Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The most egregious is seeing US aid leaders go to NGO companies and make millions being a CEO, where they probably steered money to the company they planned to join!

You're going to have to back this up.

Sure. The cleaner claim is not that every case proves corruption, but that there is a clear revolving door where senior USAID officials later move into top paid leadership roles at organizations already operating in the same aid ecosystem.

Dennis Vega left senior USAID leadership in Aug 2024 as Acting Deputy Administrator for Management and Resources, then became President and CEO of Pact that same month. Pact was already a longtime USAID implementing partner before he arrived.
https://sid-us.org/dennis-vega
https://www.pactworld.org/leadership/dennis-vega

Gayle Smith left as USAID Administrator in Jan 2017 and by March 2017 became CEO of the ONE Campaign, a major foreign aid advocacy group that lobbies on development spending and global aid priorities.
https://www.devex.com/news/one-campaign-announces-gayle-smith-as-ceo-89643

Jeremy Konyndyk held senior USAID humanitarian roles, then became President of Refugees International, a major advocacy organization influencing refugee and humanitarian policy.
https://www.refugeesinternational.org/statements-and-news/refugees-international-welcomes-new-president-jeremy-konyndyk/

Rajiv Shah went from USAID Administrator to President of the Rockefeller Foundation, one of the most powerful global development philanthropies.
https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/profiles/rajiv-shah/

So yes, this absolutely happens. Whether any specific person "steered money" would require evidence, but the revolving door itself is real: people move from controlling aid priorities and relationships inside USAID to prestigious, highly compensated leadership jobs in the same foreign aid network.

This response sounds like ChatGPT.

are these not factual? follow these people they are going from administering aide money to NGOs then immediately joining those NGOs as leaders or ceos. wtf.

You should review the resumes of the people on that list through the lens of professional development, career trajectory, and political appointments. You should also review how budgets and appropriations work, especially in the context of aid legislation, contracting laws, and regulations that govern post government employment at firms that contract with the government. Wtf, indeed.

You should also review this through the lens of incentives, not just resumes.

Yes, people have career paths and yes, budgets and appropriations have layers of process. None of that erases the obvious concern when senior officials leave government and quickly land highly paid roles at organizations that benefit from the same aid ecosystem they just managed.

Saying it is legal is not much of a defense. Weak ethics rules often allow behavior the public still sees as wrong. There should be real cooling off periods before senior officials can join groups receiving grants, contracts, or policy advantages tied to their former agency.

And unlike many areas of government, foreign aid is often hard for taxpayers to measure in tangible terms. Roads, bridges, airports, and local infrastructure are visible. Even defense spending usually produces something concrete such as ships, aircraft, weapons systems, bases, technology, or readiness improvements. But much of the aid world runs through layers of NGOs, consultants, conferences, studies, and administrative overhead where results are difficult to verify and accountability is weaker.

That is exactly why the revolving door matters more here, not less. When outcomes are vague and money flows through intermediaries, trust becomes critical. Watching officials move straight from USAID into executive suites of organizations tied to that same funding stream makes the whole system look like a self-serving club, not public service.

The public has no idea what is an appropriate amount for DoD to be paying Lockheed Martin or what that money is going to. And it is very easy for bad contracting decisions to be made, including outright bribery, and not discovered. Fat Leonard was operating for decades until he got caught--if you can show that blatant and massive of an example in foreign aid, then we'll at least be at "maybe these things are similar".

Anonymous wrote:Regarding foreign aid, there's a case study to be made for how different China is doing it versus the US. We're just greasing a million hands, they're building bridges/ infrastructure and saddling countries with debt. I think China's way might actually be helping the actual citizens of those countries more than greasing hands does. In Africa, the rich just keep getting richer using our method and very little goes where it should.

A lot of these infrastructure projects are already crumbling, but the country remains indebted to China. A way for China to expand its reach all over the world by demanding repayment for shoddy work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The most egregious is seeing US aid leaders go to NGO companies and make millions being a CEO, where they probably steered money to the company they planned to join!

You're going to have to back this up.

Sure. The cleaner claim is not that every case proves corruption, but that there is a clear revolving door where senior USAID officials later move into top paid leadership roles at organizations already operating in the same aid ecosystem.

Dennis Vega left senior USAID leadership in Aug 2024 as Acting Deputy Administrator for Management and Resources, then became President and CEO of Pact that same month. Pact was already a longtime USAID implementing partner before he arrived.
https://sid-us.org/dennis-vega
https://www.pactworld.org/leadership/dennis-vega

Gayle Smith left as USAID Administrator in Jan 2017 and by March 2017 became CEO of the ONE Campaign, a major foreign aid advocacy group that lobbies on development spending and global aid priorities.
https://www.devex.com/news/one-campaign-announces-gayle-smith-as-ceo-89643

Jeremy Konyndyk held senior USAID humanitarian roles, then became President of Refugees International, a major advocacy organization influencing refugee and humanitarian policy.
https://www.refugeesinternational.org/statements-and-news/refugees-international-welcomes-new-president-jeremy-konyndyk/

Rajiv Shah went from USAID Administrator to President of the Rockefeller Foundation, one of the most powerful global development philanthropies.
https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/profiles/rajiv-shah/

So yes, this absolutely happens. Whether any specific person "steered money" would require evidence, but the revolving door itself is real: people move from controlling aid priorities and relationships inside USAID to prestigious, highly compensated leadership jobs in the same foreign aid network.

This response sounds like ChatGPT.

are these not factual? follow these people they are going from administering aide money to NGOs then immediately joining those NGOs as leaders or ceos. wtf.

You should review the resumes of the people on that list through the lens of professional development, career trajectory, and political appointments. You should also review how budgets and appropriations work, especially in the context of aid legislation, contracting laws, and regulations that govern post government employment at firms that contract with the government. Wtf, indeed.

You should also review this through the lens of incentives, not just resumes.

Yes, people have career paths and yes, budgets and appropriations have layers of process. None of that erases the obvious concern when senior officials leave government and quickly land highly paid roles at organizations that benefit from the same aid ecosystem they just managed.

Saying it is legal is not much of a defense. Weak ethics rules often allow behavior the public still sees as wrong. There should be real cooling off periods before senior officials can join groups receiving grants, contracts, or policy advantages tied to their former agency.

And unlike many areas of government, foreign aid is often hard for taxpayers to measure in tangible terms. Roads, bridges, airports, and local infrastructure are visible. Even defense spending usually produces something concrete such as ships, aircraft, weapons systems, bases, technology, or readiness improvements. But much of the aid world runs through layers of NGOs, consultants, conferences, studies, and administrative overhead where results are difficult to verify and accountability is weaker.

That is exactly why the revolving door matters more here, not less. When outcomes are vague and money flows through intermediaries, trust becomes critical. Watching officials move straight from USAID into executive suites of organizations tied to that same funding stream makes the whole system look like a self-serving club, not public service.

I'm a fed who works with billion dollar industries. There IS a cooling off period before you can join new companies. My dh (in defense) also has similar prohibitions. Our ethics rules are very tight. Were they not at USAID?

Political appointees don't seem to have the same ethics issues that career officials have. They go straight to industry from what I've seen.

Apparently not in practice, because some of the examples listed show people leaving USAID and stepping into those roles immediately or within weeks. Dennis Vega moved from senior USAID leadership in Aug 2024 straight into the CEO role at Pact that same month. Others made similarly rapid transitions.

If career staff face tighter rules than political appointees, that is exactly backwards. Political appointees often have the most influence over priorities, relationships, and funding direction, so they should face the strongest restrictions, not the weakest.

At minimum there should be a real investigation into whether any decisions benefited future employers while those officials were still in office. If someone steered grants, contracts, or policy favors in exchange for later employment, that can move beyond ethics concerns into potential criminal territory such as bribery, honest services fraud, conflicts of interest, procurement fraud, conspiracy, false statements, or kickback violations depending on the facts.

Maybe everything was clean, maybe not. But when someone goes from funding or influencing an ecosystem one month to cashing checks from it the next month, the public has every right to demand scrutiny.

I also think DOGE may have missed one of the biggest areas to investigate: NGO networks benefiting from federal money while being led by former government officials who helped direct funding into those same organizations or sectors.

Along those lines: there's many NGOs who fund themselves based on suing agencies. When agencies lose (they always do), we have to pay their fees.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The most egregious is seeing US aid leaders go to NGO companies and make millions being a CEO, where they probably steered money to the company they planned to join!

You're going to have to back this up.

Sure. The cleaner claim is not that every case proves corruption, but that there is a clear revolving door where senior USAID officials later move into top paid leadership roles at organizations already operating in the same aid ecosystem.

Dennis Vega left senior USAID leadership in Aug 2024 as Acting Deputy Administrator for Management and Resources, then became President and CEO of Pact that same month. Pact was already a longtime USAID implementing partner before he arrived.
https://sid-us.org/dennis-vega
https://www.pactworld.org/leadership/dennis-vega

Gayle Smith left as USAID Administrator in Jan 2017 and by March 2017 became CEO of the ONE Campaign, a major foreign aid advocacy group that lobbies on development spending and global aid priorities.
https://www.devex.com/news/one-campaign-announces-gayle-smith-as-ceo-89643

Jeremy Konyndyk held senior USAID humanitarian roles, then became President of Refugees International, a major advocacy organization influencing refugee and humanitarian policy.
https://www.refugeesinternational.org/statements-and-news/refugees-international-welcomes-new-president-jeremy-konyndyk/

Rajiv Shah went from USAID Administrator to President of the Rockefeller Foundation, one of the most powerful global development philanthropies.
https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/profiles/rajiv-shah/

So yes, this absolutely happens. Whether any specific person "steered money" would require evidence, but the revolving door itself is real: people move from controlling aid priorities and relationships inside USAID to prestigious, highly compensated leadership jobs in the same foreign aid network.

This response sounds like ChatGPT.

are these not factual? follow these people they are going from administering aide money to NGOs then immediately joining those NGOs as leaders or ceos. wtf.

You should review the resumes of the people on that list through the lens of professional development, career trajectory, and political appointments. You should also review how budgets and appropriations work, especially in the context of aid legislation, contracting laws, and regulations that govern post government employment at firms that contract with the government. Wtf, indeed.

You should also review this through the lens of incentives, not just resumes.

Yes, people have career paths and yes, budgets and appropriations have layers of process. None of that erases the obvious concern when senior officials leave government and quickly land highly paid roles at organizations that benefit from the same aid ecosystem they just managed.

Saying it is legal is not much of a defense. Weak ethics rules often allow behavior the public still sees as wrong. There should be real cooling off periods before senior officials can join groups receiving grants, contracts, or policy advantages tied to their former agency.

And unlike many areas of government, foreign aid is often hard for taxpayers to measure in tangible terms. Roads, bridges, airports, and local infrastructure are visible. Even defense spending usually produces something concrete such as ships, aircraft, weapons systems, bases, technology, or readiness improvements. But much of the aid world runs through layers of NGOs, consultants, conferences, studies, and administrative overhead where results are difficult to verify and accountability is weaker.

That is exactly why the revolving door matters more here, not less. When outcomes are vague and money flows through intermediaries, trust becomes critical. Watching officials move straight from USAID into executive suites of organizations tied to that same funding stream makes the whole system look like a self-serving club, not public service.

I'm a fed who works with billion dollar industries. There IS a cooling off period before you can join new companies. My dh (in defense) also has similar prohibitions. Our ethics rules are very tight. Were they not at USAID?

Political appointees don't seem to have the same ethics issues that career officials have. They go straight to industry from what I've seen.

Apparently not in practice, because some of the examples listed show people leaving USAID and stepping into those roles immediately or within weeks. Dennis Vega moved from senior USAID leadership in Aug 2024 straight into the CEO role at Pact that same month. Others made similarly rapid transitions.

If career staff face tighter rules than political appointees, that is exactly backwards. Political appointees often have the most influence over priorities, relationships, and funding direction, so they should face the strongest restrictions, not the weakest.

At minimum there should be a real investigation into whether any decisions benefited future employers while those officials were still in office. If someone steered grants, contracts, or policy favors in exchange for later employment, that can move beyond ethics concerns into potential criminal territory such as bribery, honest services fraud, conflicts of interest, procurement fraud, conspiracy, false statements, or kickback violations depending on the facts.

Maybe everything was clean, maybe not. But when someone goes from funding or influencing an ecosystem one month to cashing checks from it the next month, the public has every right to demand scrutiny.

I also think DOGE may have missed one of the biggest areas to investigate: NGO networks benefiting from federal money while being led by former government officials who helped direct funding into those same organizations or sectors.

Read the rules governing moving from a senior official to a firm that receives federal money. Seriously, read it. Once you do that, look at the role of the man you mention as well as his previous responsibilities.

Let's use public information and analyze the first example directly. Dennis Vega was publicly listed in 2024 as SES at USAID, meaning Senior Executive Service, the top management tier of the federal government. These officials typically have visibility into budgets, operations, strategic priorities, staffing, and high-level decision-making. His public profile shows he served as Acting Deputy Administrator for Management and Resources through Aug 2024, then became President and CEO of Pact that same month. Pact was already a longtime USAID implementing partner.

So when people say "read the regs," that actually proves the point. The rules often focus on limiting direct contacts back to the agency for a year or restricting work on specific matters previously handled. What they may not stop is leaving one month and becoming CEO of a USAID-linked organization the next. That means the technical rule can be followed while the revolving door still happens in plain sight.

The real concerns are obvious: insider knowledge, relationships, future job incentives, and public trust. There is also a timing issue. If USAID was later gutted or shut down, that may ironically help former officials because the agency that would normally be around to scrutinize these transitions is gone. The key period that deserves review is from Aug 2024 until the shutdown, including any grants, approvals, or decisions involving groups like Pact. That would be quite an irony if closing USAID ended up protecting the very behavior people were criticizing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The most egregious is seeing US aid leaders go to NGO companies and make millions being a CEO, where they probably steered money to the company they planned to join!

You're going to have to back this up.

Sure. The cleaner claim is not that every case proves corruption, but that there is a clear revolving door where senior USAID officials later move into top paid leadership roles at organizations already operating in the same aid ecosystem.

Dennis Vega left senior USAID leadership in Aug 2024 as Acting Deputy Administrator for Management and Resources, then became President and CEO of Pact that same month. Pact was already a longtime USAID implementing partner before he arrived.
https://sid-us.org/dennis-vega
https://www.pactworld.org/leadership/dennis-vega

Gayle Smith left as USAID Administrator in Jan 2017 and by March 2017 became CEO of the ONE Campaign, a major foreign aid advocacy group that lobbies on development spending and global aid priorities.
https://www.devex.com/news/one-campaign-announces-gayle-smith-as-ceo-89643

Jeremy Konyndyk held senior USAID humanitarian roles, then became President of Refugees International, a major advocacy organization influencing refugee and humanitarian policy.
https://www.refugeesinternational.org/statements-and-news/refugees-international-welcomes-new-president-jeremy-konyndyk/

Rajiv Shah went from USAID Administrator to President of the Rockefeller Foundation, one of the most powerful global development philanthropies.
https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/profiles/rajiv-shah/

So yes, this absolutely happens. Whether any specific person "steered money" would require evidence, but the revolving door itself is real: people move from controlling aid priorities and relationships inside USAID to prestigious, highly compensated leadership jobs in the same foreign aid network.

This response sounds like ChatGPT.

are these not factual? follow these people they are going from administering aide money to NGOs then immediately joining those NGOs as leaders or ceos. wtf.

You should review the resumes of the people on that list through the lens of professional development, career trajectory, and political appointments. You should also review how budgets and appropriations work, especially in the context of aid legislation, contracting laws, and regulations that govern post government employment at firms that contract with the government. Wtf, indeed.

You should also review this through the lens of incentives, not just resumes.

Yes, people have career paths and yes, budgets and appropriations have layers of process. None of that erases the obvious concern when senior officials leave government and quickly land highly paid roles at organizations that benefit from the same aid ecosystem they just managed.

Saying it is legal is not much of a defense. Weak ethics rules often allow behavior the public still sees as wrong. There should be real cooling off periods before senior officials can join groups receiving grants, contracts, or policy advantages tied to their former agency.

And unlike many areas of government, foreign aid is often hard for taxpayers to measure in tangible terms. Roads, bridges, airports, and local infrastructure are visible. Even defense spending usually produces something concrete such as ships, aircraft, weapons systems, bases, technology, or readiness improvements. But much of the aid world runs through layers of NGOs, consultants, conferences, studies, and administrative overhead where results are difficult to verify and accountability is weaker.

That is exactly why the revolving door matters more here, not less. When outcomes are vague and money flows through intermediaries, trust becomes critical. Watching officials move straight from USAID into executive suites of organizations tied to that same funding stream makes the whole system look like a self-serving club, not public service.

I'm a fed who works with billion dollar industries. There IS a cooling off period before you can join new companies. My dh (in defense) also has similar prohibitions. Our ethics rules are very tight. Were they not at USAID?

Political appointees don't seem to have the same ethics issues that career officials have. They go straight to industry from what I've seen.

Apparently not in practice, because some of the examples listed show people leaving USAID and stepping into those roles immediately or within weeks. Dennis Vega moved from senior USAID leadership in Aug 2024 straight into the CEO role at Pact that same month. Others made similarly rapid transitions.

If career staff face tighter rules than political appointees, that is exactly backwards. Political appointees often have the most influence over priorities, relationships, and funding direction, so they should face the strongest restrictions, not the weakest.

At minimum there should be a real investigation into whether any decisions benefited future employers while those officials were still in office. If someone steered grants, contracts, or policy favors in exchange for later employment, that can move beyond ethics concerns into potential criminal territory such as bribery, honest services fraud, conflicts of interest, procurement fraud, conspiracy, false statements, or kickback violations depending on the facts.

Maybe everything was clean, maybe not. But when someone goes from funding or influencing an ecosystem one month to cashing checks from it the next month, the public has every right to demand scrutiny.

I also think DOGE may have missed one of the biggest areas to investigate: NGO networks benefiting from federal money while being led by former government officials who helped direct funding into those same organizations or sectors.

Read the rules governing moving from a senior official to a firm that receives federal money. Seriously, read it. Once you do that, look at the role of the man you mention as well as his previous responsibilities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The most egregious is seeing US aid leaders go to NGO companies and make millions being a CEO, where they probably steered money to the company they planned to join!

You're going to have to back this up.

Sure. The cleaner claim is not that every case proves corruption, but that there is a clear revolving door where senior USAID officials later move into top paid leadership roles at organizations already operating in the same aid ecosystem.

Dennis Vega left senior USAID leadership in Aug 2024 as Acting Deputy Administrator for Management and Resources, then became President and CEO of Pact that same month. Pact was already a longtime USAID implementing partner before he arrived.
https://sid-us.org/dennis-vega
https://www.pactworld.org/leadership/dennis-vega

Gayle Smith left as USAID Administrator in Jan 2017 and by March 2017 became CEO of the ONE Campaign, a major foreign aid advocacy group that lobbies on development spending and global aid priorities.
https://www.devex.com/news/one-campaign-announces-gayle-smith-as-ceo-89643

Jeremy Konyndyk held senior USAID humanitarian roles, then became President of Refugees International, a major advocacy organization influencing refugee and humanitarian policy.
https://www.refugeesinternational.org/statements-and-news/refugees-international-welcomes-new-president-jeremy-konyndyk/

Rajiv Shah went from USAID Administrator to President of the Rockefeller Foundation, one of the most powerful global development philanthropies.
https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/profiles/rajiv-shah/

So yes, this absolutely happens. Whether any specific person "steered money" would require evidence, but the revolving door itself is real: people move from controlling aid priorities and relationships inside USAID to prestigious, highly compensated leadership jobs in the same foreign aid network.

This response sounds like ChatGPT.

are these not factual? follow these people they are going from administering aide money to NGOs then immediately joining those NGOs as leaders or ceos. wtf.

You should review the resumes of the people on that list through the lens of professional development, career trajectory, and political appointments. You should also review how budgets and appropriations work, especially in the context of aid legislation, contracting laws, and regulations that govern post government employment at firms that contract with the government. Wtf, indeed.

You should also review this through the lens of incentives, not just resumes.

Yes, people have career paths and yes, budgets and appropriations have layers of process. None of that erases the obvious concern when senior officials leave government and quickly land highly paid roles at organizations that benefit from the same aid ecosystem they just managed.

Saying it is legal is not much of a defense. Weak ethics rules often allow behavior the public still sees as wrong. There should be real cooling off periods before senior officials can join groups receiving grants, contracts, or policy advantages tied to their former agency.

And unlike many areas of government, foreign aid is often hard for taxpayers to measure in tangible terms. Roads, bridges, airports, and local infrastructure are visible. Even defense spending usually produces something concrete such as ships, aircraft, weapons systems, bases, technology, or readiness improvements. But much of the aid world runs through layers of NGOs, consultants, conferences, studies, and administrative overhead where results are difficult to verify and accountability is weaker.

That is exactly why the revolving door matters more here, not less. When outcomes are vague and money flows through intermediaries, trust becomes critical. Watching officials move straight from USAID into executive suites of organizations tied to that same funding stream makes the whole system look like a self-serving club, not public service.

I'm a fed who works with billion dollar industries. There IS a cooling off period before you can join new companies. My dh (in defense) also has similar prohibitions. Our ethics rules are very tight. Were they not at USAID?

Political appointees don't seem to have the same ethics issues that career officials have. They go straight to industry from what I've seen.

Apparently not in practice, because some of the examples listed show people leaving USAID and stepping into those roles immediately or within weeks. Dennis Vega moved from senior USAID leadership in Aug 2024 straight into the CEO role at Pact that same month. Others made similarly rapid transitions.

If career staff face tighter rules than political appointees, that is exactly backwards. Political appointees often have the most influence over priorities, relationships, and funding direction, so they should face the strongest restrictions, not the weakest.

At minimum there should be a real investigation into whether any decisions benefited future employers while those officials were still in office. If someone steered grants, contracts, or policy favors in exchange for later employment, that can move beyond ethics concerns into potential criminal territory such as bribery, honest services fraud, conflicts of interest, procurement fraud, conspiracy, false statements, or kickback violations depending on the facts.

Maybe everything was clean, maybe not. But when someone goes from funding or influencing an ecosystem one month to cashing checks from it the next month, the public has every right to demand scrutiny.

I also think DOGE may have missed one of the biggest areas to investigate: NGO networks benefiting from federal money while being led by former government officials who helped direct funding into those same organizations or sectors.

Regarding foreign aid, there's a case study to be made for how different China is doing it versus the US. We're just greasing a million hands, they're building bridges/ infrastructure and saddling countries with debt. I think China's way might actually be helping the actual citizens of those countries more than greasing hands does. In Africa, the rich just keep getting richer using our method and very little goes where it should.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The most egregious is seeing US aid leaders go to NGO companies and make millions being a CEO, where they probably steered money to the company they planned to join!

You're going to have to back this up.

Sure. The cleaner claim is not that every case proves corruption, but that there is a clear revolving door where senior USAID officials later move into top paid leadership roles at organizations already operating in the same aid ecosystem.

Dennis Vega left senior USAID leadership in Aug 2024 as Acting Deputy Administrator for Management and Resources, then became President and CEO of Pact that same month. Pact was already a longtime USAID implementing partner before he arrived.
https://sid-us.org/dennis-vega
https://www.pactworld.org/leadership/dennis-vega

Gayle Smith left as USAID Administrator in Jan 2017 and by March 2017 became CEO of the ONE Campaign, a major foreign aid advocacy group that lobbies on development spending and global aid priorities.
https://www.devex.com/news/one-campaign-announces-gayle-smith-as-ceo-89643

Jeremy Konyndyk held senior USAID humanitarian roles, then became President of Refugees International, a major advocacy organization influencing refugee and humanitarian policy.
https://www.refugeesinternational.org/statements-and-news/refugees-international-welcomes-new-president-jeremy-konyndyk/

Rajiv Shah went from USAID Administrator to President of the Rockefeller Foundation, one of the most powerful global development philanthropies.
https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/profiles/rajiv-shah/

So yes, this absolutely happens. Whether any specific person "steered money" would require evidence, but the revolving door itself is real: people move from controlling aid priorities and relationships inside USAID to prestigious, highly compensated leadership jobs in the same foreign aid network.

This response sounds like ChatGPT.

are these not factual? follow these people they are going from administering aide money to NGOs then immediately joining those NGOs as leaders or ceos. wtf.

You should review the resumes of the people on that list through the lens of professional development, career trajectory, and political appointments. You should also review how budgets and appropriations work, especially in the context of aid legislation, contracting laws, and regulations that govern post government employment at firms that contract with the government. Wtf, indeed.

You should also review this through the lens of incentives, not just resumes.

Yes, people have career paths and yes, budgets and appropriations have layers of process. None of that erases the obvious concern when senior officials leave government and quickly land highly paid roles at organizations that benefit from the same aid ecosystem they just managed.

Saying it is legal is not much of a defense. Weak ethics rules often allow behavior the public still sees as wrong. There should be real cooling off periods before senior officials can join groups receiving grants, contracts, or policy advantages tied to their former agency.

And unlike many areas of government, foreign aid is often hard for taxpayers to measure in tangible terms. Roads, bridges, airports, and local infrastructure are visible. Even defense spending usually produces something concrete such as ships, aircraft, weapons systems, bases, technology, or readiness improvements. But much of the aid world runs through layers of NGOs, consultants, conferences, studies, and administrative overhead where results are difficult to verify and accountability is weaker.

That is exactly why the revolving door matters more here, not less. When outcomes are vague and money flows through intermediaries, trust becomes critical. Watching officials move straight from USAID into executive suites of organizations tied to that same funding stream makes the whole system look like a self-serving club, not public service.

I'm a fed who works with billion dollar industries. There IS a cooling off period before you can join new companies. My dh (in defense) also has similar prohibitions. Our ethics rules are very tight. Were they not at USAID?

Political appointees don't seem to have the same ethics issues that career officials have. They go straight to industry from what I've seen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The most egregious is seeing US aid leaders go to NGO companies and make millions being a CEO, where they probably steered money to the company they planned to join!

You're going to have to back this up.

Sure. The cleaner claim is not that every case proves corruption, but that there is a clear revolving door where senior USAID officials later move into top paid leadership roles at organizations already operating in the same aid ecosystem.

Dennis Vega left senior USAID leadership in Aug 2024 as Acting Deputy Administrator for Management and Resources, then became President and CEO of Pact that same month. Pact was already a longtime USAID implementing partner before he arrived.
https://sid-us.org/dennis-vega
https://www.pactworld.org/leadership/dennis-vega

Gayle Smith left as USAID Administrator in Jan 2017 and by March 2017 became CEO of the ONE Campaign, a major foreign aid advocacy group that lobbies on development spending and global aid priorities.
https://www.devex.com/news/one-campaign-announces-gayle-smith-as-ceo-89643

Jeremy Konyndyk held senior USAID humanitarian roles, then became President of Refugees International, a major advocacy organization influencing refugee and humanitarian policy.
https://www.refugeesinternational.org/statements-and-news/refugees-international-welcomes-new-president-jeremy-konyndyk/

Rajiv Shah went from USAID Administrator to President of the Rockefeller Foundation, one of the most powerful global development philanthropies.
https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/profiles/rajiv-shah/

So yes, this absolutely happens. Whether any specific person "steered money" would require evidence, but the revolving door itself is real: people move from controlling aid priorities and relationships inside USAID to prestigious, highly compensated leadership jobs in the same foreign aid network.

This response sounds like ChatGPT.

are these not factual? follow these people they are going from administering aide money to NGOs then immediately joining those NGOs as leaders or ceos. wtf.

You should review the resumes of the people on that list through the lens of professional development, career trajectory, and political appointments. You should also review how budgets and appropriations work, especially in the context of aid legislation, contracting laws, and regulations that govern post government employment at firms that contract with the government. Wtf, indeed.

You should also review this through the lens of incentives, not just resumes.

Yes, people have career paths and yes, budgets and appropriations have layers of process. None of that erases the obvious concern when senior officials leave government and quickly land highly paid roles at organizations that benefit from the same aid ecosystem they just managed.

Saying it is legal is not much of a defense. Weak ethics rules often allow behavior the public still sees as wrong. There should be real cooling off periods before senior officials can join groups receiving grants, contracts, or policy advantages tied to their former agency.

And unlike many areas of government, foreign aid is often hard for taxpayers to measure in tangible terms. Roads, bridges, airports, and local infrastructure are visible. Even defense spending usually produces something concrete such as ships, aircraft, weapons systems, bases, technology, or readiness improvements. But much of the aid world runs through layers of NGOs, consultants, conferences, studies, and administrative overhead where results are difficult to verify and accountability is weaker.

That is exactly why the revolving door matters more here, not less. When outcomes are vague and money flows through intermediaries, trust becomes critical. Watching officials move straight from USAID into executive suites of organizations tied to that same funding stream makes the whole system look like a self-serving club, not public service.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The most egregious is seeing US aid leaders go to NGO companies and make millions being a CEO, where they probably steered money to the company they planned to join!

You're going to have to back this up.

Sure. The cleaner claim is not that every case proves corruption, but that there is a clear revolving door where senior USAID officials later move into top paid leadership roles at organizations already operating in the same aid ecosystem.

Dennis Vega left senior USAID leadership in Aug 2024 as Acting Deputy Administrator for Management and Resources, then became President and CEO of Pact that same month. Pact was already a longtime USAID implementing partner before he arrived.
https://sid-us.org/dennis-vega
https://www.pactworld.org/leadership/dennis-vega

Gayle Smith left as USAID Administrator in Jan 2017 and by March 2017 became CEO of the ONE Campaign, a major foreign aid advocacy group that lobbies on development spending and global aid priorities.
https://www.devex.com/news/one-campaign-announces-gayle-smith-as-ceo-89643

Jeremy Konyndyk held senior USAID humanitarian roles, then became President of Refugees International, a major advocacy organization influencing refugee and humanitarian policy.
https://www.refugeesinternational.org/statements-and-news/refugees-international-welcomes-new-president-jeremy-konyndyk/

Rajiv Shah went from USAID Administrator to President of the Rockefeller Foundation, one of the most powerful global development philanthropies.
https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/profiles/rajiv-shah/

So yes, this absolutely happens. Whether any specific person "steered money" would require evidence, but the revolving door itself is real: people move from controlling aid priorities and relationships inside USAID to prestigious, highly compensated leadership jobs in the same foreign aid network.

This response sounds like ChatGPT.

are these not factual? follow these people they are going from administering aide money to NGOs then immediately joining those NGOs as leaders or ceos. wtf.

You should review the resumes of the people on that list through the lens of professional development, career trajectory, and political appointments. You should also review how budgets and appropriations work, especially in the context of aid legislation, contracting laws, and regulations that govern post government employment at firms that contract with the government. Wtf, indeed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The most egregious is seeing US aid leaders go to NGO companies and make millions being a CEO, where they probably steered money to the company they planned to join!

You're going to have to back this up.

Sure. The cleaner claim is not that every case proves corruption, but that there is a clear revolving door where senior USAID officials later move into top paid leadership roles at organizations already operating in the same aid ecosystem.

Dennis Vega left senior USAID leadership in Aug 2024 as Acting Deputy Administrator for Management and Resources, then became President and CEO of Pact that same month. Pact was already a longtime USAID implementing partner before he arrived.
https://sid-us.org/dennis-vega
https://www.pactworld.org/leadership/dennis-vega

Gayle Smith left as USAID Administrator in Jan 2017 and by March 2017 became CEO of the ONE Campaign, a major foreign aid advocacy group that lobbies on development spending and global aid priorities.
https://www.devex.com/news/one-campaign-announces-gayle-smith-as-ceo-89643

Jeremy Konyndyk held senior USAID humanitarian roles, then became President of Refugees International, a major advocacy organization influencing refugee and humanitarian policy.
https://www.refugeesinternational.org/statements-and-news/refugees-international-welcomes-new-president-jeremy-konyndyk/

Rajiv Shah went from USAID Administrator to President of the Rockefeller Foundation, one of the most powerful global development philanthropies.
https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/profiles/rajiv-shah/

So yes, this absolutely happens. Whether any specific person "steered money" would require evidence, but the revolving door itself is real: people move from controlling aid priorities and relationships inside USAID to prestigious, highly compensated leadership jobs in the same foreign aid network.

This response sounds like ChatGPT.

are these not factual? follow these people they are going from administering aide money to NGOs then immediately joining those NGOs as leaders or ceos. wtf.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The most egregious is seeing US aid leaders go to NGO companies and make millions being a CEO, where they probably steered money to the company they planned to join!

You're going to have to back this up.

Sure. The cleaner claim is not that every case proves corruption, but that there is a clear revolving door where senior USAID officials later move into top paid leadership roles at organizations already operating in the same aid ecosystem.

Dennis Vega left senior USAID leadership in Aug 2024 as Acting Deputy Administrator for Management and Resources, then became President and CEO of Pact that same month. Pact was already a longtime USAID implementing partner before he arrived.
https://sid-us.org/dennis-vega
https://www.pactworld.org/leadership/dennis-vega

Gayle Smith left as USAID Administrator in Jan 2017 and by March 2017 became CEO of the ONE Campaign, a major foreign aid advocacy group that lobbies on development spending and global aid priorities.
https://www.devex.com/news/one-campaign-announces-gayle-smith-as-ceo-89643

Jeremy Konyndyk held senior USAID humanitarian roles, then became President of Refugees International, a major advocacy organization influencing refugee and humanitarian policy.
https://www.refugeesinternational.org/statements-and-news/refugees-international-welcomes-new-president-jeremy-konyndyk/

Rajiv Shah went from USAID Administrator to President of the Rockefeller Foundation, one of the most powerful global development philanthropies.
https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/profiles/rajiv-shah/

So yes, this absolutely happens. Whether any specific person "steered money" would require evidence, but the revolving door itself is real: people move from controlling aid priorities and relationships inside USAID to prestigious, highly compensated leadership jobs in the same foreign aid network.

This response sounds like ChatGPT.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know some people aren't going to like hearing this but USAID wasn't just feeding poor kids in Africa. That was only a tiny percentage of USAID work and actually still goes on under State.

Most of USAID was pet projects and donor causes f9r liberals and an entire NGO industry grew up around it, often started by former USAIDers. And when something like that happens, you find a lot of cronyism. It's sort of comparable to big city government machines finding plum jobs and sinecures for their supporters. And it went unchecked and unregulated, so admin salaries at the NGOs exploded. Some founders became quite rich acting as contractors. And while some good projects happened, a lot of it was dubious and just another way to slosh billions around consultants and contractors with people feeding from the trough both in DC and on the ground overseas and the % that actually ended up being used for genuinely good outcomes is much smaller than most people realize. And USAID was definitely used to indirectly send money undercover to entities overseas.

USAID did become a liberal sinecure entity, using taxpayer dollars to effectively reward liberal supporters and connections. It's why the Trump administration moved so fast to shut it down. And it's also why no one is missing USAID. Only maybe 1% genuinely ended up helping villagers in developing countries.

I'm sorry for the people in the article but the whole industry was rampant with cronyism and out of touch.

100

The destruction of USAID was estimated to have caused 600,000 deaths as of last November. Probably at least 1 million by now

There is no way this is true.

Why? But an anonymous internet person says so? Try reading a newspaper or a scientific research journal.
https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(25)01186-9/fulltext
An impact counter estimated that USAID funding discontinuation caused 62 557 adult deaths and 130 535 child deaths just until mid-April 2025.
https://ph.ucla.edu/news-events/news/research-finds-more-14-million-preventable-deaths-2030-if-usaid-defunding
Research finds more than 14 million preventable deaths by 2030 if USAID defunding continues, including more than 4 million children under five

The population of Africa is estimated at 1.5 billion people. They add about another 35 million people per year to that number. Call me an a-hole, but using our funds to ensure that population growth number is even higher when we have around 200,000 “deaths of despair” in our own country every year doesn’t make sense to me. I’d much rather see those funds used to prevent medical debt here or support our own health programs.

That's a great and popular idea!
Guess who blocks us getting our own money at home?