I worked with the Chinese Government as a language education consultant for 15 years, during which time the Belt and Road Initiative was unveiled. I understand the beneficial impact it will have on those at the end of the line--Europe, but also on all of the currently underdeveloped communities along it's vast route. I've visited global sites where China's soft power investments have won them the hearts of people in Costa Rica, Botswana, Australia and many more.
I have a very close relative who has regularly walked the migration routes of Yemenis fleeing to Africa. They have been displaced not only by fighting, but by environmental disasters such as flooding and storms. Changes in rainfall patterns have devastated its agriculture and access to food and water. As they cross the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait into Djibouti, they pass Africans (primarily Ethiopians and Somalis, who are making the dangerous trek in the opposite direction in search of a better life for their families.
The world is vast and complicated. Myopic approaches to how, or even if, we participate in supporting political and ecomomic stability and basic life-supporting infrastructure are not helpful. While we all argue on social media while comfortably seated on our couches, and while our legislators are reposting news articles about their cute paddles and sharing videos of themselves holding weak-ass press conferences, the vacuum our absence has created is being filled by governments who do not share our values for democracy and ndividual freedom and who will gladly win the friends we are shunning.
From my career and family's global life experience, I have learned one important thing, and it became my motto over the years:
It is cheaper and easier to win friends than to defeat enemies.
Thank you for your real life, on-the-ground insight into exactly what USAID is about. I think the word myopic is a perfect word that describes what's happening. I love your motto. So true!
Thank you for sharing this, Elise! Even though starting off the week with a more nuanced understanding of how chaotic things are doesn’t feel awesome, I suppose it’s necessary to get the full context to inform how much we should or shouldn’t be dreading the future. Next thing my brain wants to focus on is preventing future dread. And while I do not see much I can do directly to change what’s happening, I do feel I can at least help get the word out to challenge the propaganda coming from the White House.
Reading this article, I imagine many of us are having distinctly different reactions based on our starting assumptions. If you generally believe government programs are worthwhile until proven wasteful, this article likely feels like yet another exhausting example of shortsighted destruction. If you tend to see government spending as suspect until proven essential, you might welcome this reset as an opportunity to rebuild only what's truly necessary.
I've been experimenting with approaches to bridge these divides online, both with strangers and loved ones. Here's what I've learned: I've never had someone reply, "You know what? You've completely changed my mind." That's not a realistic objective for most online interactions. Instead, I aim to balance discussions that have become one-sided, introduce reasonable doubt about absolutist positions, plant seeds that might sprout later when someone experiences contradictions in their chosen position, and model thoughtful engagement for the silent observers.
When someone repeats talking points about "wasteful" programs (like the Arab "Sesame Street" example mentioned in the article), I've found success with questions that invite genuine curiosity rather than confrontation: "Do you happen to know what the intent behind that program was?" or "I'm interested to hear what you think the alternatives might be if we don't fund this type of work? Are you concerned about China and Russia filling the voids of support we are leaving?" or "Have you ever met someone who worked in or benefited from these programs? I'd be curious about their perspective." Sometimes I'll ask, "What sources do you trust for evaluating the effectiveness of these programs?" which often reveals whether they've formed opinions based on specific information or general assumptions.
This approach builds enough trust to eventually ask more challenging questions: "If you generally distrust government officials, does that skepticism extend to all powerful figures including those you tend to support? Or is there a double standard at play?" or "What would convince you that a particular program actually serves our national interests rather than just being wasteful spending?"
People don't respond well to being told they're uninformed. The trope of repeating the words “facts” and “research” as if they are an argument in themselves is common, but absurd.
However, almost all of us are uncomfortable with inconsistency in our own thinking. Gently highlighting contradictions in someone's position ("You distrust bureaucrats but give complete benefit of doubt to certain politicians") will always be more effective than presenting contrary facts. “Facts” have almost no persuasiveness in these discussions unless someone is asking for them.
Even when the person you're engaging with seems unmovable, countless others are reading silently. They're often more persuadable because they're not publicly committed to a position. Success in these conversations isn't converting the staunchest opponents—it's ensuring that those with legitimate concerns about programs like USAID can see there's a substantive case for their strategic importance, even if they ultimately disagree. Right now, they likely only have propaganda in their ears.
I'm curious how others approach these conversations. Have you found effective ways to discuss complex policy issues like foreign aid with people who start from fundamentally different assumptions?
“ ‘Facts’ have almost no persuasiveness in these discussions unless someone is asking for them.”
THIS. I think what moves the needle is when people share their personal experiences and describe how they or their loved ones have been personally affected by something. We respond more to stories than nameless data—which is why Sharon’s book is so effective.
Yes, I agree! I was just having a conversation today about how we often think appealing to reason or science will win an argument, but that only works if you're arguing with yourself. Personal stories seem to penetrate further, even if they don't actually prove much.
I noticed this when talking with Musk supporters about DOGE. We had the investigations that poke gigantic holes in the math behind the receipts. (Thanks, Sharon! Excellent reporting.) But when I brought that math up, I was surprised how much of it would get waved away. "I'm not an expert so I can't evaluate that analysis" etc. I wasn't dropping "facts" at their feet, I was holding up Musk's own words and presenting evidence that he didn't know what he was talking about. But I think that seemed to challenge their pro-Musk identities and it didn't go far.
Surprisingly, Propublica's article on the slashing at the IRS had more impact. It's ironic because you wouldn't think these Musky folks would have any love for the IRS, but what was different was that the article centered on interviews with people with names, biographies, and stories. And yes of course the Musk fans still didn't abandon their love for Musk, but they did let their guard down a little more, admitting that it does raise questions about the mission, if it is indeed about balancing the budget. https://www.propublica.org/article/how-doge-irs-cuts-will-cost-more-than-savings-trump-musk-deficit
That’s really interesting, Timothy, thank you for sharing that link.
This discussion reminds me of that snarky online cliche “Facts don’t care about your feelings” — well, the opposite is even more true. If something triggers an emotion—resentment, sadness, fear, anger, or a sense that something “isn’t fair” that can easily and understandably overrule any number of facts.
What was Colbert’s old joke? Something about forgetting reporting the “truth”; “I’ll FEEL the news AT you.”
I fall prey to emotions-based biases as much as anyone, and often the only way for me to see beyond my own limited POV is when someone tells me something about an experience they’ve directly had. It allows me to consider and access the information in a new way, in ways that a list of data sometimes doesn’t.
That cliche (the inverse of it) and the Colbert joke are perfect examples to illustrate this theory, thank you. I might steal that for something i’m writing. We are onto something here, there’s gotta be a sweet spot that combines the two things: an emotional trojan horse with a little army of truth inside, guiding our conversations back into the realm of objective reality. Or maybe hiding vegetables in your kids’ dinner is another apt metaphor.
This is a great article with lots of useful information. The question is are any Trump supporters going to read it and how can this administration be stopped—because they are putting American’s safety at risk.
Therein lies the problem. Each time I share an article, whether it’s The Preamble, Steady (Dan Rather), or HCR, I get multiple articles full of conspiracy theories shared beneath. It’s exhausting! The misinformation is running rampant and I fear there is not much we can do to stop it.
A friend of mine introduced me to a documentary done by NPR called Embedded. It is available on Spotify and has three episodes. It is about a father and son who make a bet (pretty large amount of $) on the outcome of the father’s believed conspiracy theories. My friend said it is so fascinating & I’m looking forward to listening.
What makes me the most sad is that even if this is all turned back on, the damage is done, both home and abroad. We’ve lost the trust of the world, and internally we are left with a huge chunk of Americans sho will continue to believe that USAID is a foolish and wasteful endeavor.
Tragically, Trump doesn't (can't?) think like this. Diplomacy through aid and assistance sounds like throwing away American money for someone else's benefit. He understands power and dominance. Haiti is a great example, and—had Trump been president—he would've stabilized through military force, not humanitarian aid. Actually, he might've done nothing. Or seen Haiti's vulnerability as an opportunity to take more territory. Diplomacy doesn't make sense to him. Why should the most powerful nation in the world *help* other countries? We should dominate them.
You’ve hit the nail on the head with this one!! He only wants to “help” people with the caveat that he then gets to control them (ex: threatening to withhold federal aid to blue states)
I think this is a devastating character flaw and might signal some other psychological diagnoses but I’m no psychiatrist. 😆
Thank you for amplifying and explaining this upsetting and absurd situation, Elise! I work for a woman-owned small business called Inclusive Development Partners (IDP). We are (were) a USAID contractor focused on ensuring that aid work is inclusive of persons and children with disabilities, and most of our USAID work was in the education sector - helping low income countries move away from segregated schooling toward inclusive education where kids with and without disabilities can learn together. While none of us do this work with American national security front of mind - we just love kids and believe in the universal right to quality education - there are certainly arguments that can be made related to the economy and immigration about why supporting other countries to educate and empower their own citizens with disabilities is also in America's interest. We were profiled in TIME Magazine just last week if anyone is interested in learning more. https://time.com/7263808/usaid-cuts-disability-inclusive-development-partners-interview/ Thanks again!!
I'd like to also add that anyone who has USAID experience would be the first to say there is room for improvement and reform, and at the same time, it is *heavily* regulated and evaluated. Thousands of program evaluation reports going back decades, each with specific recommendations for improvements as well as detailed descriptions of what worked well, were publicly available online up until the entire website was removed a few weeks ago.
It is easy to view foreign aid as simple charity but as your article points out- it is actually important international relations and security.
In this day of instant gratification I find people have a much harder time understanding and appreciating things that do not garner such instant results. Immediately cutting foreign aid and “saving” money right away sounds and feels like a good thing in the immediate but what is going to happen years down the road because America has lost its influence in so many vulnerable countries ? This is what our government leaders need to be thinking about before dismantling international relations around the globe.
Thank you for highlighting so much of the nuance in this situation. I am one of the many people who lost their job due to these funding cuts, as I work(ed) for an organization that implemented programs funded by USAID. It has been heartbreaking to see so many years of work dismantled in one fell swoop.
Elise & Sharon, I just can’t help but think that what Trump and Musk intend is exactly what this article assumes they would clearly want to avoid.
For example, the part of the Kennedy quote that said, “For widespread poverty and chaos lead to a collapse of existing political and social structures which would inevitably invite the advance of totalitarianism into every weak and unstable area.” I think that’s exactly what they want right now. Why would a president who actively flirts with being a dictator want to stop the spread of totalitarianism? Fueling chaos and instability is his desire because it allows him to then step in and “save the day,” in whatever way he wants.
And this part – “Or consider the ‘$14 million for improving public procurement in Serbia’ - a program designed to bring transparency to government contracting in a region where Russia builds influence by exploiting corruption.” Again, it’s clear that Trump and Musk support Russia and Putin’s agenda. They don’t want to stop Russian influence and corruption. They want to join it. I understand that an article like this seeks to educate and inform the public about the dire consequences of these agency cuts. But it also makes it seem like the people behind it (Trump, Musk, everyone at Project 2025), don’t realize where it will all lead or that the dire consequences are somehow unintended. I wish that articles like this would also cover that aspect of what’s going on. The negative consequences are actually the plan!
Thank you for this article, Elise. I never knew how much USAID did and am learning a lot. All of the comments here seem to be made by people way more intelligent and knowledgeable than me and so I am learning a lot through the comments as well. The only downside is I am not quite sure what to do with this new knowledge! I guess I am off to pester my congressional rep again…
I heard former President Bill Clinton speak at the University of Texas on the eve of invading Iraq. First of all, I agree with everyone who states that he is an incredible speaker. I could not have imagined his presence and ability to work a crowd. One of his themes for the speech was that no mother raises a terrorist when we have helped to feed her children. That is a valuable thought. When we give micro loans or teach skills and empowerment to women and feed children in foreign countries, there is tremendous payback in goodwill. We have created turmoil in the past twenty or so years that needs some goodwill to balance the relationships within the world. Again enlightened self-interest should lead us to more interaction & not less.
This is what "isolationism" does. It is often founded on the premise that America is the strongest link in a chain of nations--hence, we are weaker as a nation tied to that chain. However, reality (and, dare I say, common sense) will prove that under isolationism, the US will certainly be uniquely alone...but not alone at the *top*.
So Trump is pulling a Andrew Jackson and ignoring the Supreme Court ruling. Not at all surprising.
I am asking the question again - what can be done when the Executive branch when they won't accept checks and balances? When they have explicitly said the Executive branch is taking over for the judicial and the legislative branches? The answer "He can't do that. It is illegal or not in his power." He does not care about that.
This article highlights what I have been telling people for years. USAID has been a great diplomacy tool for the US for decades. Beyond Kennedy, it has been understood that supporting peace, development, and security is much more cost effective. People also forget just how much the U.S. military depends on USAID
The effects of us canceling aid and support to other countries has already diminished our standing. It takes years for us to recover. You can argue that it’s time for other countries to step up, but also realize that means we diminish ourselves. As mentioned in the article, countries like China and Russia will happily fill the void.
In the short term, this doesn’t affect us much. But long term we will see worse trade deals, less competition, and less demand for US dollars. Isolationist policies are never good for us. They don’t even save us money in the long run. But it’s difficult to see that now, when we are in the thick of it but in 4 years the effects will really be felt.
Thank you for the article Elise. I think we can all agree that we don’t want our taxpayer dollars wasted, but just cutting programs without in depth analysis is just foolish.
I worked with the Chinese Government as a language education consultant for 15 years, during which time the Belt and Road Initiative was unveiled. I understand the beneficial impact it will have on those at the end of the line--Europe, but also on all of the currently underdeveloped communities along it's vast route. I've visited global sites where China's soft power investments have won them the hearts of people in Costa Rica, Botswana, Australia and many more.
I have a very close relative who has regularly walked the migration routes of Yemenis fleeing to Africa. They have been displaced not only by fighting, but by environmental disasters such as flooding and storms. Changes in rainfall patterns have devastated its agriculture and access to food and water. As they cross the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait into Djibouti, they pass Africans (primarily Ethiopians and Somalis, who are making the dangerous trek in the opposite direction in search of a better life for their families.
The world is vast and complicated. Myopic approaches to how, or even if, we participate in supporting political and ecomomic stability and basic life-supporting infrastructure are not helpful. While we all argue on social media while comfortably seated on our couches, and while our legislators are reposting news articles about their cute paddles and sharing videos of themselves holding weak-ass press conferences, the vacuum our absence has created is being filled by governments who do not share our values for democracy and ndividual freedom and who will gladly win the friends we are shunning.
From my career and family's global life experience, I have learned one important thing, and it became my motto over the years:
It is cheaper and easier to win friends than to defeat enemies.
Thank you for your real life, on-the-ground insight into exactly what USAID is about. I think the word myopic is a perfect word that describes what's happening. I love your motto. So true!
Well said. Thank you for your service.
Thank you for sharing this, Elise! Even though starting off the week with a more nuanced understanding of how chaotic things are doesn’t feel awesome, I suppose it’s necessary to get the full context to inform how much we should or shouldn’t be dreading the future. Next thing my brain wants to focus on is preventing future dread. And while I do not see much I can do directly to change what’s happening, I do feel I can at least help get the word out to challenge the propaganda coming from the White House.
Reading this article, I imagine many of us are having distinctly different reactions based on our starting assumptions. If you generally believe government programs are worthwhile until proven wasteful, this article likely feels like yet another exhausting example of shortsighted destruction. If you tend to see government spending as suspect until proven essential, you might welcome this reset as an opportunity to rebuild only what's truly necessary.
I've been experimenting with approaches to bridge these divides online, both with strangers and loved ones. Here's what I've learned: I've never had someone reply, "You know what? You've completely changed my mind." That's not a realistic objective for most online interactions. Instead, I aim to balance discussions that have become one-sided, introduce reasonable doubt about absolutist positions, plant seeds that might sprout later when someone experiences contradictions in their chosen position, and model thoughtful engagement for the silent observers.
When someone repeats talking points about "wasteful" programs (like the Arab "Sesame Street" example mentioned in the article), I've found success with questions that invite genuine curiosity rather than confrontation: "Do you happen to know what the intent behind that program was?" or "I'm interested to hear what you think the alternatives might be if we don't fund this type of work? Are you concerned about China and Russia filling the voids of support we are leaving?" or "Have you ever met someone who worked in or benefited from these programs? I'd be curious about their perspective." Sometimes I'll ask, "What sources do you trust for evaluating the effectiveness of these programs?" which often reveals whether they've formed opinions based on specific information or general assumptions.
This approach builds enough trust to eventually ask more challenging questions: "If you generally distrust government officials, does that skepticism extend to all powerful figures including those you tend to support? Or is there a double standard at play?" or "What would convince you that a particular program actually serves our national interests rather than just being wasteful spending?"
People don't respond well to being told they're uninformed. The trope of repeating the words “facts” and “research” as if they are an argument in themselves is common, but absurd.
However, almost all of us are uncomfortable with inconsistency in our own thinking. Gently highlighting contradictions in someone's position ("You distrust bureaucrats but give complete benefit of doubt to certain politicians") will always be more effective than presenting contrary facts. “Facts” have almost no persuasiveness in these discussions unless someone is asking for them.
Even when the person you're engaging with seems unmovable, countless others are reading silently. They're often more persuadable because they're not publicly committed to a position. Success in these conversations isn't converting the staunchest opponents—it's ensuring that those with legitimate concerns about programs like USAID can see there's a substantive case for their strategic importance, even if they ultimately disagree. Right now, they likely only have propaganda in their ears.
I'm curious how others approach these conversations. Have you found effective ways to discuss complex policy issues like foreign aid with people who start from fundamentally different assumptions?
“ ‘Facts’ have almost no persuasiveness in these discussions unless someone is asking for them.”
THIS. I think what moves the needle is when people share their personal experiences and describe how they or their loved ones have been personally affected by something. We respond more to stories than nameless data—which is why Sharon’s book is so effective.
Yes, I agree! I was just having a conversation today about how we often think appealing to reason or science will win an argument, but that only works if you're arguing with yourself. Personal stories seem to penetrate further, even if they don't actually prove much.
I noticed this when talking with Musk supporters about DOGE. We had the investigations that poke gigantic holes in the math behind the receipts. (Thanks, Sharon! Excellent reporting.) But when I brought that math up, I was surprised how much of it would get waved away. "I'm not an expert so I can't evaluate that analysis" etc. I wasn't dropping "facts" at their feet, I was holding up Musk's own words and presenting evidence that he didn't know what he was talking about. But I think that seemed to challenge their pro-Musk identities and it didn't go far.
Surprisingly, Propublica's article on the slashing at the IRS had more impact. It's ironic because you wouldn't think these Musky folks would have any love for the IRS, but what was different was that the article centered on interviews with people with names, biographies, and stories. And yes of course the Musk fans still didn't abandon their love for Musk, but they did let their guard down a little more, admitting that it does raise questions about the mission, if it is indeed about balancing the budget. https://www.propublica.org/article/how-doge-irs-cuts-will-cost-more-than-savings-trump-musk-deficit
That’s really interesting, Timothy, thank you for sharing that link.
This discussion reminds me of that snarky online cliche “Facts don’t care about your feelings” — well, the opposite is even more true. If something triggers an emotion—resentment, sadness, fear, anger, or a sense that something “isn’t fair” that can easily and understandably overrule any number of facts.
What was Colbert’s old joke? Something about forgetting reporting the “truth”; “I’ll FEEL the news AT you.”
I fall prey to emotions-based biases as much as anyone, and often the only way for me to see beyond my own limited POV is when someone tells me something about an experience they’ve directly had. It allows me to consider and access the information in a new way, in ways that a list of data sometimes doesn’t.
That cliche (the inverse of it) and the Colbert joke are perfect examples to illustrate this theory, thank you. I might steal that for something i’m writing. We are onto something here, there’s gotta be a sweet spot that combines the two things: an emotional trojan horse with a little army of truth inside, guiding our conversations back into the realm of objective reality. Or maybe hiding vegetables in your kids’ dinner is another apt metaphor.
This is a great article with lots of useful information. The question is are any Trump supporters going to read it and how can this administration be stopped—because they are putting American’s safety at risk.
I believe that is true and also how would you know what his supporters view as “conspiracy theories?” Individuals perspectives become their reality.
Therein lies the problem. Each time I share an article, whether it’s The Preamble, Steady (Dan Rather), or HCR, I get multiple articles full of conspiracy theories shared beneath. It’s exhausting! The misinformation is running rampant and I fear there is not much we can do to stop it.
A friend of mine introduced me to a documentary done by NPR called Embedded. It is available on Spotify and has three episodes. It is about a father and son who make a bet (pretty large amount of $) on the outcome of the father’s believed conspiracy theories. My friend said it is so fascinating & I’m looking forward to listening.
I listen to it as it played on the local public radio station! It is fascinating how the father becomes indoctrinated—it’s almost cult like!
thanks for sharing i just listened they also made a this american life episode from it. just a bit abbreviated from the 3-part series.
Thank you! Adding this to my playlist!
I just found it on Apple Podcasts too - thank you! I look forward to listening to this!
So frustrating. The other day in her chat, HCR said that "what-aboutism", the usual response, is pretty much false information.
What makes me the most sad is that even if this is all turned back on, the damage is done, both home and abroad. We’ve lost the trust of the world, and internally we are left with a huge chunk of Americans sho will continue to believe that USAID is a foolish and wasteful endeavor.
America's reputation for reliability Is irreparably damaged. America is not a trustworthy partner.
America’s and the world’s loss is China’s and Russia’s gain.
Tragically, Trump doesn't (can't?) think like this. Diplomacy through aid and assistance sounds like throwing away American money for someone else's benefit. He understands power and dominance. Haiti is a great example, and—had Trump been president—he would've stabilized through military force, not humanitarian aid. Actually, he might've done nothing. Or seen Haiti's vulnerability as an opportunity to take more territory. Diplomacy doesn't make sense to him. Why should the most powerful nation in the world *help* other countries? We should dominate them.
You’ve hit the nail on the head with this one!! He only wants to “help” people with the caveat that he then gets to control them (ex: threatening to withhold federal aid to blue states)
I think this is a devastating character flaw and might signal some other psychological diagnoses but I’m no psychiatrist. 😆
Coming soon "Trump Caribbean Resort Complex in Haiti" would be the move there.
Thank you for amplifying and explaining this upsetting and absurd situation, Elise! I work for a woman-owned small business called Inclusive Development Partners (IDP). We are (were) a USAID contractor focused on ensuring that aid work is inclusive of persons and children with disabilities, and most of our USAID work was in the education sector - helping low income countries move away from segregated schooling toward inclusive education where kids with and without disabilities can learn together. While none of us do this work with American national security front of mind - we just love kids and believe in the universal right to quality education - there are certainly arguments that can be made related to the economy and immigration about why supporting other countries to educate and empower their own citizens with disabilities is also in America's interest. We were profiled in TIME Magazine just last week if anyone is interested in learning more. https://time.com/7263808/usaid-cuts-disability-inclusive-development-partners-interview/ Thanks again!!
I'd like to also add that anyone who has USAID experience would be the first to say there is room for improvement and reform, and at the same time, it is *heavily* regulated and evaluated. Thousands of program evaluation reports going back decades, each with specific recommendations for improvements as well as detailed descriptions of what worked well, were publicly available online up until the entire website was removed a few weeks ago.
Great article, Elise*!
It is easy to view foreign aid as simple charity but as your article points out- it is actually important international relations and security.
In this day of instant gratification I find people have a much harder time understanding and appreciating things that do not garner such instant results. Immediately cutting foreign aid and “saving” money right away sounds and feels like a good thing in the immediate but what is going to happen years down the road because America has lost its influence in so many vulnerable countries ? This is what our government leaders need to be thinking about before dismantling international relations around the globe.
Thank you for highlighting so much of the nuance in this situation. I am one of the many people who lost their job due to these funding cuts, as I work(ed) for an organization that implemented programs funded by USAID. It has been heartbreaking to see so many years of work dismantled in one fell swoop.
I’m so sorry. It all feels so impulsive and short sighted.
I'm so sorry. 😢
Elise & Sharon, I just can’t help but think that what Trump and Musk intend is exactly what this article assumes they would clearly want to avoid.
For example, the part of the Kennedy quote that said, “For widespread poverty and chaos lead to a collapse of existing political and social structures which would inevitably invite the advance of totalitarianism into every weak and unstable area.” I think that’s exactly what they want right now. Why would a president who actively flirts with being a dictator want to stop the spread of totalitarianism? Fueling chaos and instability is his desire because it allows him to then step in and “save the day,” in whatever way he wants.
And this part – “Or consider the ‘$14 million for improving public procurement in Serbia’ - a program designed to bring transparency to government contracting in a region where Russia builds influence by exploiting corruption.” Again, it’s clear that Trump and Musk support Russia and Putin’s agenda. They don’t want to stop Russian influence and corruption. They want to join it. I understand that an article like this seeks to educate and inform the public about the dire consequences of these agency cuts. But it also makes it seem like the people behind it (Trump, Musk, everyone at Project 2025), don’t realize where it will all lead or that the dire consequences are somehow unintended. I wish that articles like this would also cover that aspect of what’s going on. The negative consequences are actually the plan!
Thank you for this article, Elise. I never knew how much USAID did and am learning a lot. All of the comments here seem to be made by people way more intelligent and knowledgeable than me and so I am learning a lot through the comments as well. The only downside is I am not quite sure what to do with this new knowledge! I guess I am off to pester my congressional rep again…
I heard former President Bill Clinton speak at the University of Texas on the eve of invading Iraq. First of all, I agree with everyone who states that he is an incredible speaker. I could not have imagined his presence and ability to work a crowd. One of his themes for the speech was that no mother raises a terrorist when we have helped to feed her children. That is a valuable thought. When we give micro loans or teach skills and empowerment to women and feed children in foreign countries, there is tremendous payback in goodwill. We have created turmoil in the past twenty or so years that needs some goodwill to balance the relationships within the world. Again enlightened self-interest should lead us to more interaction & not less.
This is what "isolationism" does. It is often founded on the premise that America is the strongest link in a chain of nations--hence, we are weaker as a nation tied to that chain. However, reality (and, dare I say, common sense) will prove that under isolationism, the US will certainly be uniquely alone...but not alone at the *top*.
So Trump is pulling a Andrew Jackson and ignoring the Supreme Court ruling. Not at all surprising.
I am asking the question again - what can be done when the Executive branch when they won't accept checks and balances? When they have explicitly said the Executive branch is taking over for the judicial and the legislative branches? The answer "He can't do that. It is illegal or not in his power." He does not care about that.
This article highlights what I have been telling people for years. USAID has been a great diplomacy tool for the US for decades. Beyond Kennedy, it has been understood that supporting peace, development, and security is much more cost effective. People also forget just how much the U.S. military depends on USAID
The effects of us canceling aid and support to other countries has already diminished our standing. It takes years for us to recover. You can argue that it’s time for other countries to step up, but also realize that means we diminish ourselves. As mentioned in the article, countries like China and Russia will happily fill the void.
In the short term, this doesn’t affect us much. But long term we will see worse trade deals, less competition, and less demand for US dollars. Isolationist policies are never good for us. They don’t even save us money in the long run. But it’s difficult to see that now, when we are in the thick of it but in 4 years the effects will really be felt.
Thank you for the article Elise. I think we can all agree that we don’t want our taxpayer dollars wasted, but just cutting programs without in depth analysis is just foolish.