Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think people are getting it - simply saying something is unconstitutional Trump is a despot isn't going to cut it.

The Democrats in Congress are going to have to get their lawyers to say - this is against the law and we are urging all USAID employees to report to work.

Those Inspector Generals that were fired? They should have shown up to work and filed for an injunction.

The one IG did show up and was physically removed from her office by security.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No sympathy here. USAID was a major grift joke and most of the aid money ended up in pockets of local corrupt leaders and tribal chiefs. Add to that a very ideological bureaucracy.

I think foreign aid is important but it's worthwhile disbanding and rebuilding a donor agency from scratch. Not sure if the existing model can survive.

Not you again. Don't you have a dog to kick or kid to yell at?

I’m not the PP but our acquaintance lost their job as a contractor from the EO.

They bragged for years about their travel all over the world to “educate” the locals on support distribution. But they openly joked by the time they “trained” someone in country and aid arrived (if ever) whomever they “trained” was long gone - so they got to go back 2-3 times to train (or not) to the same country and typically they planned stops on their way of places to visit.

I am not saying there was not some good being done; but maybe 1 out 20 dollars spent was of value from what I heard.

Then Congress should shut it down. This is about more than just the agency, it's about the U.S. straying from being a country of laws and separation of powers and moving to banana republic status.

+1

We have a constitution, laws, and checks and balances. DT is operating as if none of those matter. Get rid of waste, but within the bounds of the law of our country.

All of this. Reasonable minds have always disagreed about the role of government, but NEVER until now has there been any question about following the rule of law.

Anonymous wrote:There is no need for USAID to be this big. It needs to be cut down to 15-20% of its current size and will happen.

Anonymous wrote:More details here:

Anonymous wrote:Good boy, Grok:

Can a us president unilaterally close USAID as an agency
No, a U.S. President cannot unilaterally close USAID (United States Agency for International Development) as an agency. Here's why:

Legislative Authority: USAID was established by an act of Congress through the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. To abolish it, Congressional action would be necessary. The President does not have the authority to dismantle an agency created by law without Congressional approval.
Budgetary Control: USAID's operations are funded through appropriations from Congress. While the President can propose budget cuts or changes, the actual funding, including the decision to defund and thereby effectively close an agency, lies with Congress.
Executive Orders: While the President can issue executive orders to reorganize or restructure parts of the executive branch, significantly altering or closing an entire agency like USAID would likely require legislative consent to be legally binding and permanent.
Political and Practical Considerations: There would be significant political pushback and international repercussions to consider. USAID plays a crucial role in U.S. foreign policy, humanitarian aid, and development assistance, affecting many countries and international relationships.

Therefore, while a President can certainly influence the direction, budget, and priorities of USAID, the complete closure of the agency would require cooperation with, or at least acquiescence from, Congress. If a President attempted to do so unilaterally, it would likely face legal challenges and would not hold up under scrutiny.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No sympathy here. USAID was a major grift joke and most of the aid money ended up in pockets of local corrupt leaders and tribal chiefs. Add to that a very ideological bureaucracy.

I think foreign aid is important but it's worthwhile disbanding and rebuilding a donor agency from scratch. Not sure if the existing model can survive.

Not you again. Don't you have a dog to kick or kid to yell at?

I’m not the PP but our acquaintance lost their job as a contractor from the EO.

They bragged for years about their travel all over the world to “educate” the locals on support distribution. But they openly joked by the time they “trained” someone in country and aid arrived (if ever) whomever they “trained” was long gone - so they got to go back 2-3 times to train (or not) to the same country and typically they planned stops on their way of places to visit.

I am not saying there was not some good being done; but maybe 1 out 20 dollars spent was of value from what I heard.

Anonymous wrote:No sympathy here. USAID was a major grift joke and most of the aid money ended up in pockets of local corrupt leaders and tribal chiefs. Add to that a very ideological bureaucracy.

I think foreign aid is important but it's worthwhile disbanding and rebuilding a donor agency from scratch. Not sure if the existing model can survive.

Anonymous wrote:No sympathy here. USAID was a major grift joke and most of the aid money ended up in pockets of local corrupt leaders and tribal chiefs. Add to that a very ideological bureaucracy.

I think foreign aid is important but it's worthwhile disbanding and rebuilding a donor agency from scratch. Not sure if the existing model can survive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No sympathy here. USAID was a major grift joke and most of the aid money ended up in pockets of local corrupt leaders and tribal chiefs. Add to that a very ideological bureaucracy.

I think foreign aid is important but it's worthwhile disbanding and rebuilding a donor agency from scratch. Not sure if the existing model can survive.

Not you again. Don't you have a dog to kick or kid to yell at?

I’m not the PP but our acquaintance lost their job as a contractor from the EO.

They bragged for years about their travel all over the world to “educate” the locals on support distribution. But they openly joked by the time they “trained” someone in country and aid arrived (if ever) whomever they “trained” was long gone - so they got to go back 2-3 times to train (or not) to the same country and typically they planned stops on their way of places to visit.

I am not saying there was not some good being done; but maybe 1 out 20 dollars spent was of value from what I heard.

Then Congress should shut it down. This is about more than just the agency, it's about the U.S. straying from being a country of laws and separation of powers and moving to banana republic status.

+1

We have a constitution, laws, and checks and balances. DT is operating as if none of those matter. Get rid of waste, but within the bounds of the law of our country.