status and barely do anything. Also, why we need to spend money in other countries.

Ok, well you're outing yourself as someone who has no idea what goes on at USAID.

Everyone I know -- and I've worked there for 15 years -- is extremely busy all the time. We have big jobs and smart people.

But we're also public servants. There is no secret plot to circumvent the president or whatever. People may not always agree personally with a decision but we get it done.

Worked on what? The mission has changed and now the new administration don't want to put as much money towards USAID and the staff would get cut. How is this any different than someone working for Disney and they decided to change future direction of their company?

Congress appropriated these funds - it’s not within the Executive’s power not to disburse them.

You do understand there is no budget for FY25 and President has a lot of discretion in CR.

Congress isn't giving up control of US spending just by passing a CR, they're saying "continue as you were until we pass a full year appropriation." They're not saying to any administration that it can do whatever the heck it wants until a appropriation is passed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:USAID needs to cut down to less than 20% from its current levels and they need to place employees elsewhere if possible. I agree with the contractor bloat which is other reason the current employees seem useless.

20% is ridiculous. You are just pulling that # out of your a&@

Do you know how much bloat there is at USAID? Most of the employees and contractors are on telework status and barely do anything. Also, why we need to spend money in other countries.

Ok, well you're outing yourself as someone who has no idea what goes on at USAID.

Everyone I know -- and I've worked there for 15 years -- is extremely busy all the time. We have big jobs and smart people.

But we're also public servants. There is no secret plot to circumvent the president or whatever. People may not always agree personally with a decision but we get it done.

Worked on what? The mission has changed and now the new administration don't want to put as much money towards USAID and the staff would get cut. How is this any different than someone working for Disney and they decided to change future direction of their company?

Congress appropriated these funds - it’s not within the Executive’s power not to disburse them.

You do understand there is no budget for FY25 and President has a lot of discretion in CR.

No?? This is an insane take.

I really can’t believe we’re here right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://x.com/John_Hudson/status/1885122929022681141

NEW: The order that removed dozens of senior USAID leaders earlier this week was rescinded today by a career USAID official who called the purge "illegal" and a violation of "due process." That official has now been put on administrative leave. I obtained his email to staff, which accuses DOGE representatives of engineering the purge

"Last Trump admin, we were an afterthought and backwater, which is how we like it," said one USAID official. "This time I feel we are target #1."

They are being put back on administrative leave. They have not been told at all why they were initially put on leave or why they're being returned to admin leave. Not all are SES.

Unfortunately, my spouse is one of these people.

[Anonymous]

IMO (and experience), the biggest problem with federal funding is that agencies have CR after CR and don't know their full budget until part way through the fiscal year. It is really difficult to plan well when you don't know what your budget is for the year. Some agencies' budgets fluctuate more than others. Those agencies have an even tougher time making useful long term plans. If you want to improve government efficiency and effectiveness, make the funding more predictable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://x.com/John_Hudson/status/1885122929022681141

NEW: The order that removed dozens of senior USAID leaders earlier this week was rescinded today by a career USAID official who called the purge "illegal" and a violation of "due process." That official has now been put on administrative leave. I obtained his email to staff, which accuses DOGE representatives of engineering the purge

"Last Trump admin, we were an afterthought and backwater, which is how we like it," said one USAID official. "This time I feel we are target #1."

They are being put back on administrative leave. They have not been told at all why they were initially put on leave or why they're being returned to admin leave. Not all are SES.

Unfortunately, my spouse is one of these people.

I’m really sorry to hear this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:USAID needs to cut down to less than 20% from its current levels and they need to place employees elsewhere if possible. I agree with the contractor bloat which is other reason the current employees seem useless.

20% is ridiculous. You are just pulling that # out of your a&@

Do you know how much bloat there is at USAID? Most of the employees and contractors are on telework status and barely do anything. Also, why we need to spend money in other countries.

Ok, well you're outing yourself as someone who has no idea what goes on at USAID.

Everyone I know -- and I've worked there for 15 years -- is extremely busy all the time. We have big jobs and smart people.

But we're also public servants. There is no secret plot to circumvent the president or whatever. People may not always agree personally with a decision but we get it done.

Worked on what? The mission has changed and now the new administration don't want to put as much money towards USAID and the staff would get cut. How is this any different than someone working for Disney and they decided to change future direction of their company?

Congress appropriated these funds - it’s not within the Executive’s power not to disburse them.

You do understand there is no budget for FY25 and President has a lot of discretion in CR.

Show me where in the text of the CR it says the president has such discretion. Can’t find it? How about in another law? Nothing? Okay. How about a Supreme Court decision? Hmmm. No. I’m sorry, but laws you pulled out of your *** count.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:USAID needs to cut down to less than 20% from its current levels and they need to place employees elsewhere if possible. I agree with the contractor bloat which is other reason the current employees seem useless.

20% is ridiculous. You are just pulling that # out of your a&@

Do you know how much bloat there is at USAID? Most of the employees and contractors are on telework status and barely do anything. Also, why we need to spend money in other countries.

Ok, well you're outing yourself as someone who has no idea what goes on at USAID.

Everyone I know -- and I've worked there for 15 years -- is extremely busy all the time. We have big jobs and smart people.

But we're also public servants. There is no secret plot to circumvent the president or whatever. People may not always agree personally with a decision but we get it done.

Worked on what? The mission has changed and now the new administration don't want to put as much money towards USAID and the staff would get cut. How is this any different than someone working for Disney and they decided to change future direction of their company?

Congress appropriated these funds - it’s not within the Executive’s power not to disburse them.

You do understand there is no budget for FY25 and President has a lot of discretion in CR.

No?? This is an insane take.

I really can’t believe we’re here right now.

Truly seems like astroturfing someone fed the rubes on X to justify Trump’s law breaking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:USAID needs to cut down to less than 20% from its current levels and they need to place employees elsewhere if possible. I agree with the contractor bloat which is other reason the current employees seem useless.

20% is ridiculous. You are just pulling that # out of your a&@

Do you know how much bloat there is at USAID? Most of the employees and contractors are on telework status and barely do anything. Also, why we need to spend money in other countries.

Ok, well you're outing yourself as someone who has no idea what goes on at USAID.

Everyone I know -- and I've worked there for 15 years -- is extremely busy all the time. We have big jobs and smart people.

But we're also public servants. There is no secret plot to circumvent the president or whatever. People may not always agree personally with a decision but we get it done.

Worked on what? The mission has changed and now the new administration don't want to put as much money towards USAID and the staff would get cut. How is this any different than someone working for Disney and they decided to change future direction of their company?

Congress appropriated these funds - it’s not within the Executive’s power not to disburse them.

You do understand there is no budget for FY25 and President has a lot of discretion in CR.

Congress isn't giving up control of US spending just by passing a CR, they're saying "continue as you were until we pass a full year appropriation." They're not saying to any administration that it can do whatever the heck it wants until a appropriation is passed.

I'll even give you the text of the CR.

SEC. 101. Such amounts as may be necessary, at a rate for operations as provided in the applicable appropriations Acts for fiscal year 2024 and under the authority and conditions provided in such Acts, for continuing projects or activities (including the costs of direct loans and loan guarantees) that are not otherwise specifically provided for in this Act, that were conducted in fiscal year 2024, and for which appropriations, funds, or other authority were made available in the following appropriations Acts:

The current CR (which runs through March 14, 2025) amends the previous CR (Public Law 118-83)

Current CR https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/10545/text#toc-HB52E74059E7546F6934DE86277BBA70D
Previous CR (since the current CR just says it amends a lot of the previous CR) https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-118publ83/pdf/PLAW-118publ83.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In simplistic terms, yes the US should be spending that money at home rather than giving money away to poorer countries. But as others have mentioned above, it strengthens the country’s soft power, creates goodwill, or if you’re cynical, buys influence.

I am a USAID contractor. Huge project shipping aid to Africa. I think one huge flaw with the program is that 99.5% of what we buy, billions in tax dollar payments go to foreign owned companies and factories. Give the *literally* billions in purchases to companies manufacturing in the US and keep sending foreign aid. Win/win for workers here and people there.

Cite your source...oh no, you can't because you're making up garbage.

I can't cite my source because speaking from experience of what I see every single day at my job. But let's take this "$50 million in condoms for Gaza" line that's going around now. Who are the companies that taxpayers buy these condoms from? You really think even 5% are based in the US? I would bet there are 100% coming from Asia, as are many/most common pharmaceuticals that global health programs run on.

Perfect example considering that line about condoms was entirely made up 😂

It sounds like you have a line you're pushing and you really couldn't care less if it's true or not. USAID programs that buy condoms are real. They do spend more than $50 million though maybe not in Gaza. And the corporations and factories of these products are in fact all foreign. As is the case for many other drugs, especially generics. It's okay if you don't believe me.

I know there are USAID programs that buy condoms but you specifically cited the idea that we were spending $50 million on condoms in Gaza when there is zero truth to that so I am not really going to take you seriously.

Most condoms are made in Asia because that’s where the raw material comes from and it’s cheaper. If I was going to take you seriously we could discuss whether Buy America requirements make sense for foreign aid or just waste money but I’m not.

NP. There's a lot of nuance in how USAID engages with countries, and circumstances are different across regions and between countries. The PP doesn't need to reject the Gaza condom comment if she wants to talk about some aspect of manufacturing.

I'm the PP who watches so many millions of dollars of procurements awarded to oveseas companies and manufacturers. And then I picture the many depressed Main Street USAs that my family drive through. And just the thought "what if there was a factory in this town that made ... medical tools, laboratory supplies, essential medicines" and it is such a shame that the money is going to foreign factories when it's so badly needed here. I understand the price of products and logistics cost would be higher if USAID had a Buy-American policy. But the way these billions are sent away now, I can't understand how the savings of buying cheaper from Asia outweigh the losses of sending billions of taxpayer dollars overseas and have that manufacturing void in US towns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In simplistic terms, yes the US should be spending that money at home rather than giving money away to poorer countries. But as others have mentioned above, it strengthens the country’s soft power, creates goodwill, or if you’re cynical, buys influence.

I am a USAID contractor. Huge project shipping aid to Africa. I think one huge flaw with the program is that 99.5% of what we buy, billions in tax dollar payments go to foreign owned companies and factories. Give the *literally* billions in purchases to companies manufacturing in the US and keep sending foreign aid. Win/win for workers here and people there.

Cite your source...oh no, you can't because you're making up garbage.

I can't cite my source because speaking from experience of what I see every single day at my job. But let's take this "$50 million in condoms for Gaza" line that's going around now. Who are the companies that taxpayers buy these condoms from? You really think even 5% are based in the US? I would bet there are 100% coming from Asia, as are many/most common pharmaceuticals that global health programs run on.

Perfect example considering that line about condoms was entirely made up 😂

It sounds like you have a line you're pushing and you really couldn't care less if it's true or not. USAID programs that buy condoms are real. They do spend more than $50 million though maybe not in Gaza. And the corporations and factories of these products are in fact all foreign. As is the case for many other drugs, especially generics. It's okay if you don't believe me.

I know there are USAID programs that buy condoms but you specifically cited the idea that we were spending $50 million on condoms in Gaza when there is zero truth to that so I am not really going to take you seriously.

Most condoms are made in Asia because that’s where the raw material comes from and it’s cheaper. If I was going to take you seriously we could discuss whether Buy America requirements make sense for foreign aid or just waste money but I’m not.

NP. There's a lot of nuance in how USAID engages with countries, and circumstances are different across regions and between countries. The PP doesn't need to reject the Gaza condom comment if she wants to talk about some aspect of manufacturing.

I'm the PP who watches so many millions of dollars of procurements awarded to oveseas companies and manufacturers. And then I picture the many depressed Main Street USAs that my family drive through. And just the thought "what if there was a factory in this town that made ... medical tools, laboratory supplies, essential medicines" and it is such a shame that the money is going to foreign factories when it's so badly needed here. I understand the price of products and logistics cost would be higher if USAID had a Buy-American policy. But the way these billions are sent away now, I can't understand how the savings of buying cheaper from Asia outweigh the losses of sending billions of taxpayer dollars overseas and have that manufacturing void in US towns.

Where you're going with this takes us to a place where people are outraged at how much the USG pays for things and can't understand why it costs the government so much to buy a widget when you can buy it online for $5.

Think about it this way. $10 buys lunch for 1-2 people in the US (not even that if you're in a HCOL). $10 overseas fees a family of 5 for a week or more, depending on where you are.

It sounds like you're suggesting the US give money to US companies as a handout instead of buying products from foreign companies. Why is a handout to a US company better than buying products at the best price available?

Helping the US economy and international programs have different goals. Similarly, you probably wouldn't say its better to build factories in the US than it is to fund public schools in the US because they have different objectives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In simplistic terms, yes the US should be spending that money at home rather than giving money away to poorer countries. But as others have mentioned above, it strengthens the country’s soft power, creates goodwill, or if you’re cynical, buys influence.

I am a USAID contractor. Huge project shipping aid to Africa. I think one huge flaw with the program is that 99.5% of what we buy, billions in tax dollar payments go to foreign owned companies and factories. Give the *literally* billions in purchases to companies manufacturing in the US and keep sending foreign aid. Win/win for workers here and people there.

Cite your source...oh no, you can't because you're making up garbage.

I can't cite my source because speaking from experience of what I see every single day at my job. But let's take this "$50 million in condoms for Gaza" line that's going around now. Who are the companies that taxpayers buy these condoms from? You really think even 5% are based in the US? I would bet there are 100% coming from Asia, as are many/most common pharmaceuticals that global health programs run on.

Perfect example considering that line about condoms was entirely made up 😂

It sounds like you have a line you're pushing and you really couldn't care less if it's true or not. USAID programs that buy condoms are real. They do spend more than $50 million though maybe not in Gaza. And the corporations and factories of these products are in fact all foreign. As is the case for many other drugs, especially generics. It's okay if you don't believe me.

I know there are USAID programs that buy condoms but you specifically cited the idea that we were spending $50 million on condoms in Gaza when there is zero truth to that so I am not really going to take you seriously.

Most condoms are made in Asia because that’s where the raw material comes from and it’s cheaper. If I was going to take you seriously we could discuss whether Buy America requirements make sense for foreign aid or just waste money but I’m not.

NP. There's a lot of nuance in how USAID engages with countries, and circumstances are different across regions and between countries. The PP doesn't need to reject the Gaza condom comment if she wants to talk about some aspect of manufacturing.

I'm the PP who watches so many millions of dollars of procurements awarded to oveseas companies and manufacturers. And then I picture the many depressed Main Street USAs that my family drive through. And just the thought "what if there was a factory in this town that made ... medical tools, laboratory supplies, essential medicines" and it is such a shame that the money is going to foreign factories when it's so badly needed here. I understand the price of products and logistics cost would be higher if USAID had a Buy-American policy. But the way these billions are sent away now, I can't understand how the savings of buying cheaper from Asia outweigh the losses of sending billions of taxpayer dollars overseas and have that manufacturing void in US towns.

Where you're going with this takes us to a place where people are outraged at how much the USG pays for things and can't understand why it costs the government so much to buy a widget when you can buy it online for $5.

Think about it this way. $10 buys lunch for 1-2 people in the US (not even that if you're in a HCOL). $10 overseas fees a family of 5 for a week or more, depending on where you are.

It sounds like you're suggesting the US give money to US companies as a handout instead of buying products from foreign companies. Why is a handout to a US company better than buying products at the best price available?

Helping the US economy and international programs have different goals. Similarly, you probably wouldn't say its better to build factories in the US than it is to fund public schools in the US because they have different objectives.

Np. American jobs. Taxpayer money going back into the communities to support the American economy.

But, purchasing goods overseas builds good bilateral relationships, which helps with US foreign policy goals, as needed.