USAID has long been plagued by waste, corruption, and covert political meddling; the biggest scandal may be how little scrutiny it has faced, until now.
USAID has long been plagued by waste, corruption, and covert political meddling; the biggest scandal may be how little scrutiny it has faced, until now.
All news is biased. Multiple seemingly contradictory things can be true. Trump can be targeting USAID to cut government spending while enriching himself and oligarchs. USAID did provide humanitarian relief to people around the world who will be affected by its absence. And USAID has been a front for subversive foreign policy since it’s inception:
From 2010 to 2012, the agency operated ZunZuneo, a social media site similar to Twitter in an attempt to instigate uprisings against the Cuban government. Its involvement was concealed in order to ensure mission success.
I’d originally replied to your other comment with this, but I’m moving it here because it fits better.
I think it’s clear between the multiple comment chains we’re arguing in here that I disagree with your take, and I don’t think either of us are going to convince the other so I’m not going to try, but that said, I’m not disagreeing with you that there’s some accountability problems in USAID nor that there’s some corruption in the system. What I disagree with is your implied conclusion that the bad outweighs the good. I firmly believe that the same could be said about just about any government program, but we aren’t cancelling Medicare just because some people are getting payments who shouldn’t be, and we aren’t cancelling FEMA just because some funds might be going to people who don’t really need them.
Personally, I’d much rather my tax dollars go to a program which provides actual aid to people, even if some percentage of it is being siphoned off to other things, than going to fund bombs being dropped on brown people, or funding more subsidies for billionaires. USAID is under attack right now because Musk and Trump and co. go don’t like it. If these concerns were brought up under a different administration that wasn’t sewing propaganda supporting their government-dismantling, treasury-siphoning actions everywhere they could, I’d be a lot more receptive to actually considering their validity.
USAID has faced criticism including its use of non-career contracts, instead of government employees, financial conflicts of interest, allegations of covert political operations, undue influence on UN Security Council votes through aid, requirements for NGO partners to oppose prostitution, and claims of involvement in forced sterilizations in the 1990s.
SpinScore gave this Guardian article an F. It gave Truthout a D minus. Don’t depend on AI to due your critical thinking for you.
So, which points from its analysis do you disagree with specifically?
All news is biased. Multiple seemingly contradictory things can be true. Trump can be targeting USAID to cut government spending while enriching himself and oligarchs. USAID did provide humanitarian relief to people around the world who will be affected by its absence. And USAID has been a front for subversive foreign policy since it’s inception:
I’d originally replied to your other comment with this, but I’m moving it here because it fits better.
I think it’s clear between the multiple comment chains we’re arguing in here that I disagree with your take, and I don’t think either of us are going to convince the other so I’m not going to try, but that said, I’m not disagreeing with you that there’s some accountability problems in USAID nor that there’s some corruption in the system. What I disagree with is your implied conclusion that the bad outweighs the good. I firmly believe that the same could be said about just about any government program, but we aren’t cancelling Medicare just because some people are getting payments who shouldn’t be, and we aren’t cancelling FEMA just because some funds might be going to people who don’t really need them.
Personally, I’d much rather my tax dollars go to a program which provides actual aid to people, even if some percentage of it is being siphoned off to other things, than going to fund bombs being dropped on brown people, or funding more subsidies for billionaires. USAID is under attack right now because Musk and Trump and co. go don’t like it. If these concerns were brought up under a different administration that wasn’t sewing propaganda supporting their government-dismantling, treasury-siphoning actions everywhere they could, I’d be a lot more receptive to actually considering their validity.
From Wkipedia: