I'm really glad you wrote this and completely agree. In generally, the destruction of USAID was idiosyncratic and horrible. Driven by weird conspiracy-minded cultists. There wasn't much of a theory behind it, and it doesn't reflect pre-existing policy or trends. I wrote a few pieces on the same theme, although not argued as well as you do. I also think that we shouldn't give up on USAID and foreign aid in general. Even though there have been huge set backs, we can recover a lot of things without "reimagining aid" or any new institution-building. For one - USAID hasn't been dismantled legally. It's still not totally clear that the courts will approve this destruction or that Congress will abide. We can still fight that. It's a gawd awful mess, and but that specific question hasn't been disposed of. Second, there remains a strong reservoir of support for aid - especially the health and humanitarian - in congress, among republicans, etc. We can build on that and hold rubio/lewin/trump accountable. And doing that now rather than waiting for months or years means saving lives in the short term.
Thanks Gawain. Yes, I learned a lot from your pieces (like the political purge framing) even though I didn’t manage to work it in here. And on the “reimagining aid” point, basically I think people should make those cases on their own merit, rather than implying the destruction of USAID makes it a necessity
This piece is superb. Piece after piece attempts to figure out what the victim—USAID and its beneficiaries—did to deserve what happened. It can’t be explained that way
There certainly were activities that USAID could have avoided to prevent being such a juicy target for the new administration. Being able to say "We are cutting spending just like we said, here are the wasteful programs we are cutting" and then listing off programs that are going to get no sympathy from the median voter made it politically correct to attack the program. Even if the courts strike down the action, it still adds to the popularity of the administration by demonstrating a desire to strike at waste (regardless of whether it matters at government scale).
So there is a lesson for other departments if they are looking to avoid similar treatment. Being universally popular is a difficult challenge in these polarized times, but its the best way for institutions to avoid getting targeted for a public whipping for political points.
I am open to this argument. But as an example, see above where I pasted a screenshot of programs DOGE called wasteful. Which ones do you think USAID shouldn't have been doing in the first place? In such a polarized political environment with an information system that seriously struggles with complexity, I worry that any agency doing its job would still have significant amounts of programs that could be spun as wasteful.
Using the moderate conservatives in my life as a guide, I'd say pretty much all of those would be expected to be cut. An argument for supporting elections might be tolerated, but the rest are all on the list because median voters will roll their eyes at them. Certainly DOGE is framing them in the worst light, but I don't think I could ever convince someone in my family that the US needs to support journalists in Sri Lanka or cultural works in Peru. Even if you frame it as 'this only costs you a penny!' they'd rather have the penny as a matter of principal.
If USAID was exclusively life saving medicine and food aid, then it wouldn't be a politically appealing target. As you showed, moral arguments are what win with voters on this topic. But morally, voters are mostly unconcerned with the culture or journalism of foreign nations. Heck even local culture spending by government gets an eye roll, as has been seen when my local orchestra asked the state government for money and the voters balked.
I am also more skeptical of interventions that focus on culture, governance, or other factors that are less directly tied to the nuts and bolts of saving lives and reducing poverty, both because they are harder to explain and because I think the evidence is weaker that outsider-instigated aid interventions will be effective.
But I think it's overstating the case to say that this covers the full list DOGE highlight. Male circumcision - one of the most effective ways to reduce HIV transmission - and "improving learning outcomes" also made it onto that list, and it's hard to imagine what a health and basic education-focused agency would do if it couldn't do that sort of thing. Also on the list is improving public procurement - a pretty essential task if you are to make sure your aid doesn't get redirected for corrupt purposes - and the Mali social cohesion and Nepal biodiversity programs, which are the sort of thing you'd want an agency focused on potential cross-border spillovers to the US would do (and maybe you think USAID shouldn't do that, which is fair but clashes with conservative arguments that USAID should support foreign policy priorities and the national interest). As I wrote, those projects definitely should have been better packaged and communicated, but if all those projects are things that USAID shouldn't do in any form, I find it kind of hard to imagine what's left that USAID could do.
I'm really glad you wrote this and completely agree. In generally, the destruction of USAID was idiosyncratic and horrible. Driven by weird conspiracy-minded cultists. There wasn't much of a theory behind it, and it doesn't reflect pre-existing policy or trends. I wrote a few pieces on the same theme, although not argued as well as you do. I also think that we shouldn't give up on USAID and foreign aid in general. Even though there have been huge set backs, we can recover a lot of things without "reimagining aid" or any new institution-building. For one - USAID hasn't been dismantled legally. It's still not totally clear that the courts will approve this destruction or that Congress will abide. We can still fight that. It's a gawd awful mess, and but that specific question hasn't been disposed of. Second, there remains a strong reservoir of support for aid - especially the health and humanitarian - in congress, among republicans, etc. We can build on that and hold rubio/lewin/trump accountable. And doing that now rather than waiting for months or years means saving lives in the short term.
Thanks Gawain. Yes, I learned a lot from your pieces (like the political purge framing) even though I didn’t manage to work it in here. And on the “reimagining aid” point, basically I think people should make those cases on their own merit, rather than implying the destruction of USAID makes it a necessity
This piece is superb. Piece after piece attempts to figure out what the victim—USAID and its beneficiaries—did to deserve what happened. It can’t be explained that way
I just reflected on Rajiv Shah's recent comments https://expatriarch.substack.com/publish/posts/detail/176220964?referrer=%2Fpublish%2Fhome
There certainly were activities that USAID could have avoided to prevent being such a juicy target for the new administration. Being able to say "We are cutting spending just like we said, here are the wasteful programs we are cutting" and then listing off programs that are going to get no sympathy from the median voter made it politically correct to attack the program. Even if the courts strike down the action, it still adds to the popularity of the administration by demonstrating a desire to strike at waste (regardless of whether it matters at government scale).
So there is a lesson for other departments if they are looking to avoid similar treatment. Being universally popular is a difficult challenge in these polarized times, but its the best way for institutions to avoid getting targeted for a public whipping for political points.
I am open to this argument. But as an example, see above where I pasted a screenshot of programs DOGE called wasteful. Which ones do you think USAID shouldn't have been doing in the first place? In such a polarized political environment with an information system that seriously struggles with complexity, I worry that any agency doing its job would still have significant amounts of programs that could be spun as wasteful.
Using the moderate conservatives in my life as a guide, I'd say pretty much all of those would be expected to be cut. An argument for supporting elections might be tolerated, but the rest are all on the list because median voters will roll their eyes at them. Certainly DOGE is framing them in the worst light, but I don't think I could ever convince someone in my family that the US needs to support journalists in Sri Lanka or cultural works in Peru. Even if you frame it as 'this only costs you a penny!' they'd rather have the penny as a matter of principal.
If USAID was exclusively life saving medicine and food aid, then it wouldn't be a politically appealing target. As you showed, moral arguments are what win with voters on this topic. But morally, voters are mostly unconcerned with the culture or journalism of foreign nations. Heck even local culture spending by government gets an eye roll, as has been seen when my local orchestra asked the state government for money and the voters balked.
I am also more skeptical of interventions that focus on culture, governance, or other factors that are less directly tied to the nuts and bolts of saving lives and reducing poverty, both because they are harder to explain and because I think the evidence is weaker that outsider-instigated aid interventions will be effective.
But I think it's overstating the case to say that this covers the full list DOGE highlight. Male circumcision - one of the most effective ways to reduce HIV transmission - and "improving learning outcomes" also made it onto that list, and it's hard to imagine what a health and basic education-focused agency would do if it couldn't do that sort of thing. Also on the list is improving public procurement - a pretty essential task if you are to make sure your aid doesn't get redirected for corrupt purposes - and the Mali social cohesion and Nepal biodiversity programs, which are the sort of thing you'd want an agency focused on potential cross-border spillovers to the US would do (and maybe you think USAID shouldn't do that, which is fair but clashes with conservative arguments that USAID should support foreign policy priorities and the national interest). As I wrote, those projects definitely should have been better packaged and communicated, but if all those projects are things that USAID shouldn't do in any form, I find it kind of hard to imagine what's left that USAID could do.