Usaid terror

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. This is intentionally executed to create chaos. Everyone - stay vigilant, better times will come but USAID the way we knew is done. Sad times - US is ending its global supremacy.

I just don't believe that. This will have to be reversed and any terminations pursuant to illegal, unconstitutional conduct are invalid.

I don't understand why there isn't already a lawsuit--you can't cut an agency created by statute via unilateral executive action. While the "admin leave" route creates a bit of a work around, it is clearly a sham if the entire staff is being recalled and operations ceased. This development would seem to put this ridiculous move in the same bucket as the general spending freeze (that has already been enjoined by two courts).

Still waiting for clarification. USAID was created by EO. The law Foreign Aid Act (FAA) says the US will provide foreign aid. Does FAA say USAID must administer the aid??

The agency was later codified in statute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let’s be honest—I grew up in a State Department or USAID family (I won’t reveal which for anonymity). My father was in a technical supervisor role, and we lived all over the world. From my firsthand experience, I can say that the lifestyle was far beyond anything we could have had in the U.S., even if we were wealthy.

We basically had our mortgage covered back home by renting out our house while we lived overseas, where our housing was fully paid for. And we weren’t just living in normal homes—these were massive houses with staff: maids, gardeners, and drivers. It was a completely different world. We also traveled frequently, and vacations were either heavily subsidized or fully covered through various allowances. We attended elite American schools that, back home, were only accessible to the ultra-rich, but for us, they were fully funded by U.S. taxpayers.

It was a great lifestyle, no doubt. But it often felt like a fantasy, like a long-term vacation rather than real life. My dad, who was at the equivalent of a GS-15 level, later admitted to me that he only did about 30 minutes of actual work a week. The real purpose of many Americans stationed in these countries seemed more about maintaining a U.S. presence rather than truly making an impact. Embassy life was filled with social events, networking, and parties—it felt like an exclusive club, completely detached from the struggles of the local populations USAID was supposedly there to help.

From my perspective, USAID and similar government programs do fund important projects, but there’s also an enormous amount of waste. The sheer amount of money spent on maintaining the American presence abroad—on housing, benefits, and lifestyles—makes you question whether these funds could be better used elsewhere.

I’m not saying that every single person in USAID is doing nothing, but from what I saw growing up, it was a system that provided an incredibly cushy deal for those involved. It raises the question: how much of this is actually about development, and how much is just about sustaining a privileged American presence overseas?

People agree there is waste at USAID, or most agencies for that matter. When’s the last time the DoD passed a financial audit?

The issue isn’t reducing waste. Congress has the authority to address this. The issue is unlawfully “closing” an agency and folding it under another dept. Just because we agree the agency can become more efficient doesn’t mean we should accept the President ignoring Congress, the constitution and acting like a king.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. This is intentionally executed to create chaos. Everyone - stay vigilant, better times will come but USAID the way we knew is done. Sad times - US is ending its global supremacy.

I just don't believe that. This will have to be reversed and any terminations pursuant to illegal, unconstitutional conduct are invalid.

I don't understand why there isn't already a lawsuit--you can't cut an agency created by statute via unilateral executive action. While the "admin leave" route creates a bit of a work around, it is clearly a sham if the entire staff is being recalled and operations ceased. This development would seem to put this ridiculous move in the same bucket as the general spending freeze (that has already been enjoined by two courts).

Still waiting for clarification. USAID was created by EO. The law Foreign Aid Act (FAA) says the US will provide foreign aid. Does FAA say USAID must administer the aid??

The agency was later codified in statute.

Could you please point me to that statute?

[Anonymous]

I am surprised Republicans are going this far. They must plan on never losing power.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is so illegal and unconstitutional

I'm sorry USAID-- I'm sure you are just the first in a wave of illegal actions but it hurts my heart to see you and your work treated this way.

Same here. I am so, so sorry that this is happening to you.

NP. Also sorry to see this happen . I worked for a USAID contractor decades ago. Everyone I worked with was dedicated and passionate about their work. No one should be treated this way. Elon Musk is so callous that he can’t begin to fathom what humanitarian work is or means.

USAID lost its way and the baby is being thrown out with the bathwater. Their careless spending, arrogance and bloated bureaucracy got them in this position and now they'll suffer the consequences.

Agree. A lot of good things happened under USAID. But a lot of wasteful spending also happened under USAID. The independent presses are having a field day reporting on the obscure spending like funding for a transgender opera and parties for LGBTQ kids in Serbia. and USAID funding more often than not ended up in pockets of local corrupt politicians who owned the companies that won the USAID contracts to build water pipes or whatever. And often did a terrible job. And, of course, USAID was working hand in hand with CIA for certain operations, funneling money for certain schemes that may have been dubious. As a long time expat in developing/adjacent developing countries I heard plenty of wild stories about USAID and clandestine operations - from seasoned NGO veterans. I don't doubt most people at USAID were committed to their missions but I can see that in recent years some of those missions were getting ridiculous. Funding identity politics in countries, including Ireland, makes no sense.

As a recently retired case officer with many overseas tours, I am going to give you and your "seasoned NGO veterans" a giant eyeroll on that one.

did you squeak your kids, siblings, & cousins in the agency b4 you retired and Trump inaugurated? so well-timed! bright gold star 4u

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let’s be honest—I grew up in a State Department or USAID family (I won’t reveal which for anonymity). My father was in a technical supervisor role, and we lived all over the world. From my firsthand experience, I can say that the lifestyle was far beyond anything we could have had in the U.S., even if we were wealthy.

We basically had our mortgage covered back home by renting out our house while we lived overseas, where our housing was fully paid for. And we weren’t just living in normal homes—these were massive houses with staff: maids, gardeners, and drivers. It was a completely different world. We also traveled frequently, and vacations were either heavily subsidized or fully covered through various allowances. We attended elite American schools that, back home, were only accessible to the ultra-rich, but for us, they were fully funded by U.S. taxpayers.

It was a great lifestyle, no doubt. But it often felt like a fantasy, like a long-term vacation rather than real life. My dad, who was at the equivalent of a GS-15 level, later admitted to me that he only did about 30 minutes of actual work a week. The real purpose of many Americans stationed in these countries seemed more about maintaining a U.S. presence rather than truly making an impact. Embassy life was filled with social events, networking, and parties—it felt like an exclusive club, completely detached from the struggles of the local populations USAID was supposedly there to help.

From my perspective, USAID and similar government programs do fund important projects, but there’s also an enormous amount of waste. The sheer amount of money spent on maintaining the American presence abroad—on housing, benefits, and lifestyles—makes you question whether these funds could be better used elsewhere.

I’m not saying that every single person in USAID is doing nothing, but from what I saw growing up, it was a system that provided an incredibly cushy deal for those involved. It raises the question: how much of this is actually about development, and how much is just about sustaining a privileged American presence overseas?

such candor is rare. thank you

[Anonymous]

Good summary here from CRS including citation to the statutory authority for USAID.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN12500#:~:text=Section%201413%20of%20the%20Foreign,the%20State%20Department%20(22%20U.S.C.

[Anonymous]

I found this helpful:

Because Congress established USAID as an independent establishment (defined in 5 U.S.C. 104) within
the executive branch, the President does not have the authority to abolish it; congressional authorization
would be required to abolish, move, or consolidate USAID.

The Secretary of State established USAID as directed by Executive Order 10973, signed on November 3,
1961. The agency was meant to implement components of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (FAA, P.L.
87-195), enacted on September 4, 1961.

Section 1413 of the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, Division G of P.L. 105-277,
established USAID as an “independent establishment” outside of the State Department (22 U.S.C. 6563).
In that act, Congress provided the President with temporary authority to reorganize the agency (22 U.S.C.
6601). President Clinton retained the status of USAID as an independent entity, and the authority to
reorganize expired in 1999. Congress has not granted the President further authority to abolish, move, or
consolidate USAID since.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN12500#:~:text=The%20Secretary%20of%20State%20established%20USAID%20as%20directed,%28FAA%2C%20P.L.%2087-195%29%2C%20enacted%20on%20September%204%2C%201961.
(And actually kinda impressed CRS has pulled this together so quickly)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s be honest—I grew up in a State Department or USAID family (I won’t reveal which for anonymity). My father was in a technical supervisor role, and we lived all over the world. From my firsthand experience, I can say that the lifestyle was far beyond anything we could have had in the U.S., even if we were wealthy.

We basically had our mortgage covered back home by renting out our house while we lived overseas, where our housing was fully paid for. And we weren’t just living in normal homes—these were massive houses with staff: maids, gardeners, and drivers. It was a completely different world. We also traveled frequently, and vacations were either heavily subsidized or fully covered through various allowances. We attended elite American schools that, back home, were only accessible to the ultra-rich, but for us, they were fully funded by U.S. taxpayers.

It was a great lifestyle, no doubt. But it often felt like a fantasy, like a long-term vacation rather than real life. My dad, who was at the equivalent of a GS-15 level, later admitted to me that he only did about 30 minutes of actual work a week. The real purpose of many Americans stationed in these countries seemed more about maintaining a U.S. presence rather than truly making an impact. Embassy life was filled with social events, networking, and parties—it felt like an exclusive club, completely detached from the struggles of the local populations USAID was supposedly there to help.

From my perspective, USAID and similar government programs do fund important projects, but there’s also an enormous amount of waste. The sheer amount of money spent on maintaining the American presence abroad—on housing, benefits, and lifestyles—makes you question whether these funds could be better used elsewhere.

I’m not saying that every single person in USAID is doing nothing, but from what I saw growing up, it was a system that provided an incredibly cushy deal for those involved. It raises the question: how much of this is actually about development, and how much is just about sustaining a privileged American presence overseas?

such candor is rare. thank you

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s be honest—I grew up in a State Department or USAID family (I won’t reveal which for anonymity). My father was in a technical supervisor role, and we lived all over the world. From my firsthand experience, I can say that the lifestyle was far beyond anything we could have had in the U.S., even if we were wealthy.

We basically had our mortgage covered back home by renting out our house while we lived overseas, where our housing was fully paid for. And we weren’t just living in normal homes—these were massive houses with staff: maids, gardeners, and drivers. It was a completely different world. We also traveled frequently, and vacations were either heavily subsidized or fully covered through various allowances. We attended elite American schools that, back home, were only accessible to the ultra-rich, but for us, they were fully funded by U.S. taxpayers.

It was a great lifestyle, no doubt. But it often felt like a fantasy, like a long-term vacation rather than real life. My dad, who was at the equivalent of a GS-15 level, later admitted to me that he only did about 30 minutes of actual work a week. The real purpose of many Americans stationed in these countries seemed more about maintaining a U.S. presence rather than truly making an impact. Embassy life was filled with social events, networking, and parties—it felt like an exclusive club, completely detached from the struggles of the local populations USAID was supposedly there to help.

From my perspective, USAID and similar government programs do fund important projects, but there’s also an enormous amount of waste. The sheer amount of money spent on maintaining the American presence abroad—on housing, benefits, and lifestyles—makes you question whether these funds could be better used elsewhere.

I’m not saying that every single person in USAID is doing nothing, but from what I saw growing up, it was a system that provided an incredibly cushy deal for those involved. It raises the question: how much of this is actually about development, and how much is just about sustaining a privileged American presence overseas?

LOL This sounds like State, not USAID. The people I know who work for AID are managers of local NGOs, administer grants and meet with local partners on building civil society and women's health initiatives and the like. What you had sounds like what my parents had in India working for the Ford Foundation. Yes, let's defund our cushiest Ambassadorships but building democracy around the world is worthy work, IMO but only the people at the very top have what you describe..

I grew up overseas as well (not USAID or State Dept). From the outside, it certainly looked like USAID workers lived in similar cushy homes as state department folks. They were all members of the same American tennis and pool club, and attended the same American schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s be honest—I grew up in a State Department or USAID family (I won’t reveal which for anonymity). My father was in a technical supervisor role, and we lived all over the world. From my firsthand experience, I can say that the lifestyle was far beyond anything we could have had in the U.S., even if we were wealthy.

We basically had our mortgage covered back home by renting out our house while we lived overseas, where our housing was fully paid for. And we weren’t just living in normal homes—these were massive houses with staff: maids, gardeners, and drivers. It was a completely different world. We also traveled frequently, and vacations were either heavily subsidized or fully covered through various allowances. We attended elite American schools that, back home, were only accessible to the ultra-rich, but for us, they were fully funded by U.S. taxpayers.

It was a great lifestyle, no doubt. But it often felt like a fantasy, like a long-term vacation rather than real life. My dad, who was at the equivalent of a GS-15 level, later admitted to me that he only did about 30 minutes of actual work a week. The real purpose of many Americans stationed in these countries seemed more about maintaining a U.S. presence rather than truly making an impact. Embassy life was filled with social events, networking, and parties—it felt like an exclusive club, completely detached from the struggles of the local populations USAID was supposedly there to help.

From my perspective, USAID and similar government programs do fund important projects, but there’s also an enormous amount of waste. The sheer amount of money spent on maintaining the American presence abroad—on housing, benefits, and lifestyles—makes you question whether these funds could be better used elsewhere.

I’m not saying that every single person in USAID is doing nothing, but from what I saw growing up, it was a system that provided an incredibly cushy deal for those involved. It raises the question: how much of this is actually about development, and how much is just about sustaining a privileged American presence overseas?

such candor is rare. thank you

+1

The wildest part to me is her dad talking literally about hours of work. Truly outlier.

Did your dad talk to you about his work hours?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s be honest—I grew up in a State Department or USAID family (I won’t reveal which for anonymity). My father was in a technical supervisor role, and we lived all over the world. From my firsthand experience, I can say that the lifestyle was far beyond anything we could have had in the U.S., even if we were wealthy.

We basically had our mortgage covered back home by renting out our house while we lived overseas, where our housing was fully paid for. And we weren’t just living in normal homes—these were massive houses with staff: maids, gardeners, and drivers. It was a completely different world. We also traveled frequently, and vacations were either heavily subsidized or fully covered through various allowances. We attended elite American schools that, back home, were only accessible to the ultra-rich, but for us, they were fully funded by U.S. taxpayers.

It was a great lifestyle, no doubt. But it often felt like a fantasy, like a long-term vacation rather than real life. My dad, who was at the equivalent of a GS-15 level, later admitted to me that he only did about 30 minutes of actual work a week. The real purpose of many Americans stationed in these countries seemed more about maintaining a U.S. presence rather than truly making an impact. Embassy life was filled with social events, networking, and parties—it felt like an exclusive club, completely detached from the struggles of the local populations USAID was supposedly there to help.

From my perspective, USAID and similar government programs do fund important projects, but there’s also an enormous amount of waste. The sheer amount of money spent on maintaining the American presence abroad—on housing, benefits, and lifestyles—makes you question whether these funds could be better used elsewhere.

I’m not saying that every single person in USAID is doing nothing, but from what I saw growing up, it was a system that provided an incredibly cushy deal for those involved. It raises the question: how much of this is actually about development, and how much is just about sustaining a privileged American presence overseas?

LOL This sounds like State, not USAID. The people I know who work for AID are managers of local NGOs, administer grants and meet with local partners on building civil society and women's health initiatives and the like. What you had sounds like what my parents had in India working for the Ford Foundation. Yes, let's defund our cushiest Ambassadorships but building democracy around the world is worthy work, IMO but only the people at the very top have what you describe..

I grew up overseas as well (not USAID or State Dept). From the outside, it certainly looked like USAID workers lived in similar cushy homes as state department folks. They were all members of the same American tennis and pool club, and attended the same American schools.

Yes, i forgot to mention in my experiencing the life post that there is the American club basically the country club for USAID and State Department folks! The marine staff that protected the embassys did also attend our circles but you could tell they weren't living this same lifestyle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s be honest—I grew up in a State Department or USAID family (I won’t reveal which for anonymity). My father was in a technical supervisor role, and we lived all over the world. From my firsthand experience, I can say that the lifestyle was far beyond anything we could have had in the U.S., even if we were wealthy.

We basically had our mortgage covered back home by renting out our house while we lived overseas, where our housing was fully paid for. And we weren’t just living in normal homes—these were massive houses with staff: maids, gardeners, and drivers. It was a completely different world. We also traveled frequently, and vacations were either heavily subsidized or fully covered through various allowances. We attended elite American schools that, back home, were only accessible to the ultra-rich, but for us, they were fully funded by U.S. taxpayers.

It was a great lifestyle, no doubt. But it often felt like a fantasy, like a long-term vacation rather than real life. My dad, who was at the equivalent of a GS-15 level, later admitted to me that he only did about 30 minutes of actual work a week. The real purpose of many Americans stationed in these countries seemed more about maintaining a U.S. presence rather than truly making an impact. Embassy life was filled with social events, networking, and parties—it felt like an exclusive club, completely detached from the struggles of the local populations USAID was supposedly there to help.

From my perspective, USAID and similar government programs do fund important projects, but there’s also an enormous amount of waste. The sheer amount of money spent on maintaining the American presence abroad—on housing, benefits, and lifestyles—makes you question whether these funds could be better used elsewhere.

I’m not saying that every single person in USAID is doing nothing, but from what I saw growing up, it was a system that provided an incredibly cushy deal for those involved. It raises the question: how much of this is actually about development, and how much is just about sustaining a privileged American presence overseas?

such candor is rare. thank you

+1

The wildest part to me is her dad talking literally about hours of work. Truly outlier.

Did your dad talk to you about his work hours?

My dad would frequently tell me about it when I was a child, but I didn’t really understand at the time. Later, after he retired, I asked him about his career and whether he would recommend it. He shared the same thoughts but also mentioned that the frequent travel was hard on families and that he wouldn’t recommend it unless someone was truly comfortable with that lifestyle.

He also believed that a reckoning was coming. He couldn’t see this level of luxury lasting for many more decades, especially if there were multiple recessions and everyday Americans were struggling. If that happened, it would eventually be exposed, and scrutiny on its funding would increase. With the advent of the internet and more open communication, he felt that the lifestyle would become more widely known and publicly discussed. Back in the '80s and '90s, it wasn’t something that many people outside the State Department and USAID circles really knew about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s be honest—I grew up in a State Department or USAID family (I won’t reveal which for anonymity). My father was in a technical supervisor role, and we lived all over the world. From my firsthand experience, I can say that the lifestyle was far beyond anything we could have had in the U.S., even if we were wealthy.

We basically had our mortgage covered back home by renting out our house while we lived overseas, where our housing was fully paid for. And we weren’t just living in normal homes—these were massive houses with staff: maids, gardeners, and drivers. It was a completely different world. We also traveled frequently, and vacations were either heavily subsidized or fully covered through various allowances. We attended elite American schools that, back home, were only accessible to the ultra-rich, but for us, they were fully funded by U.S. taxpayers.

It was a great lifestyle, no doubt. But it often felt like a fantasy, like a long-term vacation rather than real life. My dad, who was at the equivalent of a GS-15 level, later admitted to me that he only did about 30 minutes of actual work a week. The real purpose of many Americans stationed in these countries seemed more about maintaining a U.S. presence rather than truly making an impact. Embassy life was filled with social events, networking, and parties—it felt like an exclusive club, completely detached from the struggles of the local populations USAID was supposedly there to help.

From my perspective, USAID and similar government programs do fund important projects, but there’s also an enormous amount of waste. The sheer amount of money spent on maintaining the American presence abroad—on housing, benefits, and lifestyles—makes you question whether these funds could be better used elsewhere.

I’m not saying that every single person in USAID is doing nothing, but from what I saw growing up, it was a system that provided an incredibly cushy deal for those involved. It raises the question: how much of this is actually about development, and how much is just about sustaining a privileged American presence overseas?

such candor is rare. thank you

+1

The wildest part to me is her dad talking literally about hours of work. Truly outlier.

Did your dad talk to you about his work hours?

I call BS on that. She has no idea what her Dad did or how much he worked or how important his work was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s be honest—I grew up in a State Department or USAID family (I won’t reveal which for anonymity). My father was in a technical supervisor role, and we lived all over the world. From my firsthand experience, I can say that the lifestyle was far beyond anything we could have had in the U.S., even if we were wealthy.

We basically had our mortgage covered back home by renting out our house while we lived overseas, where our housing was fully paid for. And we weren’t just living in normal homes—these were massive houses with staff: maids, gardeners, and drivers. It was a completely different world. We also traveled frequently, and vacations were either heavily subsidized or fully covered through various allowances. We attended elite American schools that, back home, were only accessible to the ultra-rich, but for us, they were fully funded by U.S. taxpayers.

It was a great lifestyle, no doubt. But it often felt like a fantasy, like a long-term vacation rather than real life. My dad, who was at the equivalent of a GS-15 level, later admitted to me that he only did about 30 minutes of actual work a week. The real purpose of many Americans stationed in these countries seemed more about maintaining a U.S. presence rather than truly making an impact. Embassy life was filled with social events, networking, and parties—it felt like an exclusive club, completely detached from the struggles of the local populations USAID was supposedly there to help.

From my perspective, USAID and similar government programs do fund important projects, but there’s also an enormous amount of waste. The sheer amount of money spent on maintaining the American presence abroad—on housing, benefits, and lifestyles—makes you question whether these funds could be better used elsewhere.

I’m not saying that every single person in USAID is doing nothing, but from what I saw growing up, it was a system that provided an incredibly cushy deal for those involved. It raises the question: how much of this is actually about development, and how much is just about sustaining a privileged American presence overseas?

LOL This sounds like State, not USAID. The people I know who work for AID are managers of local NGOs, administer grants and meet with local partners on building civil society and women's health initiatives and the like. What you had sounds like what my parents had in India working for the Ford Foundation. Yes, let's defund our cushiest Ambassadorships but building democracy around the world is worthy work, IMO but only the people at the very top have what you describe..

This is definitely state -- PP wouldn't have bothered to mention it if it wasn't, and some of this (not the zero work, but being able to afford a cushy lifestyle in a less developed county) sounds like State people I know.